[fullmetal]

I find it hard to believe that Stanford would knowingly risk a litigious conflict with an ex-coach by deliberately screwing him out of $2.3mil.  The two alternative explanations left are that 1) it's a matter of interpretation (e.g. "without cause"...really?) or 2) Dawkins is being ridiculous.  If Stanford really does owe Dawkins the money, then fine, pay up, and count it as a strike against Muir.  If Stanford doesn't...then Dawkins owes Stanford all costs associated with this suit.  I'm sure Dawkins easily has the cash from his current and former employers to cover the bill.

[fullmetal]

I find it hard to believe that Stanford would knowingly risk a litigious conflict with an ex-coach by deliberately screwing him out of $2.3mil.  The two alternative explanations left are that 1) it's a matter of interpretation (e.g. "without cause"...really?) or 2) Dawkins is being ridiculous.  If Stanford really does owe Dawkins the money, then fine, pay up, and count it as a strike against Muir.  If Stanford doesn't...then Dawkins owes Stanford all costs associated with this suit.  I'm sure Dawkins easily has the cash from his current and former employers to cover the bill.

[BobK]

I don't believe Muir finalizes contracts.    Or has final approval.  Think Board of Trustees

[BobK]

I don't believe Muir finalizes contracts.    Or has final approval.  Think Board of Trustees

[CTcard]

I find it hard to believe that Stanford would knowingly risk a litigious conflict with an ex-coach by deliberately screwing him out of $2.3mil.  The two alternative explanations left are that 1) it's a matter of interpretation (e.g. "without cause"...really?) or 2) Dawkins is being ridiculous. 

From the articles it seems pretty clear it is a matter of interpretation, but nothing to do with cause: not winning enough games is not cause with respect to his contract.

While the articles are only based upon what Dawkins' lawyer has submitted, it seems fairly clear what happened. In order to wrap things up quickly, Dawkins and Stanford agreed to settle outstanding issues on the contract with Stanford paying $2.3 million and Dawkins dropping further claims. The interpretation question is apparently whether that deal included waiving the mitigation clause in the contract - i.e. if payments from the next employer would reduce what Stanford owed Dawkins (a fairly standard line in coach contracts). It appears that Dawkins thought the deal meant Stanford would drop the mitigation clause and Stanford thought it was still active.

The only thing that sounds prima facie ridiculous to me is the claim by Dawkins for “punitive and exemplary damages of not less than $5 million for the tortious ingredients of its [Stanford's] wrongdoing” - but I guess such excessive claims are the way of lawsuits.

With this, Dawkins has now broken the tie with Buddy as the Stanford coach I hate the most since becoming a Cardinal. 

Interesting.

I understand it's completely subjective and you are free to hate the ex-coaches you wish to.

I found nothing to hate in Buddy, at least after he left.
He was in over his head and not an adequate coach for Stanford, but as a guy he seemed eager, affable and bought into what Stanford wanted to be with respect to college athletics. Overall he reminded me of something like a Saint Bernard pupply: kind of cute but a little annoying when he keeps jumping on you and definitely not ready to go save people in the mountains.
I am happy he found a good home at Dartmouth.

[CTcard]

I find it hard to believe that Stanford would knowingly risk a litigious conflict with an ex-coach by deliberately screwing him out of $2.3mil.  The two alternative explanations left are that 1) it's a matter of interpretation (e.g. "without cause"...really?) or 2) Dawkins is being ridiculous. 

From the articles it seems pretty clear it is a matter of interpretation, but nothing to do with cause: not winning enough games is not cause with respect to his contract.

While the articles are only based upon what Dawkins' lawyer has submitted, it seems fairly clear what happened. In order to wrap things up quickly, Dawkins and Stanford agreed to settle outstanding issues on the contract with Stanford paying $2.3 million and Dawkins dropping further claims. The interpretation question is apparently whether that deal included waiving the mitigation clause in the contract - i.e. if payments from the next employer would reduce what Stanford owed Dawkins (a fairly standard line in coach contracts). It appears that Dawkins thought the deal meant Stanford would drop the mitigation clause and Stanford thought it was still active.

