The Blackhawks are in the midst of a pivotal stretch for the long-term future of the franchise, with the expansion draft, the entry draft and free agency all looming. But the two lawsuits targeting the Blackhawks — one from a former player alleging sexual assault by video coach Brad Aldrich in 2010 and another from a 2013 victim of Aldrich’s in Houghton, Mich., alleging the Blackhawks failed to report the original allegations — continue to hover over the team.
Advertisement
The Athletic spoke to a legal expert, agents and players to get their thoughts on some of the biggest questions facing the Blackhawks as the legal process plays out:
The Blackhawks are alleged to have provided a positive reference for Aldrich to a future employer in the John Doe 2 case. Did the Blackhawks provide such a reference?
There is no evidence so far.
A Houghton-Portage Township Schools source who was familiar with Aldrich’s hiring as a volunteer coach in 2010 and 2013 said no background check was done on Aldrich because it was a volunteer position. Therefore, the Blackhawks were not contacted. Volunteer coaches do undergo background checks now.
Miami University’s general counsel reported a “background verification, which includes a criminal records check” was done as part of the hiring process for Aldrich. It’s unclear the extent of the verification and whether the Blackhawks were contacted. The Athletic specifically requested any reference letters provided by Aldrich, and there weren’t any included when the university released a 50-page response to the public-record request on June 30.
The plaintiff’s lawyer also has not provided evidence of a positive reference, but that’s not uncommon. The lawyer is likely hoping to find one during discovery. The Blackhawks, of course, would like to prevent the case from reaching the discovery phase.
“If (the plaintiffs) survive this motion to dismiss, they move to the discovery phase, and then the court can order the Blackhawks to turn over every letter of recommendation they’ve ever sent,” Northwestern Pritzker School of Law professor of law Zachary Clopton said. “But the problem in that, well, if you always got to do them, then every pie-in-the-sky allegation could lead to a really expensive discovery and you could make corporations turn over all these documents and what you might do is blackmail them into settling.
Advertisement
“So, the law tries to kind of draw a line that says, OK, you don’t have to prove your case at the complaint stage, you don’t have to have all the evidence, but you don’t get to just totally make it up, either. You need some other something.
“Now, what it would be in this case, in any case, will depend. For example, it might help to know how many other employers (Aldrich) had in between, or maybe the school district hasn’t turned over what letters are there, but they do have a policy that says you need to provide documentation of your three previous employers or something like that. There’s a bunch of other kind of circumstantial evidence or circumstantial allegations that might be enough. Because obviously, if they had the letter in hand, they would have said it. My inference is they don’t have the letter. But it’s also not unreasonable to think that letters were provided. Whether they came from the Blackhawks or someone else, that’s the kind of thing that the plaintiffs are still trying to figure out.”
The Blackhawks have filed a motion to dismiss in both lawsuits. Is there any benefit to them to argue the cases out and attempt to prove their innocence?
The Blackhawks absolutely don’t want these cases to go any further. If the cases reach discovery, the Blackhawks would have to provide a lot more information than they’d like to. Corporations like their privacy.
“I think that’s why the motion to dismiss is so powerful, especially for corporate defendants, because it’s kind of the gate to discovery,” Clopton said. “And there’s all sorts of things they don’t want to reveal that might relate to these allegations or plenty of other internal corporate records. There are protections for proprietary information and the like, but my experience is that every large organization has emails that are uncomfortable if they were released, and so I would prefer to avoid it if I could.”
How likely are the judges to dismiss the cases?
It’s possible. There are also other possibilities.
Advertisement
“The other thing that could happen is they could go to the judge, and the judge could say, well, this complaint is not enough, but I’m going to give you 30 days to amend,” Clopton said. “So they may be forced into the amendment option by the judge, with the judge basically saying, well, if you don’t amend, you’re going to lose. That’s another thing that could easily happen in this situation. And wouldn’t surprise me at all if that were the outcome.”
The plaintiff’s lawyer is reportedly amending a complaint in the John Doe 2 case, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.
Did the Blackhawks have an obligation to report the 2010 player’s sexual assault allegations to the police?
