But Who’s Fighting for the Student-Athletes?
By Robert J. Romano, JD, LLM, St. John’s University, Senior Writer
Punitive damages are awarded in addition to actual or compensatory damages in various legal cases as a form of punishment when the trier of fact is convinced that the defendant’s conduct was egregious or especially harmful. Most often they are awarded in personal injury or product liability cases, but less frequently in breach of a contract matters.[1] This legal tendency, however, has not prevented former St. John’s University head men’s basketball coach Mike Anderson from seeking, in addition to the $11.4 million remaining under the terms of his employment contract, $34.2 million in punitive damages.[2] As per his notice of intent to arbitrate, the punitive damage claim is based on Anderson’s belief that he was wrongly fired for cause so that the University could avoid paying the balance due per his contract so that they can then turn around and use that ‘saved money’ to hire its new coach, Rick Pitino.
By way of background, in May 2021, St. John’s University decided to extend Coach Anderson’s employment contract an additional six years which meant that he would be leading the Red Storm men’s basketball team through the 2026-27 season. However, in March 2023, after two subpar seasons (2021-2022: 17-15 and 2022-2023: 18-15), both ending with the men’s basketball team riding the bench during the NCAA’s perennial, and lucrative, March Madness Tournament, the University decided that it was time to move in another direction and terminated its agreement with the one-time Big East Coach of the Year.
According to its letter dated March 10, 2023, St. John’s states that neither the team’s overall win-loss record or its failure to make the NCAA Tournament were the reasons for terminating Coach Anderson, but instead based its decision on the following: that Coach Anderson during his tenure at the helm of the Red Storm men’s basketball team, a) “failed to create and support an environment that strongly encourages student-athletes who are in the men’s basketball program to meet all university academic requirements,” b) “failed to perform duties and responsibilities in a manner that reflected positively on St. John’s University . . . in actions that brought serious discredit” to the school, and c) “failed to appropriately supervise and communicate with assistant coaches.”[3]
Coach Anderson disputes these so-called ‘reasons’ as to why he was terminated and in response stated, “I vehemently disagree with the university’s decision to terminate my contract for cause. The ‘for cause’ accusation is wholly without merit and I will be aggressively defending my contractual rights through an arbitration process.”[4] He and his legal team stated that “St. John’s manufactured out of whole cloth its preposterous ‘for cause’ termination of Mr. Anderson’s employment with the sole purpose of attempting to extricate the university from its $11.4 million ironclad contractual obligation to Mr. Anderson, specifically so that it could otherwise divert those funds to Pitino.”[5]
But does St. John’s University’s conduct regarding how and for the reasons stated as to why it terminated Coach Anderson for cause rise to a level wherein punitive damages would be warranted? In the state of New York, courts have held that punitive damages can be appropriate when there’s clear and convincing evidence that a defendant’s conduct exhibits willful or wanton negligence or a high degree of moral turpitude.[6] Therefore, St. John’s actions regarding the termination of Coach Anderson must be so outrageous or morally reprehensible that punishment makes sense.
In addition, isn’t Coach Anderson’s $34.2 million in punitive damage request excessive since this remedy is granted only in approximately 5% of all cases, and those are tort oriented, not breach of contract claims? To date the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to establish a standardized test when considering punitive damage awards, but in the matter of State Farm v. Campbell, the Court did advise that lower courts should focus on the reprehensibility of the defendant’s conduct when evaluating an acceptable punitive-to-compensatory damage ratio.[7] In other words, the appropriateness of a punitive damage award must be compared to the total amount of the actual or compensatory damages.
But who is Coach Anderson really trying to punish with his claim for punitive damages? Any amount paid by the University’s athletic department to cover the costs associated with his $34.2 million demand would presumably have to be diverted from monies allocated for student-athlete scholarships, athlete academic support services such as tutoring and advising, student-athlete mental health counseling, and athlete post-graduation career development. Coach Anderson needs to realize that if he is successful with his claim for punitive damages that money will negatively affect the student-athletes at St. John’s – those same student-athletes he, a few short months ago, had an ethical duty as a coach to help develop and grow so that they could be successful both on and off the field of play.
[1] O’Gilvie Minors vs. United States 519 US 79 (1996) and Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg 512 US 415 (1994)
[2] https://theathletic.com/4510939/2023/05/11/mike-anderson-st-johns-arbitration/
[3] https://www.rumbleinthegarden.com/2023/3/20/23648672/mike-anderson-st-johns-lawsuit-over-firing-from-st-johns
[4] https://www.si.com/college/arkansas/hogs-mens-basketball/looking-at-end-of-mike-anderson-st-johns-firing
[5] https://www.si.com/college/2023/05/11/st-johns-coach-mike-anderson-suing-school-45-million-rick-pitino-hire
[6] Ins. Co. v Am. Home Prods. Corp., 75 NY2d 196, 203-204 [1990] and Ross v Louise Wise Servs., Inc., 28 AD3d 272.