The only thing that sounds prima facie ridiculous to me is the claim by Dawkins for “punitive and exemplary damages of not less than $5 million for the tortious ingredients of its [Stanford's] wrongdoing” - but I guess such excessive claims are the way of lawsuits.

With this, Dawkins has now broken the tie with Buddy as the Stanford coach I hate the most since becoming a Cardinal. 

Interesting.

I understand it's completely subjective and you are free to hate the ex-coaches you wish to.

I found nothing to hate in Buddy, at least after he left.
He was in over his head and not an adequate coach for Stanford, but as a guy he seemed eager, affable and bought into what Stanford wanted to be with respect to college athletics. Overall he reminded me of something like a Saint Bernard pupply: kind of cute but a little annoying when he keeps jumping on you and definitely not ready to go save people in the mountains.
I am happy he found a good home at Dartmouth.

[fullmetal]

Buddy -- I didn't really respect.
WHarris -- I hated/despised, mostly for the smoking ruins he made of the team.
Dawkins -- Seems to have requested large punitive damages in order to bring Stanford to the table.  I hope this gets settled out of court quickly and amicably.

[fullmetal]

Buddy -- I didn't really respect.
WHarris -- I hated/despised, mostly for the smoking ruins he made of the team.
Dawkins -- Seems to have requested large punitive damages in order to bring Stanford to the table.  I hope this gets settled out of court quickly and amicably.

[jacketree]

I'm sure that contract and final settlement agreement are interesting reading. Not. But lawyers seem adverse to plain language for some reason, based on the contracts I see daily. (One example: we are being hired to update some five year old plans we did for a scheduled maintenance. $5,000 in fee. Not a big deal and no real risk involved for anyone. The 50 page agreement would cost more than $5,000 in legal review and negotiation to not have the dark cloud of open ended indemnity hanging over our heads.)

Generally final settlement does just that. Here's some money; you go your way, I'll go mine, and no need to worry about Christmas cards moving forward.

If Stanford reneged on a clear cut agreement, JD is getting the money he is owed. The punitive and exemplary damages are to make sure he gets at least what he is owed should there be a settlement.

This will all eventually be public. Or not.

[jacketree]

I'm sure that contract and final settlement agreement are interesting reading. Not. But lawyers seem adverse to plain language for some reason, based on the contracts I see daily. (One example: we are being hired to update some five year old plans we did for a scheduled maintenance. $5,000 in fee. Not a big deal and no real risk involved for anyone. The 50 page agreement would cost more than $5,000 in legal review and negotiation to not have the dark cloud of open ended indemnity hanging over our heads.)

Generally final settlement does just that. Here's some money; you go your way, I'll go mine, and no need to worry about Christmas cards moving forward.

If Stanford reneged on a clear cut agreement, JD is getting the money he is owed. The punitive and exemplary damages are to make sure he gets at least what he is owed should there be a settlement.

This will all eventually be public. Or not.

[donkey687]

If WHarris was a respectable coach and treated his players with respect and got to bowl games every 4 years, we wouldn't have gotten Harbaugh and we wouldn't have Shaw today. Thank god that WHarris was so terrible. He really begot it all.

[donkey687]

If WHarris was a respectable coach and treated his players with respect and got to bowl games every 4 years, we wouldn't have gotten Harbaugh and we wouldn't have Shaw today. Thank god that WHarris was so terrible. He really begot it all.

[BobK]

Nailed it donkey.  And a step further if the Sanchez interception had been called correctly we go to a Bowl game and keep Harris. 

Best bad call ever. 

[BobK]

Nailed it donkey.  And a step further if the Sanchez interception had been called correctly we go to a Bowl game and keep Harris. 

Best bad call ever. 

[pefloresjr]

I haven't read any of the documents from this case so this post, like most of this thread, is largely speculative.  A few things caught my attention. 

The first thing is the timing of all of this.  Dawkins was fired on March 14, 2016.  I don't know how long it took to finalize the 2.3 million release of all claims but it seems likely it was done pretty quickly.  In that case, the payment would probably have been due by at least last summer.  Dawkins was hired by UCF on March 22, 2016, just over a week after he was fired.  Based on that date, both parties probably knew the extent to which the 2.3 million could have been offset by Dawkins' new salary.  It is possible Dawkins and Stanford spent nearly a year trying to resolve this issue without litigation, but the difference in their interpretation or understanding of the deal should have been evident fairly quickly.  It makes me wonder why it took this long to get lawyers involved. 

