Archive

Assistant coach who followed Haywood to Pitt settles lawsuit with school | TribLIVE.com
Pitt

Assistant coach who followed Haywood to Pitt settles lawsuit with school

William Mottola, an assistant football coach who left Miami (Ohio) to follow Michael Haywood to Pitt, settled his lawsuit against Pitt for canceling his contract when it fired Haywood.

The university fired Haywood as head coach Jan. 1, 2011, after he was arrested on domestic violence charges that were subsequently dismissed. It also canceled contracts with Mottola and other members of the coaching staff who were coming from Miami to Pitt, the lawsuit said.

Mottola resigned his job at Ohio when Pitt confirmed it would hire him. He then took a coaching position for less money at The Citadel. He was seeking $275,000, the difference between what he would have made at Pitt for two years and what he was paid by The Citadel.

Attorneys for both sides filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Tuesday. The motion didn’t provide any details of the settlement.

Mottola’s attorney, Dennis Moskal, confirmed an agreement was reached but that it was confidential. A lawyer for Pitt couldn’t be reached for comment.

Haywood also sued Pitt over his firing and settled in March. The terms of that agreement also were confidential.

Brian Bowling is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. He can be reached at 412-325-4301 or [email protected].


TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.