Former Kentucky men’s basketball coach Billy Gillispie sued the school Wednesday, seeking at least $6 million he says he is owed on his deal for being fired without cause. The suit was filed in federal court in Texas (most likely because the contract was entered into there).
Gillispie’s attorney said that Gillispie had a contract with the University of Kentucky despite public misconception over the existence of a contract. “They drafted it. He signed it. They signed it and their board approved it. Whether you’re in Kentucky or Texas, a deal is a deal” commented the lawyer.
In the lawsuit, Gillispie claims that he and the university operated under a signed memorandum of understanding because he hadn’t signed a formal contract in his two years and that the university breached that agreement and committed fraud because it never intended to honor the agreement.
The suit asks for $1.5 million a year for four of the five years left on the deal as well as punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, court costs and interest.
“Rather than honor its written, signed deal with coach Gillispie, defendant prefers instead to pretend as though no deal was ever reached,” the lawsuit says. “Unfortunately for defendant, its make-believe world is just that.”
The lawsuit offers offer several examples where a memorandum of understanding was cited as a contractual agreement between the two parties including a July 2007 letter where the university told Gillispie he could not enter into an endorsement agreement with a Houston-based company because of the language in the memorandum of understanding.
In my experience, the fraud count will be hard to prove unless Gillispie has some sort of smoking gun – an email or letter revealing UK’s true intention. But the memorandum of understanding sounds like it is very likely to be accepted as a binding contract, especially if UK was holding Gillispie to its terms. It can’t be a contract for some purposes (UK’s) and not for others (Gillispie’s).
