Dawkins sues Stanford - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dawkins sues Stanford (/thread-13704.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Dawkins sues Stanford (/thread-13704.html)
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - CTcard - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 01:14 PM)Goose link Wrote:Clearly Dawkins is saying that he believes that was the agreement.
...
So it is clear that Dawkins is saying the mitigation clause was waived, in which case the structure of the subsequent employment contract wouldn't matter to Dawkins. There are other good reasons that Dawkins may have accepted a back-loaded contract.
For the most part, this was rather BC's point (I think).
Dawkins is clearly now saying that Stanford agreed to waive the mitigation clause.
The question, presumably, is whether that is true.
One piece of evidence that it might not be true is if it was on Dawkins initiative that he and UCF backloaded his contract so severely. That might be an indication that he was trying to avoid losing much due to the mitigation if he thought it was still active. Of course there might be other reasons as well, as you note, and presumably that is why
Quote:Stanford said it attempted to ascertain information about the motivation behind the structure of Dawkins contract with UCF.
In addition, as also pointed out, one wonders what Stanford's motivation would be to both pay Dawkins the full value of his remaining contract and drop the mitigation clause. One reason might be that Dawkins has some kind of dirt on Stanford, which I think is the same thing as your comment that "it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford".
Another might be that Stanford didn't do so.Â
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - Goose - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 03:12 PM)CTcard link Wrote:In addition, as also pointed out, one wonders what Stanford's motivation would be to both pay Dawkins the full value of his remaining contract and drop the mitigation clause. One reason might be that Dawkins has some kind of dirt on Stanford, which I think is the same thing as your comment that "it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford".It could be that Dawkins had some kind of dirt. However, if that were true, it would be in Stanford's interest to keep Dawkins happy. They did not, so I doubt that could be the reason. It also could be that the Athletic Department just wanted a clean break with no acrimony or "bad blood" existing, especially in public. We needed to hire a new coach. Remember, Dawkins could just sit on his rear and collect the money, so the powers-that-be may have decided it was a sunk cost and were willing to just let it go. Additionally, it could be that Dawkins didn't know this clause would be waived until the very last minute, and so structured the UCF contract as if it weren't going to happen. When it did happen, it was too late/too time consuming to re-do the contract.
Quote:Another might be that Stanford didn't do so.True. But I find it real hard to believe that Dawkins would claim they had unless he had some kind of evidence that he could present to the court. I am sure his lawyers would tell him that a purported verbal agreement with no witnesses wouldn't have any traction. I would not be surprised that "upon further review" the Stanford powers-that-be decided to not honor an agreement that Dawkins at least believed that he had. We have a new coach. Ripples now matter less. I could be totally wrong here, but given a choice between believing Dawkins is acting irrationally or that Stanford is trying to pull a fast one, I would pick the latter. It is also possible there is just genuine confusion in both camps. It certainly isn't a good look publicity wise for Stanford. If Stanford wins, nobody will remember. If Stanford loses, it won't make us look very good.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - oldalum - 04-20-2017
the only sure winners are the lawyers on both sides. Which is ironic, since they collectively created this situation by not adequately anticipating it in writing in advance. But, that is the nature of the legal profession. Twas ever thus (Jarndyce v. Jarndyce)
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - BostonCard - 04-20-2017
Quote:True. But I find it real hard to believe that Dawkins would claim they had unless he had some kind of evidence that he could present to the court. I am sure his lawyers would tell him that a purported verbal agreement with no witnesses wouldn't have any traction. I would not be surprised that "upon further review" the Stanford powers-that-be decided to not honor an agreement that Dawkins at least believed that he had. We have a new coach. Ripples now matter less. I could be totally wrong here, but given a choice between believing Dawkins is acting irrationally or that Stanford is trying to pull a fast one, I would pick the latter. It is also possible there is just genuine confusion in both camps. It certainly isn't a good look publicity wise for Stanford. If Stanford wins, nobody will remember. If Stanford loses, it won't make us look very good.
You never know. It may be that the whole affair will be settled. Since Dawkins backloaded his contract, it may well be that the difference they are arguing over is fairly small (on a relative basis, it almost certainly is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a lot for a lot of people). As Terry noted, the lawsuit is asking for punitive damages that would require "tortious ingredients" above and beyond breach of contract. So either Stanford did something really bad, or Dawkins is just filing a headline grabbing suit that is unsupported by the facts. Could be he is fishing for a settlement.
