A Louisiana state appeals court has reversed the decision of a trial court, breathing new life into a lawsuit brought by the former basketball coach at Grambling State University, who sued the school, the Louisiana Board of Trustees for Colleges and Universities and the University of Louisiana System for wrongful termination.
Central to the appeals court’s ruling was the fact that school officials may have “induced” plaintiff Rick Duckett to leave his other coaching job based on the alleged promise that the offer presented to him would ultimately be approved. At the very least, that possibility should defeat the defendant’s summary judgment ruling, according to the panel.
Duckett had been an assistant coach at the University of South Carolina when he was offered the Grambling job on May 12, 2008. At the time, then-university President Horace Judson and then-Athletic Director Troy Mathieu allegedly presented him with a letter offering him a four-year contract with a $103,000 salary beginning June 9 of that year.
The letter reads as follows:
“I am pleased to offer you the unclassified position of Men’s Head Basketball Coach at Grambling State University, pending approval of the Board of Supervisors of the University of Louisiana System. This is a regular, full-time, 12-month position at a beginning salary rate of $103,000, effective June 9, 2008. This offer is for a four-year contract period effective as of that date. This employment offer also includes a one-time moving allowance of up to $8,000…. Should you accept this offer, you will report to the Athletic Director, Mr. Troy Mathieu, who will provide you with your specific job responsibilities and other operating policies and procedures. Your reply will be needed immediately.”
But Duckett was wary of leaving his higher paying position with the Gamecocks.
The men reportedly advised him that they had already run the offer “up the flagpole” and that they had been assured by the Board of Supervisors that it would accept his contract.
Duckett also maintained that he was told that board approval was “a mere formality and that upon their reaching an agreement on a contract, the contract would be promptly presented to the Board for its consideration and approval.”
Days later, he accepted the offer and quit his job at South Carolina.
However, Duckett’s contract had not been approved. In an October 2008 board meeting, Judson allegedly requested that a discussion and potential approval of Duckett’s contract be “deferred.”
Duckett learned on Nov. 24, 2008, well into the basketball season, that his contract had not been approved.
The parties went back and forth on eight proposed amendments to the contract, before the relevant parties signed the contract on Aug. 11, 2009 and submitted it for final approval at an Aug. 24, 2009 board meeting. However, “Duckett’s employment contract was never presented to the Board for approval, nor was Duckett informed that the Board ever considered it.”
Instead, Duckett received a termination letter on Sept. 24, 2009, from Judson, which informed him that his “unclassified at-will employment” would end on Oct. 31, 2009, and that he would be relieved of his duties and placed on paid administrative leave until that time.
Duckett sued for breach of contract. After the trial court dismissed the claim on the university’s motion for summary judgment, Duckett appealed.
In considering the appeal, the panel of judges identified “a two-step procedure for the GSU hiring process for a coach.
“First, the determination of the qualifications of the coach through the initiation of the interview process to his actual selection was apparently within the specific authority of the athletic director and the university president. After the person is selected, the Board then votes to enter into any contract negotiated in the selection process which might bind the university long term. This dual process has the following important features. The university’s agents, Judson and Mathieu, are delegated discretion and authority to act in the search process and make the selection of the coach.
“Second, the economic details of the ultimate contract of employment are necessarily involved in the decision process in both phases of the hiring procedure. The bridge between the two phases of the process in this case was Judson’s promise to present and support the four-year contract before the Board immediately in the summer of 2008 as Duckett came to Louisiana and commenced his first basketball season later in the fall. Judson’s ability to make such promise to Duckett in the process of his selection of a coach appears to be within his authority granted by the university. Duckett’s claim is that Judson’s promise to promote and move the four-year contract through the Board approval process was the enforceable promise upon which he reasonably relied and that Judson breached that promise.”
The panel went on to conclude that “from review of the law of detrimental reliance under Article 1967 and in view of the clear change in position made by Duckett resulting from Judson’s alleged inducement to come to GSU, we find material fact issues which require a trial on the merits.”
Rick Duckett v. Grambling State University et al.; La. Ct. App., 2d Cir.; No. 47,082-CA
Attorneys of Record (for appellant) Gregory Scott Moore. (for appellees) Winston G. Decuir, Sr. and Jason M. Decuir of Decuir Clark & Adams, L.L.P.
