One day after he was fired for peeing in a drain at work, former Detroit Red Wings Zamboni driver Al Sobotka texted the most powerful man at the company and begged for a second chance.

"Chris, I'm sure you heard that I was terminated," Sobotka texted Christopher Ilitch, president and CEO of the Detroit Red Wings and its massive parent company, Ilitch Holdings. "I don't think I deserve it. After 50 seasons of hard work, countless hours, holidays, missing out with the family ... I would hope you had it in your heart for another chance."

The text, which was sent to Ilitch's personal cellphone on Feb. 18, 2022, continued:

"I would love to go (out) on my own and retire. I have much respect for you and your family ... I'm begging you, this is killing me."

Ilitch never responded.

Nearly two years after the abrupt firing of Detroit's beloved Zamboni driver and octopus twirler, new details have emerged about what went on behind closed doors before and after the Red Wings axed the celebrated 68-year-old Sobotka. He sued over his firing — and consequently planted a bull's-eye on the inner workings of the city's billion-dollar entertainment empire.

Sobotka alleges he was let go because the higher-ups at Olympia Entertainment thought he was too old, and used the peeing debacle as an excuse to get rid of him. Moreover, he alleges the company engaged in a cover-up by having an executive who knew nothing about him fire him, just so they could wall off another executive who allegedly called him "old" just weeks before the peeing incident, and then replaced him with a 37-year-old underling after he was fired. Sobotka's younger replacement was hired in at the exact same salary that it took Sobotka five decades to attain: $81,000.

Olympia Entertainment, which has spent nearly two years trying to get the lawsuit thrown out, maintains in court records that Sobotka was fired for "egregious misconduct" that he admitted to, and that his age had nothing to do with it.

Olympia declined comment for this article, citing company policy not to comment on pending litigation.

According to depositions obtained by the Free Press, work emails, text messages, court filings, work logs of Olympia Entertainment, surveillance photos of the day in question and interviews with Sobotka himself, here are the latest developments about the infamous peeing case, and the lawsuit that followed:

Judge refuses to throw out lawsuit 'given the severity of the discipline'

Eight months ago, Olympia Entertainment lost what's known as a summary judgment motion, which essentially means the judge refused to throw out Sobotka's lawsuit.

In issuing her ruling last May, Wayne County Circuit Judge Susan Hubbard concluded that a jury should hear Sobotka's case "given the severity of the discipline." In other words, Sobotka could have been warned, temporarily suspended, asked not to do it again or written up over his conduct — all options his lawyer argues could have been taken instead of firing.

Instead, Sobotka was terminated for peeing in a snow pit in the Zamboni room because, he says, he couldn't hold it due to a prostate issue. One employee witnessed the act through a doorway and complained to HR because, court records state, "he thought it was wrong to urinate in the workplace outside a restroom" and found Sobotka's behavior "disturbing."

So did Olympia, which has appealed to a higher court, arguing that Hubbard erred by "improperly second-guessing Olympia's business judgment," and that "Olympia has a right not to have its employees urinating in its building other than in a restroom."

New details before Michigan Court of Appeals

"The company is not required to provide any form of progressive discipline, and ... has the right to terminate a colleague for violation of any of its company policies, or any other lawful reason, at any time, even for a first offense," Olympia attorneys argue in a Nov. 15 court filing.

The case is now before the Michigan Court of Appeals, with numerous new details coming to light, including:

• The executive who the Red Wings maintain was the sole decision maker in firing Sobotka had never spoken with him about his job before firing him, had no clue how long he had been with the Red Wings, never discussed the urinating incident with him, nor the witness who reported it to HR, never saw the surveillance video of the incident and never followed up on Sobotka's explanation that he had a prostate condition, or asked for a doctor's note. Neither did anyone else at the company.

• The senior vice president of human resources said nobody at the company followed up with Sobotka about his prostate problem, nor took it into account in assessing the peeing incident. She said she "saw it as an excuse" given that he didn't report the medical condition until a few days after the incident, and that had he disclosed it earlier, "there's a possibility" he may not have been fired.

• Three weeks before Sobotka was fired, he got a glowing performance review that said he "exceeded expectations" and "conduct[ed] business with the highest standards of ethics, integrity, and doing what’s right.” The supervisor who wrote that review said he never spoke up for Sobotka after the peeing incident because "the die had been cast, the decision was made."

• In a 2022 deposition, Ilitch said he chose not to respond to Sobotka's plea for help because "I rely on our HR professionals" and "business leaders" to handle such matters. "I agreed with the decision that was made ... Al's behavior in this instance was highly, highly inappropriate."

• Sobotka was asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement and was offered a severance package including three months' pay, but he declined the offer and refused to sign the NDA.

