With the kind of twists and turns that would make a river envious, the litigation involving defensive coordinator John Chavis, his old employer — LSU, and his new employer — Texas A&M is becoming interesting.
Things heated up earlier this month when Chavis announced he was suing LSU and A&M in light of the fact that LSU athletic director Joe Alleva had sent a letter to Chavis on Jan. 2, which demanded that he pay a $400,000 buyout to the school in accordance with a section of the contract between the two parties. A&M was named a defendant in the Chavis’ lawsuit because it was contractually obligated to pay LSU if a buyout clause was upheld. To this, A&M senior associate athletic director Jason Cook issued the following statement: “There is not a dispute between Coach Chavis and Texas A&M. The University stands behind its commitment to Coach Chavis to pay any buyout due to LSU. The issue is that Texas A&M disagrees with LSU that any buyout payment is actually due.”
The timeline is critical in the legal battle between Chavis and LSU.
In December of 2014, Alleva reportedly sought to institute the “Les Miles clause” into the contracts of each of Miles’ assistants. The clause allegedly said that if Miles was terminated as head coach, the school could also terminate the contracts of all of Miles’ assistants.
This led Chavis to pursue an opportunity to become the defensive coordinator at A&M. On January 1, he reportedly flew with A&M Head Coach Kevin Sumlin by private jet to College Station. Chavis told the Houston Chronicle at the time: “I’m excited to play with a great offense, and certainly looking forward to helping the defense get better. We get that situation done, and certainly you’re looking at a time, in my mind and in my vision, we will compete for championships.” (http://blog.chron.com/sportsupdate/2015/01/john-chavis-theres-a-great-opportunity-to-win-big-at-texas-am/)
Hearing this, Alleva sent the aforementioned letter to Chavis. On January 5, Chavis submitted his 30-day notice to terminate his employment without cause. This was significant because it technically meant Chavis wasn’t officially leaving his old job until February 4. That allegedly meant that the contract was terminated with less than 11 months left, which would not have triggered the buyout clause.
LSU countersued the same day, filing its lawsuit in East Baton Rouge Parish. It claims Chavis owes the buyout for breaching his contract. It also is asking for other damages, including the cost of recruiting, hiring and relocating Chavis’ replacement and for the harm Chavis’ early termination caused LSU’s reputation and its effect on coach/player retention.
“LSU regrets that what is ordinarily a simple matter must be resolved in litigation, but it will vigorously defend the contractual and constitutional rights of the University,” the school said in a statement.
Subsequent Litigation
Earlier this month, Chavis amended his lawsuit, claiming LSU owes him an extra $205,000 in unpaid vacation and incentives. He claimed that the money accrued because the contract extension he signed in December of 2011 was allegedly altered without his knowledge, making the extension void. “These material alterations were made by some person or persons at LSU for the benefit of LSU and to the detriment of Chavis,” according to the suit. “Chavis was not informed of the alterations after they were made by LSU nor did he agree to ratify the alterations after they were made by LSU. … After Dec. 31, 2011, Chavis became an employee ‘at will’ and thus no longer subject to any specific terms or conditions.”
Chavis also alleged that LSU breached its contract with him when Alleva sent the aforementioned letter to him, requesting he pay a $400,000 buyout.
“Chavis, contrary to Alleva’s assertion in the Jan. 2 letter, had not yet resigned,” according to the lawsuit. “Alleva’s letter demanding that he pay liquidated damages prior to his actual resignation constitutes a termination by LSU of Chavis’ employment.”
For its part, LSU has made two specific discovery requests involving Chavis’ involvement with A&M before the school officially announced his hire Feb. 13. The requests, filed in the 19th Judicial Court in East Baton Rouge Parish, seek the following:
“Does Chavis contend that he was still employed by LSU during the month of January 2015? If yes, then please list all facts and evidence, along with the full names and addresses of any witnesses, in support of that contention.”
“Does Chavis contend that he was not employed by Texas A&M during the month of January 2015? If yes, then please list all facts and evidence, along with the full names and addresses of any witnesses, in support of that contention.”