The other thing that jumps out to me is the claim for 5 million in tort/punitive damages.  I'm an attorney so I understand and am not offended by positional bargaining and litigation.  However, there are a lot of lawyers out there with a lot of different styles and the best I have known and faced don't make those kind of claims.  Dawkins also didn't seem like the type of personality to hire a scorched earth lawyer.  It raises some red flags for me but I don't have enough information to know if this should raise doubts about the claim itself, about the advice Dawkins is getting, or about whether Stanford is trying to rip Dawkins off. 

The documents should be revealed soon so we will be able to form better opinions after that.  Until then, anything stated and put out by either side should be viewed with distrust and doubt.  Just my two cents.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

I haven't read any of the documents from this case so this post, like most of this thread, is largely speculative.  A few things caught my attention. 

The first thing is the timing of all of this.  Dawkins was fired on March 14, 2016.  I don't know how long it took to finalize the 2.3 million release of all claims but it seems likely it was done pretty quickly.  In that case, the payment would probably have been due by at least last summer.  Dawkins was hired by UCF on March 22, 2016, just over a week after he was fired.  Based on that date, both parties probably knew the extent to which the 2.3 million could have been offset by Dawkins' new salary.  It is possible Dawkins and Stanford spent nearly a year trying to resolve this issue without litigation, but the difference in their interpretation or understanding of the deal should have been evident fairly quickly.  It makes me wonder why it took this long to get lawyers involved. 

The other thing that jumps out to me is the claim for 5 million in tort/punitive damages.  I'm an attorney so I understand and am not offended by positional bargaining and litigation.  However, there are a lot of lawyers out there with a lot of different styles and the best I have known and faced don't make those kind of claims.  Dawkins also didn't seem like the type of personality to hire a scorched earth lawyer.  It raises some red flags for me but I don't have enough information to know if this should raise doubts about the claim itself, about the advice Dawkins is getting, or about whether Stanford is trying to rip Dawkins off. 

The documents should be revealed soon so we will be able to form better opinions after that.  Until then, anything stated and put out by either side should be viewed with distrust and doubt.  Just my two cents.

Cheers,
Pete F.

[winflop]

I haven't read any of the documents from this case so this post, like most of this thread, is largely speculative.  A few things caught my attention. 

The first thing is the timing of all of this.  Dawkins was fired on March 14, 2016.  I don't know how long it took to finalize the 2.3 million release of all claims but it seems likely it was done pretty quickly.  In that case, the payment would probably have been due by at least last summer.  Dawkins was hired by UCF on March 22, 2016, just over a week after he was fired.  Based on that date, both parties probably knew the extent to which the 2.3 million could have been offset by Dawkins' new salary.  It is possible Dawkins and Stanford spent nearly a year trying to resolve this issue without litigation, but the difference in their interpretation or understanding of the deal should have been evident fairly quickly.  It makes me wonder why it took this long to get lawyers involved. 

The other thing that jumps out to me is the claim for 5 million in tort/punitive damages.  I'm an attorney so I understand and am not offended by positional bargaining and litigation.  However, there are a lot of lawyers out there with a lot of different styles and the best I have known and faced don't make those kind of claims.  Dawkins also didn't seem like the type of personality to hire a scorched earth lawyer.  It raises some red flags for me but I don't have enough information to know if this should raise doubts about the claim itself, about the advice Dawkins is getting, or about whether Stanford is trying to rip Dawkins off. 

The documents should be revealed soon so we will be able to form better opinions after that.  Until then, anything stated and put out by either side should be viewed with distrust and doubt.  Just my two cents.

Cheers,
Pete F.

I'm thinking discussions were put on hold for the MBB season, postseason, and recruiting season and just resumed after LOIs were signed. Dawkins may not have wanted any distractions during that last 6-7 months.

[winflop]

I haven't read any of the documents from this case so this post, like most of this thread, is largely speculative.  A few things caught my attention. 