• Before Sobotka was officially fired, 10 Olympia officials — including lawyers, Ilitch, vice presidents and public relations officials — spent two weeks emailing one another about "formulating strategy ... in anticipation of litigation" and news media coverage.

• The senior vice president of HR said neither she nor anybody else put anything in writing about why he should be fired or "what he did wrong." The urinating incident was kept out of Sobotka's personnel file.

'They all know I was done wrong'

"They all know I was done wrong," 70-year-old Sobotka said in a recent interview with the Free Press, struggling at times to discuss the incident that he says still keeps him up at night.

"It's in my head, 24/7, ya know," Sobotka said, noting he's in therapy and has sleeping pills to get him through the bad nights.

"I have nightmares," Sobotka said, choking up at times, unable to process how a company he worked at for more than half a century let him go over one incident that "caused no harm to anyone."

In their depositions, four Olympia officials — two vice presidents, the HR director and Sabotka's supervisor — all conceded that Sobotka urinating into an ice drain in the Zamboni room "caused no harm, damage or danger to any person, property or the company."

So Sobotka lies awake at night wondering why was he walked out of the building after admitting to the peeing incident the day it happened, never to return.

'What I did is really not that bad'

"What I did is really not that bad," Sobotka said. "I'm very disappointed. I was always loyal to them. I never had any issues with the (Ilitch) family. Anything I was ever asked to do I did it — and more."

A key issue in the Sobotka case is who made the call to fire him, and who decided not to give him a second chance.

Sobotka alleges it was vice president Tim Padgett, who days before the urinating incident was in a Zoom meeting with Sobotka about a doubleheader that was coming up, and allegedly told him "You're getting old." Padgett has denied making the comment, and says he has no recollection of anything he said during that Zoom meeting, according to his deposition. Olympia has maintained that the alleged "stray remark ... even if true, was historic, isolated and unrelated to the decision-making process."

Olympia has maintained that Padgett had nothing to do with Sobotka's firing, arguing "there is no evidence" that he "influenced" the firing decision, and that Padgett "never discussed (Sobotka's) termination" with the executive who made the decision.

Padgett's deposition, however, contradicts the company's position:

"I gave my opinion on the situation ... to several people," Padgett said in a 2022 deposition.

Padgett named five Olympia officials with whom he shared his opinion. Among them was Keith Bradford, president of Olympia Development and District Detroit, whom Olympia maintains was the sole decision maker in firing Sobotka.

In his deposition, Padgett discussed a private meeting he attended in Bradford's office, during which the two talked about Sobotka's urinating incident.

"I felt that it was a terminable offense," Padgett said.

"Is that what you told Bradford?" Sobotka's lawyer, Deborah Gordon, asked.

"Yes, I thought it was a terminable offense," Padgett responded.

Gordon went on to ask: "Can you give me a reason why nobody gave Al a second chance?"

"Because I thought it was a terminable offense," Padgett responded. "I mean, that's my reason. There was no second chance."

'It was a shame that he had done this'

In the deposition, Padgett said that when he first heard about the peeing incident, he thought: "You've got to be kidding me. ... Oh boy, this is going to be big trouble."

Despite saying that he shared his opinion that Sobotka should be fired, he maintained that he "had no direct input" into the decision.

"It was a shame that he had done this," Padgett would later say in his deposition. "I had known Al for 25 years ... and I always considered Al a friend."

Padgett and Sobotka's supervisor would go on to hire Sobotka's 37-year-old replacement, court records and depositions show.

"The evidence proves that Bradford was the individual selected to fall on his sword," Gordon argues in a Dec. 22 filing with the Michigan Court of Appeals, alleging the company pretended that "Keith Bradford was the sole decision maker as a strategy to cordon off Padgett, who made the age remark."

In an October 2022 deposition, Bradford testified that "Padgett was not involved in the decision to terminate Al" and that Padgett never gave him his opinion on the matter.

"We did discuss the situation, obviously," Bradford said, but added that he didn't remember discussing the termination specifically with Padgett.

Two months earlier, however, Bradford stated in a sworn affidavit filed with the court: "During the HR investigation process, I had substantive discussions with Tim Padgett, Vice President of Venue Operation and Michele Bartos, Vice President of Human Resources."

Bartos is the executive who emailed Sobotka official notice of his firing, though Bradford said he made the call.

"The decision to terminate Mr. Sobotka's employment was mine to make," said Bradford, who was hired at Olympia in 2018 following a 23-year career with Disney.

According to Bradford's deposition, Sobotka was the only person he had fired since joining Olympia Entertainment in 2018. He noted that during those four years, a guest relations supervisor had been fired for making a racist remark at a venue, but he was only briefed on the situation.

