A federal judge from the Western District of Pennsylvania delivered a partial victory to the University of Pittsburgh in its long-running legal dispute with a former coach, Michael Haywood, this time with regard to state law claims related to his breach of contract lawsuit.
After the ruling was issued, the parties reportedly reached a settlement in late November.
Haywood was hired by the university on December 15, 2010. Pursuant to the employment contract entered into by the parties, he was set to receive a base annual salary of $1 million a year for five years.
Seventeen days into the term of the contract, Haywood was fired by Jerome Cochran, Pitt’s Executive Vice Chancellor. Three days later, Cochran sent a letter to the plaintiff’s agent, advising him that the University had terminated Haywood’s employment contract for “cause.”
The “cause” occurred on December 31, 2011 when Haywood attempted to see his son at the residence where his son lives with his mother. An argument ensued between Haywood and the boy’s mother. The police then took Haywood into custody. He was released the next day.
But the damage was done. Cochran allegedly called Haywood’s agent and told him that Haywood’s employment had been terminated.
On September 19, 2011, Haywood sued the university, raising three claims: 1) breach of employment contract (count A); 2) breach of agreement to buy out Miami University contract (count B); and 3) deprivation of due process rights in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment (count C).
In early 2012, the court granted Pitt’s motion to dismiss count C of the complaint, concluding that Haywood failed to allege a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
On February 14, 2013, the university moved for summary judgment with respect to all remaining claims, i.e., count A, count B. The parties also filed summary judgment motions related to the university’s counterclaim that Haywood breached the confidentiality provision of the employment contract when he, through his agents and attorneys, disclosed financial terms of the employment contract.
Regarding Count A, the court concluded that the university “had just cause to terminate Haywood’s employment and exercised good faith in making that determination.”
Turning to Count B, the court wrote that “at the time of the just cause termination, all obligations of the University to Haywood ceased. The oral agreement to buy out Haywood’s remaining contract with Miami University or obligations arising from its breach did not, therefore, survive the just cause termination of the employment contract, i.e., after the just cause termination, the university had no obligation to buy out the Miami University contract, and there can be no resultant damage from breach of the oral agreement, whether actual or nominal.”
Finally, on the question of whether Haywood’s press release breached the confidentiality provision of his employment contract, the court denied summary judgment for Pitt.
“Based upon the undisputed testimony of Albert Elias (Haywood’s attorney and agent) that the financial terms contained in the press release were available on USA Today, the restrictions would not be reasonably necessary to protect the university’s legitimate interests,” wrote the judge. “In other words, the university would have no legitimate interest in protecting information that is publicly available.”
At the same time, the judge was unwilling to grant summary judgment to Haywood, either.
“Haywood’s motion for summary judgment with respect to the University’s counterclaim for breach of confidentiality must be denied because if the university proves Haywood breached the confidentiality provision, it would be entitled to nominal damages,” it wrote.
Michael A. Haywood v. The University of Pittsburgh; W.D. Pa.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-1200, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140263; 9/30/13
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) Anthony G. Buzbee, Christopher K. Johns, PRO HAC VICE, The Buzbee Law Firm, Houston, TX; Rolf Louis Patberg, Sean J. Carmody, Terrence M. Ging, Patberg, Carmody & Ging, Pittsburgh, PA. (for defendant) Pamela W. Connelly, Pittsburgh, PA.
