DMN and NCAA calls us cheaters

by **ponyboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 8:58 am

Never mind. Blog beat me to it.

by **McClown27** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:32 am

I believe that an employer should have wide leverage to fire employees. SMU is in Texas, and not France. Nothing like liberal lawyers constructing a way to raise the cost of society by their frivolous lawsuits.

Poor Jimmy Tubbs and his $600,000!! :cry:

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:36 am

well guess what-that is why you sign a contract so some idiot can't fire you for pretextual or unreasonable reason and must establish just cause. Otherwise, in Texas generally an employer can fire an employee for any reason. Why don't you make a suggestion to Orsini to just forego all that contractual lawyer mumbo-jumbo talk next time.

by **White Helmet** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:44 am

Damn right to work state

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:51 am

signing a contract takes the relationship out of the "at-will" category so that in the case of an enforceable, non-illusory contract you must establish "just cause"-yes even in the Great State of Texas.

by **ponyboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 9:52 am

Again, the contract was for money not work. He got paid the money, therefore no breach. There may be other unlawful termination consequences but I can't see a breach of contract claim.

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:00 am

I'm sure I've tried a whole hell of a lot more employment law cases than you. Firing Tubbs without just cause or for no reason in a "right to work state" as several posters stated above would have been a breach of contract. So they entered into a settlement and release -I gurantee you they just didn't pay off his contract because then he could have turned around and sued SMU for defamation et al and couldn't impose the inevitable confidentiality clause.

by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:01 am

A contract means it is a contract. You would only need to show "just cause" if there is a clause in the contract that says "just cause."

The terms are whatever the contract says. And again, what are the damages when Tubbs was given the monetary compensation promised?

by **ponyboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:04 am

Stallion wrote:I'm sure I've tried a whole hell of a lot more employment law cases than you. .

How amazing, then, that you can't get this simple point right. There was no breach of contract. Thanks for playing.

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:05 am

so you think SMU didn't get a release of any claims that Tubbs may have against SMU for his payoff. Boy if true SMU lawyers are a lot dumber than I thought-but they aren't because that's not how these things are handled. Again I guarantee you that he wasn't just paid his contract. That would be a true sign of stupidity and we could expect Tubbs lawsuit any day now.,

by **ponyboy** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:19 am

Stallion wrote:Again I guarantee you that he wasn't just paid his contract.

That's assuming he was only fired for burgers, cheer and practice time. If there are significant NCAA violations here, as SMU is alleging, he might be feeling damned happy to get his $600k.

by **Stallion** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:26 am

that didn't stop SMU from paying off Bobby Collins or A&M paying off Jackie Sherrill. 98% of all terminations are handled by getting the coach to release the university and sign a confidentiality and secrecy clause in order to receieve their agreed payout. That's how its done. If you don't see that expect a lawsuit. The potential damages of a defamation lawsuit in this case could cost SMU a judgment in the Millions of dollars. I'd say at least 10 years times his potential earnings or about 6 Million plus punitive damages.

by **jtstang** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:35 am

SMU Football Blog wrote:The terms are whatever the contract says. And again, what are the damages when Tubbs was given the monetary compensation promised?

Doubt this will ever come to pass, but there could be other incidental contract or tort damages beyond the value of his contract. As an example if SMU's actions in firing Tubbs without stating a reason or allowing a false reason to perpetuate adversely affected his ability to find future employment, it could be actionable in damages. That's exactly why Stallion is right about getting a realease and settlement agreement. These unwashed laypersons who think we shook Tubbs' hand, handed him a paycheck and showed him the door are just wrong.

by **ponydawg** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:36 am

Jim Adler - The Tough Smart Lawyer

by **SMU Football Blog** » Fri Apr 21, 2006 10:42 am

For the record, I believe many of them are "washed" as opposed to "unwashed."

And was that another reference to laundry detergent?

DMN and NCAA calls us cheaters

Who is online