As for Sobotka's peeing incident, Bradford said it was elevated to him because of the "nature of the issue" — someone had "publicly urinated in an open space at work."

Sobotka's lawyer disputed the claim, arguing no one from the public witnessed the incident, which occurred inside the Zamboni room "in the back corner near a drain, with nobody seeing him" other than an employee who was peering through a doorway. Gordon argued that's different than Sobotka pulling down his pants and peeing in front of customers.

Men 'urinate in front of each other all the time'

"They are two different things," Bradford conceded. "However, both are egregious and terminable."

Sobotka's lawyer pushed the issue, arguing men "urinate in front of each other all the time" at hockey arenas, including at LCA's urinals. "So why is this a terminable offense?" she asked.

"Well, those are designed restrooms for the purpose of urinating," Bradford answered, later stressing: "Al admitted to urinating in the snow pit. ... We had a sitution that needed to be dealt with."

Bradford went on to say, "An employee urinating in an open space, at work, with potential for other people to see it is an offense that should be terminated. It just can't be allowed. ... It's pretty simple in my mind."

As for Sobotka's prostate issue, Bradford said he never asked Sobotka about it. Nor did anyone else at the company.

According to court records, Sobotka notified HR about his prostate problem four days after the peeing incident, but HR was skeptical about his claim and investigated it by asking others at work whether Sobotka had ever reported to them having a prostate issue. When managers said they had never heard of this before, the issue was dropped.

"You could have easily said, 'Hey, let's discuss it. What's going on with the prostate? Bring us in a doctor's note and we'll see what we can figure out.' That was never said by you, was it?" Gordon asked Bradford.

"It was not," Bradford responded.

Bradford stated that when he first learned about the incident from HR, his immediate reaction was that Sobotka's conduct was "unfortunately going to lead to a termination," though he said he put off making a decision until HR completed its investigation, which concluded with HR recommending that Sobotka be fired.

Bradford said he then made the decision to fire Sobotka, and sent an email to Ilitch and a company lawyer informing both about his decision.

"(Ilitch) could have vetoed your decision, obviously, being your boss," Gordon said.

"Theoretically, maybe," Bradford responded. "But he hired me to make those decisions, and that's what I did."

Ilitch never told him about the text that Sobotka had sent him, Bradford said.

Getting the word of termination

It was a Friday afternoon, Feb. 17, 2022, when Sobotka got the news. Thirteen days had passed since he was walked out of the arena. He was home with his wife when the phone rang.

It was the head of HR.

"She said we did the investigation. You're being terminated for improper conduct," Sobotka recalled, noting she then asked for his email address.

At 3:59 p.m. that day, the official notice came through:

"Al, per our discussion earlier this afternoon, your employment has been terminated effective today," the email reads. "Attached for your review and consideration is a confidential separation and release agreement. As a reminder, you are not to contact anyone in the organization except me."

The next day, Sobotka sent Ilitch the desperate text message pleading for a second chance.

"Why did you not respond to Al Sobotka's text message?" Gordon would later asked Ilitch in a deposition.

"After employee termination, my typical practice would be to forward any correspondence I may receive from that former employee," Ilitch answered, later noting that such communications are forwarded to and handled by HR's legal staff.

"So Al Sobotka is telling you he's had 50 seasons of hard work, missing much time with his family, and he would love to go out on his own. Why was that not possible?" Gordon asked Ilitch.

"Look, this is very, very disappointing," Ilitch responded. "This situation, and in particular, Al's behavior is highly inappropriate. ... A manager should know better than to do what Al did."

"Why did you not talk to Al about it before you fired him and tell him, 'Hey, Al, this is not acceptable. You are a longtime, 50-year employee. Just don't do it again.' Why didn't you do that?" Gordon continued.

Ilitch reiterated that he leaves such matters to HR and business leaders, that a decision was made, and that he supported it.

Employer rights make Sobotka's challenge difficult

"Do people make mistakes sometimes?" Gordon asked.

"His behavior was inappropriate," Ilitch answered.

"Have you made mistakes?" the lawyer continued.

"It's my understanding that our employees are at will .... and can be terminated right away for misconduct," Ilitch responded.

Employment attorneys note that given Michigan is an at-will state, Sobotka may have a tough road ahead.

As longtime employment attorney Shereef Akeel noted, an employer can terminate an employee for any reason or no reason at all in Michigan. But, he stressed, there is an exception: Employers cannot fire employees on discriminatory grounds as the law prohibits terminating or mistreating employees because of their race, religion, age, sex, disability or sexual preference.

As for Olympia firing Sobotka, Akeel said: "If they fired him because of his age, there would be a case. But if they fired him for a behavior issue, it will be a challenging case for him."

