The University of Michigan recently fired its football coach, Sherrone Moore, due to “an inappropriate relationship with a staff member;” later, Moore was “detained by police in an assault investigation,” according to the Detroit Free Press. On Dec. 12, two days after being fired, Moore was charged with three charges, including third-degree felony home invasion.

These charges were not connected to conduct committed on campus, but rather, conduct allegedly committed inside the house of a woman with whom Moore had relations. Nevertheless, this sequence of events can serve as a reminder that firing processes require security’s involvement to mitigate risks. 

“The situation involving the recent firing of University of Michigan coach Sherrone Moore offers a timely reminder of the risks organizations face when terminations are not handled with careful coordination between HR, security and other key stakeholders,” says Alan Saquella, Assistant Professor, Global Security and Intelligence at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. “While we don’t know the full internal process behind the University of Michigan’s decision to fire Coach Sherrone Moore, the situation serves as an important reminder: employee terminations are some of the highest-risk moments for any organization. HR and security coordination is essential not because we assume violence, but because these transitions can be emotionally charged and unpredictable.”

According to CBS News, a source “familiar with the situation” stated that Moore had been struggling with mental health issues prior to his firing, and Athletic Director Warde Manuel had been informed of such. Regardless, “Manuel fired Moore in a one-on-one conversation without human resources or security present.” 

“In high-profile or grievance-driven environments like collegiate athletics, involving security in the termination planning process allows for behavioral assessments, safety planning, and structured off-boarding support,” Saquella states. “Cross-functional threat assessment teams exist for this very reason. The events that reportedly occurred after Moore’s dismissal highlight how quickly a situation can escalate when post-termination risks are not fully assessed or monitored.”

Though the University technically did not experience workplace violence in the wake of Moore’s firing, this event can still serve as a reminder for security leaders to advocate for involvement in firing processes in order to mitigate the risks of workplace violence occurrences. Earlier this year, I spoke with Saquella about workplace violence on Security magazine’s podcast, in an episode titled The Red Flags of Potential Workplace Violence. Here, we discussed how workplace violence incidents typically build up over time rather than occurring seemingly out of nowhere, as some are led to believe. 

“Workplace violence seldom occurs spontaneously,” Saquella asserts. ”It generally follows the progression of grievance, ideation, planning, preparation, and action. In high-pressure environments where emotions run high, skipping structured assessment steps can increase risk. Security engagement does not imply anticipating violence, it reflects prudent risk management at a moment known to carry elevated emotional and behavioral risk. The events following Moore’s dismissal illustrate how quickly situations can escalate when grievances are left unmitigated or when post-separation monitoring is limited.”