The Blackhawks have cited Illinois law that says they didn’t have a mandatory obligation to report the alleged sexual assault of an adult employee, and the only individuals who would have required an obligation are minors under the age of 18, adults who have disabilities between the ages of 18 and 59 and adults over the age of 60 who live in care facilities.
“If there had been a minor, disabled or otherwise in a protected class, I think it would be quite clear that they had an obligation to report,” Clopton said. “In this situation where there’s no obligation to report that doesn’t, I think, answer all the questions in the case because the Blackhawks could be liable for negligently supervising their employees, and that does not require the violation of a statutory duty. But the flip side is the violation of a statutory duty is often per se a violation of your responsibilities. So, easy case when you violate a duty, gray area when there isn’t the kind of formal requirement. Then we have to ask questions like, what would a reasonable employer have done in this situation?”
How far along is the “independent review” commissioned by the Blackhawks?
Jenner & Block, led by former federal prosecutor Reid Schar, has begun reaching out to people as part of their investigation. Former skills coach Paul Vincent, one of the central figures in the case as the man who said he brought the allegations to John McDonough, Stan Bowman, Al MacIsaac and mental skills coach James Gary, told TSN that he was contacted by Jenner & Block last week, but that he won’t participate in the investigation unless the law firm promises in writing to make its findings public.
Meanwhile, some, but not all, players from the 2009-10 Blackhawks roster have been contacted by Jenner & Block. There’s no indication of how long the process could take, but it is already underway. The NHL — which confirmed to The Athletic that it wields the power to sanction the Blackhawks regardless of how the legal process plays out — is waiting until the investigation is complete before taking any possible action of its own.
Former Blackhawks president John McDonough is the primary non-Blackhawks employee who has yet to address the allegations. Does he have to testify?
The Athletic has left multiple messages for McDonough and none has been returned. It’s unknown whether he’ll cooperate with the independent investigation.
Advertisement
As for him testifying in the lawsuits, he could decline, but it would cost him.
“The court can compel testimony under penalty of contempt,” Clopton said. “What there will almost certainly be before they do that is discussion among the lawyers. OK, how necessary is this testimony? How relevant is it to the underlying allegations? Are there other ways to get (it)? Like if they turn over emails, then do they also need to have testimony? If a lower-level person has already given a deposition who has all the relevant information, do you need to go to the higher-level person? And those are going to be very kind of fact-specific questions that lawyers will argue about. And then ultimately, they will likely disagree on some of them and bring them to the judge and the judge will have to rule on those details. But certainly, the court would have the power to do that.”
Is there anything unexpected that could still come out of these cases?
The discovery phase could open the door to the Blackhawks revealing more of who knew what and how the allegations were handled. Miami University hired the law firm Barnes & Thornburg LLP to conduct an independent review of Aldrich’s employment. That could provide more details.
Miami has already acknowledged there was a known off-campus allegation against Aldrich while he was working for the university. Could more alleged incidents become known?
“One thing is often allegations like this can kind of expand both in terms of the number of victims,” Clopton said. “Often there are more victims coming forward. And then in terms of the potential defendants, we’ve got these potential Miami of Ohio allegations. And so what starts as one victim and one defendant often ends up being dozens of victims and multiple defendants across states and over a period of time. And so that’s kind of what I want to keep my eye on is how kind of localized does this stay or is this actually a much wider story?”
The Blackhawks have yet to address the lawsuits substantially in public. Should they?
The Blackhawks’ PR strategy has been clear — lay low. Bowman simply released a written statement after trading franchise icon Duncan Keith rather than hold a standard news conference. It’s the biggest week of the offseason, and we still don’t know if Bowman will speak publicly after the expansion draft (Wednesday), the entry draft (Friday and Saturday) or the start of free agency (next Wednesday). Even the Blackhawks’ Twitter account has been quieter than usual. It’s the safe play.
“Well, if I were the Blackhawks’ lawyer, I would tell them to not speak in public,” Clopton said. “Not because it would be illegal for them to speak in public unless there’s some additional court order about confidentiality or some other kind of confidentiality provision that we don’t know about, but I think it would be unwise to speak because absolutely a public statement of a corporate officer could be used in court as part of the litigation. And so I think a lawyer would say don’t risk by saying anything that could possibly be used against you. The safest course is to say nothing.”
