A former assistant coach of the Cleveland Cavaliers has sued Cavaliers Holdings, LLC and Cavaliers Operating Company, LLC. as well as several individual defendants within the organization, for violating Ohio’s age discrimination laws.
Plaintiff James Boylan, who is 63, was employed by defendants as an assistant coach until the time of his termination in June 2018.
In his complaint, Boylan noted that he had been “successful as a player (mostly at the college level) and as a coach (mostly at the professional level) in basketball.
In 1992, Boylan was hired by the Cavaliers and served as assistant coach to Lenny Wilkens. He remained with the organization through 1997 before bouncing around to other NBA teams as an assistant. He returned to the Cavaliers in June 2013 where he served as an assistant to head coach Mike Brown. He remained with the organization as a coach through multiple head coaching changes, including David Blatt and then Tyronn Lue.
On July 1, 2015, Boylan’s employment contract was extended for an additional year. On July 1, 2016, Boylan’s employment contract was extended a second time, for two additional years. With the latter, his contract was extended by general manager David Griffin. Under the terms of his employment, Boylan reported directly to the Cavaliers’ head coach and general manager.
In his complaint, the plaintiff noted that the Cavaliers, led by LeBron James, advanced to the NBA finals.
In July 2017, Boylan noted that Koby Altman, an individual defendant, was promoted to the position of general manager.
On June 17, 2018, then-Cavaliers head coach Tyronn Lue left a voicemail for Boylan informing him his employment would end. In the message, Lue allegedly said:
“Jimbo, what’s up, yo? This is T Lue. I had a talk with Koby yesterday. He does not want to pick up your option. He said it’s way too much money. They’re not gonna pay that kind of money for three assistants on the bench. He wants to go younger in that position and, you know, find somebody who’s a grinder and younger in that position. And he said he does not want to pick the option up for I guess it’s 500 or – I’m not sure. He said five something. And he just said it’s too much money, he said, so we’ll be paying Longabardi and LD. So he just said he wanted to go younger at that position and he does not want to pick up the option.
“But give me a call back if you get a chance. If you don’t, I just want to thank you for everything and for everything you’ve given to me, stuff I’ve learned from you, helped me through all the situations, the health situations, and just being a young coach, man.
“You know, I hate to see this shit end like this, but I mean, I mean you try to (inaudible) to do this. Unbelievable, man. And so, you know, I just wanted to let you know that.”
“So I’ll try to give you a call, but that’s kind of what Koby’s thinking is, and that’s kind of where Dan was at. And so I just wanted to, you know, give you a call, you know, to tell you that. I’m out of town right now to come and look at some places for myself for the center, but I’ll be back in town I think Friday or Saturday. So I wanted to let you know, man. I just want to say thank you; I love you, brother. And, yeah, honestly, if you need anything from me, you know, I’ll be right there to ask, I’ll be there to help you, man. So thank you.”
The “Dan” referred to by Lue in his voicemail is Cavaliers owner, individual defendant Daniel Gilbert, according to the plaintiff.
After receiving the Lue voicemail, Boylan claimed he had a conversation with individual defendant Koby Altman, in which Altman informed the plaintiff that “he had discussed the decision with Coach Lue … . (T)he organization, he and Dan Gilbert wanted a ‘younger’ coach in the position and that the separation had nothing to do with Coach Boylan’s work or job performance. Defendant Altman informed Coach Boylan that he was not being renewed as a coach because the defendants preferred to have ‘younger’ coaches than Coach Boylan.”
The plaintiff went on to allege that the defendants have “a pattern and practice of age discrimination across defendant Gilbert’s corporate organizations in which he owns equity and controlling interest, and in his affiliated enterprises, including the Cavaliers and corporate defendants. Defendants discriminate against employees and candidates for employment on the basis of age with respect to hiring, renewal, termination, pay, raises, benefits, and in the terms and conditions of employment. Defendants discriminatorily favor younger less qualified candidates and employees over substantially older employees.”
Boylan then itemized a list of hires the defendants made the same month he was let go, who were “substantially younger” than him.
In the complaint, the plaintiff wrote he was not:
terminated for any reasons related to his actual performance.
terminated from his employment for just cause under the terms of his employment agreement.
terminated for any reasons related to non-compliance with defendants’ policies or procedures.
“Defendants hired, retained, transferred and promoted substantially younger individuals into Plaintiff’s position (including assigning substantially younger individuals Plaintiff’s duties and responsibilities) and into open positions for which Coach Boylan was qualified and which were available,” according to the complaint.
The first cause of action claimed a violation of Ohio Revised Code § 4112. Among other things, the plaintiff alleged that:
“Defendants unlawfully discriminated against Coach Boylan because of his age with respect to the terms and conditions of his employment by discriminatorily refusing to employ, hire, extend or renew his employment, by refusing to transfer or retain him into other positions for which he was qualified, by denying him equal privileges and opportunities of employment, and by terminating his employment in violation of Ohio Revised Code §§ 4112.02 and 4112.99.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Coach Boylan suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages, including, but not limited to, back pay, front pay, past and future economic losses, pain and suffering, and the loss of salary, benefits and other privileges and conditions of employment.
“Defendants’ discriminatory actions against Coach Boylan in violation of Ohio Revised Code § 4112.02 were willful, reckless, and/or malicious, done in conscious disregard of Coach Boylan’s rights and render Defendants liable for past and future economic and non-economic compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs, expert fees, and any equitable relief that this Court deems appropriate.”
The second cause of action centered on “Aiding and Abetting Discrimination.” The plaintiff alleged that:
“Defendants aided and abetted each other in discriminating against Coach Boylan in violation of O.R.C. § 4112.02(J) because of his age.
“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ aiding and abetting discrimination in violation of O.R.C. § 4112.02(J), Coach Boylan suffered and will continue to suffer economic and non-economic damages, including, but not limited to, back pay, front pay, past and future economic losses, pain and suffering, and the loss of salary, benefits and other privileges and conditions of employment.
“Defendants’ discriminatory actions against Coach Boylan in violation of O.R.C. §§4112.02(J) and 4112.99 were willful, reckless, and/or malicious, done in conscious disregard of Coach Boylan’s rights and render Defendants liable for past and future economic and non-economic compensatory and punitive damages pursuant to Ohio Revised Code § 4112.99, as well as attorneys’ fees, costs, expert fees, and any equitable relief that this Court deems appropriate.”
Boylan is seeking “an amount in excess of $25,000 to fully, fairly and justly compensate him for injury, damage and loss, and respectfully prays that this court enter judgment in his favor and award him past and future economic and non-economic compensatory damages, fringe benefits, consequential damages, special damages, incidental damages, punitive damages, liquidated damages, interest, attorneys’ fees, expert fees, all fees and costs, and any additional equitable relief that the court deems appropriate.”
The Cavaliers have responded to the lawsuit by telling the media the lawsuit was “frivolous” and a “shameless cash grab.” In a statement, the team said: “The outrageousness of Mr. Boylan’s claim of ‘age discrimination’ due to the Cavaliers not exercising an option in a contract both parties signed cannot be overstated. The only fact that exceeds the egregiousness of Mr. Boylan’s claim that he is owed any further compensation from the Cavaliers is the extortion attempts by [Boylan attorney] Christopher Thorman demanding $6.174 million dollars when, had the one-year option been exercised for the 2018-2019 season, Mr. Boylan would have been paid $500,000 for his services.”
James Boylan v. Cavaliers Holdings, LLC, et al.; Court of Common Pleas (Cuyahoga County, Ohio) ; CV 18 906345; 11/1/18
