UNC Put Michael Lombardi on Paid Leave. That Is Process, Not Proof.

by Terry Waldrop

You can install an NFL-style front office inside a college football program. You can hire Bill Belichick, bring Michael Lombardi with him and start referring to the operation as though it were the New England Patriots with better scenery and weather.

But North Carolina is still a public university.

When a personnel complaint reaches Human Resources, the football language stops. University policy takes over.

North Carolina placed Lombardi, the general manager of its football program, on paid administrative leave Monday while an investigation is conducted. ESPN reported that the action followed an HR complaint filed by a former UNC front-office employee. Neither UNC nor the available reporting has disclosed the nature of the complaint.

That last sentence matters.

We do not know what Lombardi is accused of doing. We do not know when the alleged conduct occurred. We do not know when the complaint was filed, what evidence was submitted or whether another person has corroborated it. There has been no public indication that law enforcement is involved or that the matter is criminal.

Everything beyond that is speculation.

I have spent enough years as an athletic administrator and hospital executive to recognize what UNC is doing. It is separating the accused employee from the workplace while investigators determine what happened. That protects the complainant, witnesses, Lombardi and the institution.

It also protects the investigation from becoming a three-ring circus inside the football building- or at least an much as they can control.

Let’s use the correct terminology. Lombardi has been placed on paid administrative leave. He has not been suspended as punishment. There has been no finding that he violated university policy.

The “paid” portion is not an insignificant detail. UNC is continuing his compensation because it has not reached a conclusion. Removing him temporarily allows the university to control access to employees, records and the workplace without pretending the case has already been decided.

That is not weakness. That is due process. This is managing a situation which could easily evolve into a circus and limiting the institutional exposure.

UNC’s own procedures allow an initial assessment to determine whether paid investigative leave or another interim action is appropriate when an employee is accused of discrimination, harassment or related misconduct. The university has also said that placing Lombardi on leave does not reflect a judgment about the merits of the complaint.

Of course it doesn’t.

The public and the media frequently treats administrative leave as institutional code for “we know he did it.” That is wrong. Institutions also make the opposite mistake by protecting an important employee, minimizing the allegation and hoping the problem disappears before anybody notices.

UNC has wisely avoided both mistakes so far.

The nature of the complaint will determine who controls the next stage. If this is an ordinary employment dispute, Human Resources may remain at the center. If the allegations involve discrimination or harassment based on a protected status, UNC’s University Compliance Office would likely become involved. If the complaint alleges conduct covered by the university’s sexual-harassment policies, the Title IX coordinator could oversee the process.

That does not necessarily mean this is a Title IX case.

Could the complaint involve sexual harassment? Certainly. The fact that it came through HR from a former front-office employee makes harassment, discrimination or retaliation among the reasonable possibilities. So are abuse of authority, hostile workplace conduct and any number of other employment allegations that remain allegations until investigated.

But “possible” and “reported” are two entirely different words.

I am not going to attach a sexual-harassment allegation to Lombardi’s name when no credible source has reported one. That would not be analysis. It would be rumor dressed up in a necktie. Enough people will do that for the clicks.

The federal Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights also does not automatically appear because an employee filed a complaint with UNC. OCR could become involved if someone separately alleged that the university violated federal civil-rights law in handling the matter. At present, this appears to be an internal university investigation.

The timing is what makes the situation especially significant.

North Carolina opens the season against TCU in Dublin on August 29. Fall practice is beginning, and Lombardi is not some anonymous employee whose absence can be absorbed without anyone noticing. He is Belichick’s general manager, a central figure in the NFL-style structure UNC has built around its football program.

Removing him now creates disruption. It also tells us university leadership was unwilling to delay the process simply because football season is inconveniently close. My take is the University adhered to University policy.

The fact that the complaint reportedly came from a former- not current employee deserves a raised eyebrow , but not suspicion by default. Former employees can possess legitimate complaints. They can also have grievances, personal motivations or disputes that look different after all the evidence is gathered.

That is why universities investigate instead of taking a public vote on social media.

Investigators will want to know when the alleged conduct occurred, when it was reported, why the complainant left, whether contemporaneous messages or records exist and whether other employees witnessed similar conduct. Lombardi must have an opportunity to know the allegations and respond to them. The complainant must be protected from retaliation and character assassination.

Those principles are not mutually exclusive.

North Carolina’s silence will frustrate reporters and fans, but the university should not release investigative details one convenient leak at a time. Employees and student-athletes have been instructed not to discuss the matter. That is the correct order while witness interviews are pending.

What happens next will tell us far more than the leave announcement.

If Lombardi returns quickly, the university may have determined the complaint was unsupported or did not warrant continued removal. If the leave stretches for weeks, that could indicate a more complicated investigation, although it still would not establish guilt. The use of an outside investigator, additional complainants or a change in Lombardi’s employment status would materially change the story.

Until then, there are three parties entitled to a fair process: the complainant, Lombardi and the University of North Carolina.

Paid administrative leave is not a conviction. It is also not something an institution does casually with a highly compensated football executive just as practice begins.

An alarm has been pulled. UNC is determining whether there is actually a fire.

The rest of us should let the investigators enter the building before declaring what if anything burned.