A Coachable Moment; The Need For Progressive Discipline

Richard Schick worked for the University of New Brunswick as head coach of its women's volleyball team under a three-year fixed term contract set to expire as of May 2, 2024.

On October 31, 2023, the University dismissed him, alleging just cause.

The University dismissed Mr. Schick because five athletes and the team therapist had filed harassment complaints against him. This led to an independent investigation and a report addressing the 30 incidents identified in the complaints.

The investigator had concluded that nine of the complaints were founded, and 21 were unfounded. The nine founded complaints dealt with aggressive use of profanity towards athletes and the impact it had left on them, slamming a ball onto the floor in an aggressive manner while shouting loudly, and placing an athlete on a "timeout" by sending her to a corner of the gym. Notably, there were no findings he had jeopardized the physical safety of athletes.

Mr. Schick sued for wrongful dismissal, and the case went to trial on August 12, 2025.

At trial, the University argued it had a responsibility to the team and the institution as a whole to dismiss Mr. Schick as it had. Harassment was significant misconduct. Mr. Schick had violated the essential terms of employment and acted inconsistently with his fundamental duties as an employee. He had created a poisoned work environment which could not be remedied. Progressive discipline was not viable given what he had done, and his position of authority over the team and the individual athletes, who were all in a vulnerable position. Dismissal was warranted.

In response, Mr. Schick argued that when he started work, he had been under a six-month probationary period, which he had completed satisfactorily.

Following his first season (2021-2022) athletes had provided evaluations of him and some raised concerns about his coaching style. One athlete described him as having a one-size-fits-all approach to motivating and communicating with athletes. She said that for some his harsh motivation tactics worked but for others the style hurt performance. Other athletes also raised concerns about what they saw as his overly aggressive approach, describing it as bullying or belittling.

Despite these concerns, the University took no action.

For his part, Mr. Schick said that after receiving the evaluations he had reflected on his coaching and communication style, and modified things.

After the second season (2022-2023) athlete evaluations again contained similar negative comments. Mr. Schick said that in response, he had suggested to the University it should meet with those athletes concerned. Again, however, the University took no action. Mr. Schick then met with the athletes himself, acknowledged the issues, and advised them of his desire to work towards resolution.

Prior to the third season (2023-2024) Mr. Schick notified certain veteran athletes their positions would not be secure for the coming season, and they would have to try out if they wished to play. Within a week, five of those veterans and the team therapist had filed their harassment complaints.

The investigation and dismissal then followed.

Mr. Schick argued there was no just cause for dismissal. He said he had been receptive to comments about his coaching style and had adjusted accordingly. He had been apologetic and committed to improvement and still was. Considering the nature and extent of the misconduct, the context, and the need for an appropriate but still proportionate response from the University, summary dismissal was too severe.

On September 19, 2025, the Court of King's Bench of New Brunswick released its decision in Schick v. The University of New Brunswick, 2025 NBKB 207, and held the University had wrongfully dismissed Mr. Schick.

The court held that Mr. Schick had shown a degree of insight into his issues and a willingness to address them. The University owed Mr. Schick an opportunity to reform his conduct with the knowledge that he was being disciplined. Progressive discipline was warranted, not dismissal.

Mr. Schick was awarded the balance of wages payable under his contract, along with compensation for lost CPP and pension plan contributions, plus costs, all told amounting to about $55,000.

To be clear, this case does not in any way mean that it is acceptable for a coach to harass athletes. On the contrary, the court here specifically emphasized how all harassment complaints had to be taken seriously, and how in some cases harassment would undoubtedly warrant dismissal.

As is obvious however, dismissal is not always warranted. Details matter.

In Mr. Schick's case, the court relied on precedent for its conclusion that an employer must employ a system of progressive discipline leading up to a dismissal, unless a single incident is so egregious that it warrants summary dismissal. That has long been the case. Any punishment must fit the crime and only in a rare situation will misconduct lead to summary dismissal without progressive discipline first off being required.

To be effective, progressive discipline clearly and directly brings to the employee's attention the issues at hand, what was lacking, and what would be required moving forward. Progressive discipline need not be, and should not be, angry, bullying or threatening. It should instead be fair and professional and allow the employee every opportunity to know what they did wrong, how to do things correctly, and how to succeed. Preferably it should be specific and measurable.

Yelling at someone that their behavior was unacceptable and must change is not useful. Instead, after gathering all relevant facts an employer should explain in writing what behavior was unacceptable, why it was unacceptable, and what specifically would be required instead. The employer should also offer the opportunity for the employee to ask questions and get clarification to understand and learn from the experience.

The correspondence should be written in considerable detail, so someone completely unfamiliar with things can understand both exactly what happened, and exactly what is required of the employee in the future. It is important to get both content and tone correctly, and to consider the specific person receiving it. How will they respond and how can you best communicate what needs to be communicated?

With one exception, progressive discipline is the workplace equivalent to coaching in the sports arena. Progressive discipline should clearly state what the consequences will be of ongoing misconduct. In coaching, that could be considered bullying or a threat.

Apart from that exception the primary goal of both progressive discipline and coaching should be the same – to try and help the employee/athlete learn, improve, and succeed, and so allow the workplace/team to thrive.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.