Docx

Becky Perdomo-Rebollo
7-12-2017
Online Legal Environment of Business
Current Legal Issue Assignment
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2017/07/05/former-offensive-coordinators-sue-georgia-
southern-alleging-breach-contract/453553001/
Summary
Georgia Southern's former co-offensive coordinators, David Dean and Rance Gillespie, have filed
separate lawsuits against head coach Tyson Summers, the Georgia Southern athletic association, several
school administrators, including the athletics director Tom Kleinlein. The lawsuits were respectively filed
on June 21 and 22 in Fulton County Superior Court by Wallace, Jordan, Ratliff & Brandt law firm out of
Birmingham, Alabama. The pair was fired after the team's 5-7 record last season and allege in their
lawsuits "a breach of contract, fraud and tortuous interference after the school failed to execute the 18-
month contracts the coaches signed initially, and then pressured them to sign shorter deals two days
before their dismissal." Dean and Gillespie each signed an 18- month contract on January 27, 2016, with
June 30, 2017 being the final day of the contract agreement; this contract was presented by Summers
with formal offer sheets. Dean and Gillespie allege they found out more than nine months later that the
Board of Regents and the Georgia Southern University Athletic Foundation did not sign the contracts,
but later Summers told the staff that new contracts were in the works. The coaches then received new
contracts on November 16, 2016, with an end date of February 28, 2017. The lawsuit alleges that
Summers, Kleinlein, senior associate athletics’ director for business operations Jeff Blythe and director
of football operations Cymone George “conspired to change the terms of the January Contract and
specifically the employment end date in order to save money, knowing they would be making coaching
changes on the offensive staff.” Dean said he didn't intend to sign the new contract and refused three
requests from George to sign the new contract, believing he already had signed a valid contract. Dean
says he finally signed the new contract on December 2, 2017, following a phone call with Blythe that left
him with the impression that if he didn't sign it, he could be fired any time and that his salary and
benefits would immediately cease. Gillespie’s lawsuit makes the same claim, saying Blythe “informed
Gillespie that it would be in Gillespie’s best interest to sign the November contract for his own
protection.” The pair are now seeking "damages including, but not limited to, the loss of compensation
plus accrued interest and attorney fees” for being coerced into signing the new contracts in November
under the impression that their January contracts weren’t valid.
Analysis of issue
The lawsuit that Dean and Gillespie are alleging in court consists of a formal contract. A formal contract
is one that requires a special form for contract formation, which at this professional level is almost
always used. Agreement requirements of the offer include intent by the offeror to become bound by the
offer, which is what Dean and Gillespie believed was happening when they signed the first contract that
was presented by Summers. The terms of the offer must be sufficiently definite to be ascertainable by
the parties or by a court, which in the contract states it as an 18-month contract beginning on January
27, 2016, with June 30, 2017 being the final day of the contract agreement. In this situation the plaintiffs
Dean and Gillespie allege that “they found out more than nine months later that the Board of Regents
and the Georgia Southern University Athletic Foundation did not sign the contracts, but later Summers
told the staff that new contracts were in the works.” This could be construed as an attempt of the
defendants to fraudulently misrepresent their true intentions. Later the new contracts that Summers
was working on were received on November 16, 2016, with an end date of February 28, 2017. The
lawsuit alleges that Summers, Kleinlein, senior associate athletics’ director for business operations Jeff
Blythe and director of football operations Cymone George “conspired to change the terms of the
January Contract and specifically the employment end date” in order to save money, knowing they
would be making coaching changes on the offensive staff. If the allegations in question are factual then
the coaches and directors in this case acted maliciously to deceive the co-offensive coordinators to sign
a contract that would make it seem like they were ensured for a longer contract when in fact they
weren’t planning to sign and were in the works of creating a new contract. The lawsuit also states that
Dean refused three requests from George to sign the new contract, believing he already had signed a
valid contract. Dean claims he finally signed the new contract on Dec. 2 following a phone call with
Blythe that left him with the impression that if he didn't sign it, he could be fired any time and that his
salary and benefits would immediately cease. Gillespie’s lawsuit makes the same claim, saying Blythe
“informed Gillespie that it would be in Gillespie’s best interest to sign the November contract for his
own protection.” So with that being said, their intent to coerce Dean and Gillespie to sign can be seen as
unconscionable, or a contract that is void on the basis of public policy because one party, as a result of
the disproportionate bargaining power is forced to accept terms that are unfairly burdensome and that
unfairly benefit the dominating power. Duress was introduced into the case with the plaintiff’s
allegations that Blythe left them with the impression that if they didn't sign the new contract, that they
could be fired at any time and that their salary and benefits would immediately cease and it was in their
best interest to sign the November contract for their own protection. This incident can also be
construed as a fraudulent misrepresentation because of what we claimed earlier that the coaches and
directors intent was to deceive, also known as scienters. As well as the plaintiffs (innocent party)
justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation, this consisted of the first signed contract that stated 18-
months. Given the allegations of both plaintiffs and if the court discovers reasonable and enough
evidence to support the allegations then the plaintiff’s should be awarded monetary damages, which
would place the plaintiff party in a position that they would have occupied had the contract been fully
performed. Since the defendant’s would have been accused for breach of the contract, the court may
also award the rest of the plaintiff’s demands of compensatory damages including, but not limited to,
the loss of compensation plus accrued interest and attorney fees.

Docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Docx

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Docx

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Becky Perdomo-Rebollo

Online Legal Environment of Business

Current Legal Issue Assignment

under the impression that their January contracts weren’t valid.

the loss of compensation plus accrued interest and attorney fees.

You might also like