The first thing is the timing of all of this.  Dawkins was fired on March 14, 2016.  I don't know how long it took to finalize the 2.3 million release of all claims but it seems likely it was done pretty quickly.  In that case, the payment would probably have been due by at least last summer.  Dawkins was hired by UCF on March 22, 2016, just over a week after he was fired.  Based on that date, both parties probably knew the extent to which the 2.3 million could have been offset by Dawkins' new salary.  It is possible Dawkins and Stanford spent nearly a year trying to resolve this issue without litigation, but the difference in their interpretation or understanding of the deal should have been evident fairly quickly.  It makes me wonder why it took this long to get lawyers involved. 

The other thing that jumps out to me is the claim for 5 million in tort/punitive damages.  I'm an attorney so I understand and am not offended by positional bargaining and litigation.  However, there are a lot of lawyers out there with a lot of different styles and the best I have known and faced don't make those kind of claims.  Dawkins also didn't seem like the type of personality to hire a scorched earth lawyer.  It raises some red flags for me but I don't have enough information to know if this should raise doubts about the claim itself, about the advice Dawkins is getting, or about whether Stanford is trying to rip Dawkins off. 

The documents should be revealed soon so we will be able to form better opinions after that.  Until then, anything stated and put out by either side should be viewed with distrust and doubt.  Just my two cents.

Cheers,
Pete F.

I'm thinking discussions were put on hold for the MBB season, postseason, and recruiting season and just resumed after LOIs were signed. Dawkins may not have wanted any distractions during that last 6-7 months.

[BobK]

Some facts.  Note the back loaded contract for Dawkins this past season and next

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/20/st...r-lawsuit/

[BobK]

Some facts.  Note the back loaded contract for Dawkins this past season and next

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/20/st...r-lawsuit/

[Goose]

Some facts.  Note the back loaded contract for Dawkins this past season and next

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/20/st...r-lawsuit/

The back loaded contract could make lots of sense to Dawkins because he was going to get 2.3 million from Stanford to cover those years anyway and didn't need the money up front. Besides, I don't see how that is even relevant. 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. Now, if the termination agreement says less than that, but Dawkins says he had a verbal agreement to that effect, it could get messy. 

[Goose]

Some facts.  Note the back loaded contract for Dawkins this past season and next

http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/04/20/st...r-lawsuit/

The back loaded contract could make lots of sense to Dawkins because he was going to get 2.3 million from Stanford to cover those years anyway and didn't need the money up front. Besides, I don't see how that is even relevant. 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. Now, if the termination agreement says less than that, but Dawkins says he had a verbal agreement to that effect, it could get messy. 

[StanfordMatt]

As an employment lawyer, two things strike me as very strange in this case.

1) Unless Dawkins had some sort of dirt or potential claim against Stanford, it would make no sense for Stanford to waive its right to offset Dawkins' future earnings against its obligation to him.

2) At the time of negotiating his deal with UCF, Dawkins and his counsel clearly believed the mitigation/offset provision was still in place as evidenced by the fact that they backloaded his deal with UCF. If Stanford had waived the offset clause, Dawkins would have had no incentive to do this.

Reading between the lines, I wouldn't be surprised if one issue at play here is that Stanford believed Dawkins' breached the termination agreement by acting in bad faith (i.e. backloading his UCF deal) but that is pure speculation on my part until we see Stanford's reply (assuming no settlement).

Edit: One explanation as to why Stanford may have agreed to waive its right to offset is if Dawkins was actually owed more than the 2.3 million under the termination section of his contract - this doesn't appear to be the case though if Wilner's reporting is accurate that the 2.3 million represented the full value of the remaining two years of his Stanford deal.

[StanfordMatt]

As an employment lawyer, two things strike me as very strange in this case.

1) Unless Dawkins had some sort of dirt or potential claim against Stanford, it would make no sense for Stanford to waive its right to offset Dawkins' future earnings against its obligation to him.

2) At the time of negotiating his deal with UCF, Dawkins and his counsel clearly believed the mitigation/offset provision was still in place as evidenced by the fact that they backloaded his deal with UCF. If Stanford had waived the offset clause, Dawkins would have had no incentive to do this.