BC
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - Goose - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 04:19 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:You never know. It may be that the whole affair will be settled. Since Dawkins backloaded his contract, it may well be that the difference they are arguing over is fairly small (on a relative basis, it almost certainly is in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is a lot for a lot of people). As Terry noted, the lawsuit is asking for punitive damages that would require "tortious ingredients" above and beyond breach of contract. So either Stanford did something really bad, or Dawkins is just filing a headline grabbing suit that is unsupported by the facts. Could be he is fishing for a settlement.Yes, it does seem we are talking about the kind of money Lawyers eat up in a few months at most. That fact, and the punitive damages, make me wonder if Dawkins is just mad, and it is not about the money. Or maybe he just wants a settlement. What I don't get is why Stanford is taking the publicity hit over a relatively small sum. All Dawkins had to do to make them pay it in total is just not work, which he certainly could have chosen to do. It is not like Stanford should have expected not to pay it all.
BC
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - Stymie - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 02:20 PM)bl82 link Wrote:Funny, I was about to post the same thing. I expect the number of Stanford PoliSci majors who never applied to law school is a surprisingly small number, but this a club I am happy to belong to.
I didn't take a single PoliSci course. English major with Honors and a "Rare" LSAT score. IIRC, which I do. Can I join the club? (insert smiley face emoji here--I'm tech useless....).
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - jacketree - 04-20-2017
Goose gets to the heart of it, at least for us feeble non-attorneys:
Quote:Either Stanford waived the mitigation clause or they didn't. If the termination agreement says that they will pay 2.3 million and doesn't refer to the mitigation clause, I think Stanford has a problem here, no matter what the original contract said.
If a non-feeble attorney is wondering what the "tortious ingredients" are, there's trouble in Litigationville.
Seems Dawkins is accusing Stanford of acting in bad faith. He and his attorney want their money AND want to set an example. Based on the Merc snippets, can't say I blame them. Assuming a written settlement agreement (and what morons would not have that in writing?) supersedes the mitigation clause with a final payment and release of all claims by all parties, Stanford can't just then go back and focus on the original contract and its mitigation clause because they take umbrage that Dawkins' new contract is back-loaded, which by the way is very common for fired coaches. Experienced, recently fired coaches come at a steep discount because prior employers are picking up the tab for awhile. Al Groh was essentially free to GT for his failed stint at DC there because Hooville was on the hook for millions; but you do tend to get what you paid for.
None of Stanford's business once Dawkins is released. Honor the agreement.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - oldalum - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 08:07 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Honor the agreement.That could apply to either side; we won't know which until more facts come out, including the wording of the agreement itself.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - BostonCard - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 08:07 PM)jacketree link Wrote:Assuming a written settlement agreement (and what morons would not have that in writing?) supersedes the mitigation clause with a final payment and release of all claims by all parties, Stanford can't just then go back and focus on the original contract and its mitigation clause because they take umbrage that Dawkins' new contract is back-loaded, which by the way is very common for fired coaches.
If Stanford had waived the mitigation clause and would be paying the money regardless, why would it take umbrage at the back-loaded contract. The only reason that a backloaded contract would bother Stanford is if it meant that Stanford was paying more than it reasonably should have, but that would only be the case if the mitigation clause were still in force. Otherwise, it makes no difference to Stanford if Dawkins coaches for millions of dollars (and collects Stanford's termination settlement) or sits on his butt collecting his Stanford termination settlement or coaches for peanuts because he knows he's still getting paid by Stanford.
The only thing I can think of is that when Stanford saw Dawkins back-loaded contract, that it insisted on paying him based on the Dawkins average annual salaries with UCF rather than the actual salary for the first two years, as is becoming the practice (per oldalum on this thread). That might make more sense if Dawkins retorts that the settlement did not include an average salary clause, and that is the source of the disagreement.
BC
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - jacketree - 04-20-2017
Having dealt with "corporate" Stanford numerous times over the years on behalf of public and private clients, and my own firm, I have found they often take umbrage when they really shouldn't.
If the mitigation clause was waved and Dawkins hasn't disparaged his former employer, he should have been paid $2.3 million. Dawkins could be slumming somewhere in the Caribbean for all that would matter.
The damage claim said the mitigation clause was waived and I think it gives a date. I mean they could be making shit up, but that's not much of a strategy.
Something is definitely off with Stanford's reaction if there is indeed such a final settlement. There are $2.3 million in loose change under the couch cushions. Here you go; goodbye. So we'll see.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - oldalum - 04-20-2017
(04-20-2017, 08:41 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:as is becoming the practice (per oldalum on this thread).That was actually StanfordMatt; I'm not that knowledgeable! I just said that that is what Stanford should have done.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - winflop - 04-21-2017
(04-20-2017, 09:53 PM)oldalum link Wrote:[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=16802.msg192078#msg192078 date=1492746075]
what Stanford should have done.
