- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Legal question regarding Chavis...regarding termination
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:26 pm to GeeOH
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:26 pm to GeeOH
Not a lawyer, but I would think the minute Chavis gave notice...OR started working for A&M, he would be considered an employee of A&M and no longer an employee of LSU.
Basically, it doesn't matter when he signed his deal...or when he officially sent in his letter to the LSU administration if he was actively working for A&M prior to that. His communication to Les Miles is likely to be enough to date his resignation.
Basically, it doesn't matter when he signed his deal...or when he officially sent in his letter to the LSU administration if he was actively working for A&M prior to that. His communication to Les Miles is likely to be enough to date his resignation.
2
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:43 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Weren't we talking about not signing a DC right away so he can recruit during the no-contact period?
difference is, the one we were talking about was officially unemployed. Chavis's whole argument is that he was still employed by LSU.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:47 pm to Helmethead
quote:
Chavis's whole argument is that he was still employed by LSU.
I'm guessing his argument in court will be that he offered the 30 day notice but that LSU didn't accept it and made him leave right away. Therefore, he could go recruit for A&M.
He might also argue that he was "constructively fired" by LSU when Alleve requested the $400,000 back before he had a chance to offer his 30 days notice.
Again, it's all a crock of sh!t because the facts will show that he went to A&M AND STARTED WORKING FOR A&M right after the bowl game. LSU simply requested what was owed to them as a result of his voluntarily leaving. If he felt LSU was firing him, he should ahve responded with a letter notifying LSU that it was his understanding that he was still working for LSU, and then gave his 30 days notice. And, if he felt he was fired, then why did he feel it was necessary to send the 30 days notice?
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 2:53 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:48 pm to YouAre8Up
He wasn't employed! Does that help you out?
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:58 pm to moneyg
quote:
His communication to Les Miles is likely to be enough to date his resignation.
Nope....it's quite clear in the most remedial contracts that these things must be done in writing.
quote:
Basically, it doesn't matter when he signed his deal
This is true with our situation, but it would be a violation of NCAA rules for him to start recruiting and not be an employee.
Bottom line, he is such a complete douchebag and low class pricl to TRY and pull this situation off for money.
LSU was damn good to him and all he had to do is resign and move on! Now, if he can receive payment for that time period (a month) he losses $140k, and aTm will be guilty of recruiting violations.
There is no way out for them, either admit he was hired, or face sanctions. I would imagine it would be considered a serious violation.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 2:58 pm to moneyg
I don't think GG wanted me to take from the article the one strategic fact that I did take from it: Alleva won the Minnis lawsuit.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:07 pm to GeeOH
quote:
Nope....it's quite clear in the most remedial contracts that these things must be done in writing.
Except it is possible that Chavis breached an implied duty to seasonably tender written notice of termination. All depends on what the contract says, but one has a duty of good faith and fair dealing in Louisiana. One could argue quite persuasively that taking another job and not tendering a seasonable notice would violate that duty.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:21 pm to MMauler
quote:This is the biggest point to make. However, I don't see how / why he would be required to give 30 days notice with less than 30 days on his contract.
He might also argue that he was "constructively fired" by LSU when Alleve requested the $400,000 back before he had a chance to offer his 30 days notice.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:30 pm to therick711
quote:
All depends on what the contract says
I feel confident that the wording is clearly defined.
quote:
would violate that duty.
I would think wearing aTm clothes, on their jet, recruiting in their name would violate such terms.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:32 pm to MMauler
quote:
He might also argue that he was "constructively fired" by LSU when Alleve requested the $400,000 back before he had a chance to offer his 30 days notice.
No chance. Constructive firing is not applicable under the facts as everyone appreciates them. The questions is whether notice was given, whether it was required to be given or deemed given by conduct, and when notice was deemed effective. There is no hostile resignation at play. Unless there are significant facts beyond those pleaded, such an argument, if not sanctionable, would be summarily rejected.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:33 pm to GeeOH
quote:
I feel confident that the wording is clearly defined.