Advertisement
One agent who’s also a lawyer acknowledged that the Blackhawks are going to take their hits in the court of public opinion for their silence and their attempts to dismiss the lawsuits, but that their primary concern right now is the legal side of things.
“There’s a difference between the PR strategy and the legal strategy,” the agent said. “As a legal strategy, you have to employ whatever legal resources are available. So therefore, if there’s a statute of limitations issue, you have to raise that issue. If there’s a ‘no duty’ issue, you have to raise that issue. Now, whether that’s good strategy overall? That’s a completely different question. I’d have said, ‘Get into mediation immediately, sit down with them, hear out their complaints, let’s talk, let’s figure out what exactly did happen 10 years ago, and bring everything to the table.’ Because otherwise it’s always going to be an unsettled issue, and it’s always going to be something that’s hanging out there until it’s fully resolved. And that doesn’t necessarily mean admitting liability in that sense of the word. But it means at least coming to the table and figuring out, ‘Did we in fact mess up? And if we did, what can we do to move forward?’ ”
Will the lawsuits make the Blackhawks less attractive to free agents?
Chicago has long been a desirable destination for free agents, not just because of the years of success and the chance to play with a bevy of superstars back in the day, but because of the money Rocky Wirtz pours into the team. Many players rave about the way they’re treated in Chicago. With the Blackhawks looking to make a splash in free agency, will the lawsuits make any players think twice about signing in Chicago?
Unlikely, at least three agents say. Money and term will almost always win out in the end.
“Generally speaking, players, coaches and anyone who’s coming to a team wants to win or get paid, or both,” one agent said. “Do they sometimes look at outside concerns? They do. But at the end of the day, you’re going to take the best situation for your career.”
One former Blackhawks player wasn’t quite so sure, though.
“Players are out there to make money, so those agents are probably right,” he said. “But if you’re going to choose between two teams offering the same money, why would you choose Chicago? They don’t have much of a future, and now all of this. Why would you involve yourself with people like that?”
Advertisement
How is the hockey world viewing this?
At least three players from the 2010 team told The Athletic that the allegations have prompted some soul-searching about who knew what and when. Beyond those three players, Jonathan Toews said he didn’t know about it until just before the following training camp opened. Duncan Keith said he’d “rather not get into” his memories of what he knew and what he didn’t. Joel Quenneville said he didn’t know until news of the lawsuits surfaced this summer.
Memories are fuzzy, to say the least. And while the expansion draft, the entry draft and free agency are at the forefront of the hockey world’s mind, the Blackhawks’ story isn’t going away, and it’s a heated topic in hockey circles.
Who knew what and when? Will Bowman and MacIsaac survive this? How does this all end?
One agent who has been in contact with a Blackhawks employee “who would know,” said that very few people in the organization knew anything about the allegations against Aldrich until the day of the parade, when Aldrich essentially disappeared. “It wasn’t so much of an open secret as people believe it was,” the agent said.
“You’re 10 days away from winning the Cup,” the agent added. “I think the strategy was, ‘Jesus fucking Christ, let’s just not do anything about it, let’s win the Cup, and then we’ll shoo the guy out the door.’ Turns out that’s a pretty bad strategy. Now, this is hindsight in 2021. Now it’s never a good strategy, but can we all say in 2010 that the Bruins or Kings or anyone else would have done something different on the verge of their first Cup in 50 years? That doesn’t make it any better, but you can see how that would happen.”
Regardless of how the legal situation plays out, and regardless of what, if anything, the league does in terms of potential discipline, there’s a stain on the Blackhawks name that is unlikely to go away anytime soon.
“Did they have a legal obligation? No, maybe not,” said the former Blackhawks player. “But did they have a moral obligation? These guys have kids. Some of the people I’ve talked to are saying the same thing, that they’re going to skate legally. But the moral compass? That you didn’t reach out? It’s disgusting.”
(Photo: Jonathan Daniel / Getty Images)