Management-side attorney James Hermon, who heads the labor and employment practice at Detroit's Dykema law firm, said that based on what he knows of the case, Olympia's actions appear lawful under employment discrimination laws.

"Even if the discipline was thought to be severe by the court, that doesn't make it illegal," said Hermon, who believes the judge's ruling has raised concerns by the Michigan Court of Appeals.

"The fact that the Court of Appeals said we’re going to look at this is a good sign for Olympia," Hermon said, noting it's "very rare" for the appeals court to consider such matters until after a trial, suggesting: "There are some concerns about how the trial court ruled on this."

In court documents, Olympia Entertainment has defended its decision to terminate Sobotka, arguing there is no evidence that he was fired over his age, or that he was treated less favorably than any younger counterpart under the same circumstances.

"In fact, there is absolutely no record evidence of anyone else ever urinating in an open workspace inside LCA, let alone being observed by a subordinate employee," Olympia attorney Margaret Carroll Alli wrote in a Nov. 15 filing with the Michigan Court of Appeals.

According to Sobotka's lawyers, court records and depositions, Sobotka was disciplined twice during his 51 years with the Red Wings: In 1987, he was suspended for 60 days for helping two women sneak into a concert.In 2006, he was suspended for two weeks over a phone call he made to a Detroit Tigers colleague that the company felt was "inappropriate." The head of HR said neither of those incidents were involved in his firing.

According to court records, after admitting to the peeing incident, Sobotka told HR and his supervisor that it was a "common practice" among ice crew to urinate in the Zamboni room snow pit, though HR could not confirm any such incidents. Sobotka has claimed that at least three employees reported this happening at the former Joe Louis Arena, though Olympia says no one actually witnessed it, and no names were provided.

"It's not OK to urinate in the workplace," argued Alli, who described Sobotka's behavior as "egregious conduct" that "single-handedly resulted in his termination."

"(Sobotka) made a conscious decision to urinate in an open workspace inside Little Caesars Arena instead of utilizing a nearby restroom," the Olympia lawyer argued, stressing Sobotka "admitted that urinating in an open work area was a 'huge mistake.'"

"He conceded that Olympia had the right not to have its employees urinate inside the building; that Olympia would rightfully be concerned that its employees could be exposed to another employee urinating in an open workspace; and that he expected to be fired," the company lawyer argued.

Sabotka's lawyer, meanwhile, argues her client's "huge mistake" comment has been taken out of context. Specifically, she argues that Olympia is trying to make it appear as if Sobotka's admission to wrongdoing means he believes his firing was warranted.

But that's not the case, Gordon writes, stressing it will be up to a jury to decide whether his comment was an admission of culpability, "or a remorseful statement from a (68-year-old) man who has spent more than three quarters of his life ... serving the Red Wings."

Gordon argues it's the latter.

"'Huge mistake' came from a place of sorrow, not remorse, and a wish that his life's work had not been taken from him," Gordon argues in her filing to the appeals court. "He was simply sorry that he had lost his job and life's work over something so minor."

Sobotka's legacy

Sobotka, who immigrated to Detroit from Poland in 1965, began his hockey career with the Red Wings at 17, working maintenance at the old Olympia Stadium. Over the next five decades, at three arenas, he would rise up the ranks to become building operations manager, and then operations manager for sports, entertainment and operations — his last title before he was fired. He supervised 24 employees.

Over the years, Sobotka became a fixture at the rink, where he wore many hats.

Zamboni driver. Barbecue host. Octopus twirler and hurler.

"I never had a life outside work of work. It was always work," Sobotka said.

But he loved it, which is why this hurts so bad, he says, noting fallout from the firing was also brutal. He said some ice rinks refused to hire him after he lost his job with the Red Wings, though he now has a part-time job as the Zamboni driver at University Liggett School's arena in Grosse Pointe Woods.

Sobotka believes if Chris Ilitch's father, Mike, were alive today, he would not have lost his job.

"No, definitely not. He considered me like his family almost," said Sobotka, who recalled the many personal favors he did for Mike Ilitch and his wife, Marion, over the years. Driving their cars Up North. Moving furniture in and out of their condo. Driving their Christmas presents to family members across the state.

There were also special moments at the rink, like when the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup, he said, and Mike Ilitch brought "me and my kid out on the ice" to celebrate.

But the memories are now marred by disappointment, he says.

And pain.

"I'm devastated," Sobotka said. "You try to say, 'Let it go. Let it go.' But it just keeps coming back."

Contact Tresa Baldas: tbaldas@freepress.com

This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Fired Red Wings Zamboni driver Al Sobotka begged Chris Ilitch for help