You can feel it all day. Doesn't make it the case. For instance, insurers think their policies are clear all the time, yet provisions are found ambiguous routinely. Those guys have only been at it since 1688.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 3:34 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:54 pm to therick711
quote:But here is the thing: Unless the contract has some sort of automatic rollover (which I highly doubt) why would he have to give notice at all?
No chance. Constructive firing is not applicable under the facts as everyone appreciates them. The questions is whether notice was given, whether it was required to be given or deemed given by conduct, and when notice was deemed effective. There is no hostile resignation at play. Unless there are significant facts beyond those pleaded, such an argument, if not sanctionable, would be summarily rejected.
It seems like he simply told Aleva and Miles that he did not intend to sign another extension and wished to go elsewhere. That should not constitute a breech of contract in and of itself. The next factual thing that happened was that Aleva sent him a very threatening letter and went in front of media to further embaress Chavis. That seems to be the action that broke down any working relationship.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 3:59 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
But here is the thing: Unless the contract has some sort of automatic rollover (which I highly doubt) why would he have to give notice at all?
You need to read the articles on the dispute. Chavis' contract reportedly provides that for him to terminate his contract without cause he must give 30 days written notice. You are assuming away the entire problem by not understanding that for him to "go elsewhere," he has to terminate his current contract.
quote:
It seems like he simply told Aleva and Miles that he did not intend to sign another extension and wished to go elsewhere. That should not constitute a breech of contract in and of itself. The next factual thing that happened was that Aleva sent him a very threatening letter and went in front of media to further embaress Chavis. That seems to be the action that broke down any working relationship.
Factually, this is not how it happened. Further, the question isn't whether he breached the agreement (separate and apart from whether he breached his covenant of good faith and fair dealing or his obligation to provide seasonable notice), the question is whether he has to pay LDs because he terminated his contract.
This post was edited on 3/2/15 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:00 pm to therick711
quote:
You can feel it all day. Doesn't make it the case. For instance, insurers think their policies are clear all the time, yet provisions are found ambiguous routinely. Those guys have only been at it since 1688.
Let me be a little more clear. I have contracts with about 50 reps and my company. The "termination" part of my contacts is as clear as it can be...on both of our parts. It contains this.....Either party may terminate this Agreement at any time without cause during the initial term and any extension thereof, upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party.
I also have language stopping them from representing like products in an account while under contract with me.....if so, I have legal recourse against them.
So when I say I "feel" I really meant that I know for a fact the language in LSU's employment contracts will be clearly defined. If it isn't then many heads should roll at LSU.
It's covered and Chief and aTm are cought between the rock and hard place..
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:03 pm to GeeOH
frick Chavis. He be screwedy looney. Disloyal mofo.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:03 pm to GeeOH
quote:
So when I say I "feel" I really meant that I know for a fact the language in LSU's employment contracts will be clearly defined. If it isn't then many heads should roll at LSU.
Again, the language is clear until a court tells you it isn't. I have no idea what your contracts say (and don't care), I have no idea what Chavis' contract says either. Heads don't roll because a court finds a contract provision to be ambiguous. Like I said, it happens to insurers all day long. They learn lessons from it and re-do the language.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:05 pm to therick711
quote:Or the contract could just reach it's end date. There doesn't seem to be a specific date given before Aleva went nuts.
You need to read the articles on the dispute. Chavis' contract reportedly provides that for him to terminate his contract without cause he must give 30 days written notice. You are assuming away the entire problem by not understanding that for him to "go elsewhere," he has to terminate his current contract.
quote:What is different? Did something happen before Aleva's letter and press conference besides Chavis saying he would go... besides the bowl game of course.
Factually, this is not how it happened.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:11 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
Or the contract could just reach it's end date. There doesn't seem to be a specific date given before Aleva went nuts.
Chavis was under contract until December 31, 2015. He would have to terminate his agreement to coach at A&M this year, simple as that.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:28 pm to therick711
quote:
it happens to insurers all day long.
Yes, it does! But that is an entirely different type of contract. This is an EMPLOYMENT contract. Feel confident that the ending of employment is covered.
Posted on 3/2/15 at 4:35 pm to mmcgrath
quote:
However, I don't see how / why he would be required to give 30 days notice with less than 30 days on his contract.
Where did you get this?
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News