PonyFans.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4840196

Ok, a couple of questions for the lawyers. I know Texas law is a little different than other states, but I don't get what either side is arguing here.

First--Tech is arguing sovereign immunity. So that is where you can't sue the government for damages, right? But that doesn't mean that you can't sue the government for money that they are contractually obligated to pay you, does it? In other words, if I have a heart attack because I got a bad batch of swine flu vaccine from the government, I can't sue them for $200 mil, but if I am under contract with the government to do $50,000 of work, they can't just not pay me without cause and claim sovereign immunity, can they? (I suppose I get that it would be worth a shot to see if they can get the whole thing thrown out under sovereign immunity, but their real argument should be that they were in their rights to terminate Leach with cause, shouldn't it?)

Second--Leach is arguing for whistle blower protection? This makes no sense at all. Do you get paid for being a whistle blower? I would guess that you would get some of what you were under contract for, but he was the one who had the whistle blown on him. I would think James could get whistle blower protection if they tried to kick him off the team and take away his scholarship, but Leach? I thought whistle blower protection meant that if your company was doing something nefarious, you could go to the FBI and turn them in without fear of financial/professional repercussions for bringing it to light. Tech's actions were all pretty out in the open, and Leach was already fired. How does that make him a whistle blower? I could see a suit for breach of contract and trying to claim he was fired without cause, but a whistle blower? I don't see how that makes any sense.

Leach is done as far as coaching a major D1 school. He will probably lose in court, and has already lost in the public mind.

Don't have much time to respond-but this 2007 Texas Supreme Court case dooms Leach's breach of contract claim based on sovereign immunity. The argument usually is that the state entity waived sovereign immunity by conduct by signing a contract-but the Texas Supreme Court rejected that theory although Hecht filed a dissenting argument. It seems counterintuitive but that's the law. The tort claims are a little more complicated. The Tech Scout message board has a lot more on this.

http://texas-opinions.blogspot.com/2007 ... cided.html

Huh. That's interesting. I guess that makes sense why they would try to go that route then. Thanks.

Phxfan wrote:Leach is done as far as coaching a major D1 school. He will probably lose in court, and has already lost in the public mind.

Agree. Some may remember Pepper Rodgers as a QB/PK (1953 Sugar Bowl MVP in a National Championship year) and later coach at Georgia Tech. My memory is that he was fired and sued the school over a contract point - nothing so disputable as in the Leach affair. Rodgers may have won that point but he never coached a big college team again.

My view was that he was a good coach and a man for the times, the very changed times after the integration of southern college teams. But he did not fit the profile of the Big Bucks alumni in the west stands at Grant Field.