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.