I am an alumnus of the University of Michigan. My son is a junior there. My closest friends went to school in Ann Arbor. So did my father-in-law, brother-in-law, and sister-in-law. Like all who bleed maize and blue, we believe that we have a responsibility to our university to embody the values of excellence, character, and integrity in everything we do. So, when the news broke last month of former Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore’s termination for having an inappropriate relationship with his assistant and the details of his subsequent arrest, I vacillated between feelings of anger and shame.
This article will not delve into the details of the inappropriateness of Moore’s relationship with his assistant and why employers are at risk for not having zero tolerance policies that preclude romantic relationships between “supervisors” and those they supervise. In her column last month, my colleague Erin Shrum discussed the risks where such a power dynamic exists.
Instead, I want to focus on Moore’s reported mental health issues, what Michigan did or did not know, and the obligations that employers have under federal employment laws when made aware that an employee is struggling with his/her/their mental health.
According to reporting, Michigan’s athletic leadership was aware that Moore was behaving erratically—aggressively confronting assistant coaches during team meetings, breaking down emotionally in front of players and staff, and displaying signs exceeding the stress of leading college football’s winningest program. When it knew, or should have known, this is debatable and will be exposed one way or the other in an internal investigation currently being conducted.
Notwithstanding, once senior leadership received notice of conduct plausibly tied to a mental health issue, the matter no longer was merely managerial. It became legal.
Mental health conditions can qualify as disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Employers are not required to diagnose employees, and they are not required to excuse misconduct. But observable behavior combined with knowledge of emotional distress can trigger an obligation to engage in an interactive process and consider reasonable accommodations. Silence and inaction are not neutral choices.
Likewise, the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) adds another layer that employers frequently overlook. Employees do not need to utter the words “FMLA” to trigger employer duties. Courts have repeatedly held that when an employer becomes aware that an employee may be suffering from a serious health condition—including psychological distress—the employer may have an obligation to provide notice of FMLA rights. Emotional breakdowns, reports from supervisors, or visible instability can require action.
This is where institutions most often stumble. Mental health concerns are quietly treated as reputational risks rather than compliance issues. Leadership hesitates out of fear—of leaks, headlines, or overreaction—and allows informal awareness to substitute for formal process. Ironically, that hesitation is what creates the greatest legal exposure.
None of this is an argument against accountability. The ADA does not require employers to tolerate rule-breaking. The FMLA does not guarantee indefinite leave or immunity from discipline. What these laws require is something more basic and more demanding: that employers respond deliberately once they know there is a problem.
High-pressure roles do not change that obligation. If anything, they heighten it. Universities, hospitals, police departments, and corporate leadership teams all operate in environments where stress is foreseeable and the cost of failure is high. That reality does not suspend employment law; it makes compliance and care inseparable.
Moore knew that Michigan had a zero-tolerance policy and had terminated its former president for violating it. He signed an employment contract acknowledging that he could be fired for any breach of the university’s code of conduct. I’m not sure that any Plaintiff’s side employment attorney would look at these facts and suggest that Michigan lacked cause.
But the broader lesson is one every employer should absorb. When leadership knows an employee is struggling, the choice is not between compassion and accountability. The real risk lies in pretending that neither is required.
Rob Entin is a partner in the Chicago office of FordHarrison. He represents and advises employers on employment litigation, workplace compliance, and a broad range of labor relations matters, including union organizing, unfair labor practice defense, and collective bargaining.