Reading between the lines, I wouldn't be surprised if one issue at play here is that Stanford believed Dawkins' breached the termination agreement by acting in bad faith (i.e. backloading his UCF deal) but that is pure speculation on my part until we see Stanford's reply (assuming no settlement).

Edit: One explanation as to why Stanford may have agreed to waive its right to offset is if Dawkins was actually owed more than the 2.3 million under the termination section of his contract - this doesn't appear to be the case though if Wilner's reporting is accurate that the 2.3 million represented the full value of the remaining two years of his Stanford deal.

[oldalum]

Wilner provides little insight so we must await more facts. My guess, from what little we know, is that Stanford's lawyers did not anticipate the strategy Dawkins appears to have used in backloading his pay, and now they are trying to make up for it. In retrospect, the offset should have been calculated based on average yearly pay over the lifetime of the contract. But another possible avoidance tactic would be to add incentive clauses that are virtually guaranteed to be reached, so that the base salary is kept low--to counter this, would need to hold Stanford's money until actual total payment is received for each year. Tough to anticipate everything, but the backloading seems fairly straightforward to anticipate (at least with my hindsight bias!).

[oldalum]

Wilner provides little insight so we must await more facts. My guess, from what little we know, is that Stanford's lawyers did not anticipate the strategy Dawkins appears to have used in backloading his pay, and now they are trying to make up for it. In retrospect, the offset should have been calculated based on average yearly pay over the lifetime of the contract. But another possible avoidance tactic would be to add incentive clauses that are virtually guaranteed to be reached, so that the base salary is kept low--to counter this, would need to hold Stanford's money until actual total payment is received for each year. Tough to anticipate everything, but the backloading seems fairly straightforward to anticipate (at least with my hindsight bias!).

[fullmetal]

Stanford also noted that Dawkins’ contract with UCF calls for his salary in the first two years — the years covered by his Stanford buyout — to be “a fraction of the amount of his annual salary in each of the next four years.”

In other words, Dawkins and his representatives structured a back-loaded deal with UCF that placed maximum financial liability on Stanford for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons.

That seems to be fishy at best and bad faith at worst.  Thanks Dawkins.  You are indeed on the crap list now.

[fullmetal]

Stanford also noted that Dawkins’ contract with UCF calls for his salary in the first two years — the years covered by his Stanford buyout — to be “a fraction of the amount of his annual salary in each of the next four years.”

In other words, Dawkins and his representatives structured a back-loaded deal with UCF that placed maximum financial liability on Stanford for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons.

That seems to be fishy at best and bad faith at worst.  Thanks Dawkins.  You are indeed on the crap list now.

[StanfordMatt]

Stanford also noted that Dawkins’ contract with UCF calls for his salary in the first two years — the years covered by his Stanford buyout — to be “a fraction of the amount of his annual salary in each of the next four years.”

In other words, Dawkins and his representatives structured a back-loaded deal with UCF that placed maximum financial liability on Stanford for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons.

That seems to be fishy at best and bad faith at worst.  Thanks Dawkins.  You are indeed on the crap list now.

Very common practice in the coaching industry. "Everyone does it" as the expression goes. The question is how far you can push the envelope without drawing the ire of the former employer. It's also the reason why a lot of schools have recently started putting clauses in coaching contracts that the offset will be calculated by averaging the coach's annual salaries with their new employer.

[StanfordMatt]

Stanford also noted that Dawkins’ contract with UCF calls for his salary in the first two years — the years covered by his Stanford buyout — to be “a fraction of the amount of his annual salary in each of the next four years.”

In other words, Dawkins and his representatives structured a back-loaded deal with UCF that placed maximum financial liability on Stanford for the 2016-17 and 2017-18 seasons.

That seems to be fishy at best and bad faith at worst.  Thanks Dawkins.  You are indeed on the crap list now.

Very common practice in the coaching industry. "Everyone does it" as the expression goes. The question is how far you can push the envelope without drawing the ire of the former employer. It's also the reason why a lot of schools have recently started putting clauses in coaching contracts that the offset will be calculated by averaging the coach's annual salaries with their new employer.