What Stanford (Muir) should have done is fired him 3 years earlier. I think this is a pretty simple matter of looking at the contract and the settlement agreement. I'm really surprised it's gone this far.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - OutsiderFan - 04-21-2017
Without getting into all the details an nuances, does this accurately sum up the situation here?
1. Dawkins believes Stanford owes him more money for firing him than Stanford has said it will pay.
2. Stanford is trying to use Dawkins' new job (compensation) as the basis for not paying Dawkins the additional amount he feels he deserves.
3. The $5MM damages sought are pretty much a negotiating ploy to get Stanford to settle the case for what Dawkins believes he is rightfully owed, to give Stanford a way out to feel like it "won" by not having to pay the $5MM in damages.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - M T - 04-21-2017
I think the word "believes" is too strong. "taking the position that" would be better. (But more generally, I don't agree that OutsiderFan sums up the situation. There is too much we don't know.)
If there were a separate written termination agreement, wouldn't one side or the other have made it part of the claims of the suit. (I guess there could be a do-not-disclose clause that prevents that.)
The bit about it taking too long for Dawkins to renegotiate his contract with his new employer seems silly. He got his new job in 9 days. Either he had been in negotiation quite a while, while still a Stanford employee, or he pulled the trigger on the new contract fairly quickly (visit, interview, negotiation, ...)
Has anyone thought that maybe he wanted out of his Stanford contract and coached/behaved in a manner to get himself fired without cause? All he had to do was have another bad season and he'd be on this course he's on now.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - CornFed - 04-21-2017
Cases like this are the reasons legal documents become such monsterous and tedious tomes. Trying to litigate, essentially, every contingency in advance adds frivolous and over-wrought language to legal documents everywhere. It also makes the frictional transaction costs astronomical. It is a trade-off, to some extent, whether to suffer the insane costs up front or to simply expect that there will be inevitable difficulties in executing the principles that have been stipulated between the parties.
These types of issues ought to be nearly boilerplate once the parties have reached agreement at the time of drafting. The ambiguity that has arisen in this case would seem to be caused by sloppy drafting or disingenuous application of the contract's guidance. If it is the former, the dispute could go on for quite a while. If it settles quickly, I would suspect the latter.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - OutsiderFan - 04-21-2017
Is there any reason why coaches don't have a union that collectively bargains standard terms of contracts, like the players do in the major sports leagues?Â
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - Goose - 04-21-2017
(04-21-2017, 08:56 AM)CornFed link Wrote:The ambiguity that has arisen in this case would seem to be caused by sloppy drafting or disingenuous application of the contract's guidance. If it is the former, the dispute could go on for quite a while. If it settles quickly, I would suspect the latter.CornFed, I suspect the "ambiguity" is due to negotiations/agreements/actions taken outside of and subsequent to the employment contract being signed between Dawkins and Stanford. The contract as such is probably well crafted. All it takes is some administrator sending a not so well crafted e-mail saying something like "don't worry about the mitigation clause" to create reasonable basis for a lawsuit. I don't know that this happened, but something like that (or worse, more specific statements from Stanford in the form of a termination agreement) must have happened or Dawkins has no case at all.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - CornFed - 04-21-2017
(04-21-2017, 09:28 AM)Goose link Wrote:[quote author=CornFed link=topic=16802.msg192097#msg192097 date=1492790182]CornFed, I suspect the "ambiguity" is due to negotiations/agreements/actions taken outside of and subsequent to the employment contract being signed between Dawkins and Stanford. The contract as such is probably well crafted. All it takes is some administrator sending a not so well crafted e-mail saying something like "don't worry about the mitigation clause" to create reasonable basis for a lawsuit. I don't know that this happened, but something like that (or worse, more specific statements from Stanford in the form of a termination agreement) must have happened or Dawkins has no case at all.
The ambiguity that has arisen in this case would seem to be caused by sloppy drafting or disingenuous application of the contract's guidance. If it is the former, the dispute could go on for quite a while. If it settles quickly, I would suspect the latter.
[/quote]
If what you say is so, then I would say that my reference to "the latter" would be relavent; unless the difficulty is proving that such a statement were made.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - CompSci87 - 04-21-2017
There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance âagreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.
Re: Dawkins sues Stanford - BostonCard - 04-21-2017
(04-21-2017, 10:22 AM)CompSci87 link Wrote:There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance âagreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.
Yeah, cause it's just like an internet message board to withhold judgment till the facts come in...