[BostonCard]

Good stuff by StanfordMatt.  I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.  If there was an offset clause, I don't hold it against Dawkins to negotiate a contract that maximized his compensation.  If UCF said to him we can give you a 6-year contract worth $6 million, why not backload the contract to get most of that 6 million in the last four years.  Any money UCF pays in the first two would just go to the school that just fired you.

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

[BostonCard]

Good stuff by StanfordMatt.  I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.  If there was an offset clause, I don't hold it against Dawkins to negotiate a contract that maximized his compensation.  If UCF said to him we can give you a 6-year contract worth $6 million, why not backload the contract to get most of that 6 million in the last four years.  Any money UCF pays in the first two would just go to the school that just fired you.

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

[terry]

Does anyone know what the "tortious ingredients" of Stanford's conduct supposedly were?

This sounds like a normal breach of contract case. Punitive damages aren't available for a breach of contract. So the punitive damages claim would rest on these "tortious ingredients." I'm curious (and skeptical) about the basis for that claim.

[terry]

Does anyone know what the "tortious ingredients" of Stanford's conduct supposedly were?

This sounds like a normal breach of contract case. Punitive damages aren't available for a breach of contract. So the punitive damages claim would rest on these "tortious ingredients." I'm curious (and skeptical) about the basis for that claim.

[Goose]

I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.
<snip>

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

Unless I misunderstand you, the "entire amount owed for the last two years" is exactly that. That is not "the entire amount owed less whatever somebody else will pay him". So that does on the face of it waive the offset clause, doesn't it? Clearly Dawkins is saying that he  believes that was the agreement. Here is the operative information from the Wilner article.

According to court documents, Dawkins agreed to release any claims (financial or otherwise) against Stanford upon his dismissal. In exchange, the university agreed to pay him $2.3 million and drop the mitigation provision in his contract — future earning would not be used to offset his lump-sum payment from Stanford.

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. One very good reason would be that UCF couldn't afford to pay him that much if they had to start right away. This way, they have two years to raise the money. That may have been OK with Dawkins because he gets more money, he just has to wait for it. There could be other reasons, like tax issues, that make it reasonable to Dawkins even with the mitigation clause not operative. As to why Stanford might have waived the clause, it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford. We don't know if it is true (yet), but it clear from the Wilner article that Dawkins asserts the mitigation clause was waived.

[Goose]

I agree that it would not make much sense for Dawkins to backload his UCF contract unless he believed that the offset clause was still in effect.
<snip>

That being said, if he structured his contract that way, then it is not consistent with a belief that Stanford agreed to pay the entire $2.3 million without an offset.

Also, agree with Matt that unless Dawkins had dirt on Stanford, there was no reason to waive the offset.  Stanford had already agreed to pay him the entire amount owed for his last two years, so what would they have traded the offset for?

BC

Unless I misunderstand you, the "entire amount owed for the last two years" is exactly that. That is not "the entire amount owed less whatever somebody else will pay him". So that does on the face of it waive the offset clause, doesn't it? Clearly Dawkins is saying that he  believes that was the agreement. Here is the operative information from the Wilner article.

According to court documents, Dawkins agreed to release any claims (financial or otherwise) against Stanford upon his dismissal. In exchange, the university agreed to pay him $2.3 million and drop the mitigation provision in his contract — future earning would not be used to offset his lump-sum payment from Stanford.

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. One very good reason would be that UCF couldn't afford to pay him that much if they had to start right away. This way, they have two years to raise the money. That may have been OK with Dawkins because he gets more money, he just has to wait for it. There could be other reasons, like tax issues, that make it reasonable to Dawkins even with the mitigation clause not operative. As to why Stanford might have waived the clause, it may have been in return for the "hold harmless" agreement from Dawkins that had value to Stanford. We don't know if it is true (yet), but it clear from the Wilner article that Dawkins asserts the mitigation clause was waived.

[Stymie]

This thread is yet another reason for me to thank the singularity for my decision to not apply to law school 49 years ago......

[Stymie]

This thread is yet another reason for me to thank the singularity for my decision to not apply to law school 49 years ago......

[bl82]

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.

[bl82]

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.