re: Legal question regarding Chavis...regarding termination

quote:

---

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.

---

You are missing the point. The point isn't that the TYPE of contract is the same. The point is people and businesses who are really good at writing contracts, and contracts is all they do, still end up with ambiguous provisions. The reason there is an issue with the SPECIFIC contract is that there is ambiguity on this point. The end of employment is covered in this contract, yet, look at this, there's a lawsuit over what the obligations of the respective parties are.

(no message)

To me, the SEC should get involved due to the discussions prior to the end of the season. I get the moving on thing but during the season discussions should be off limits.

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.

---

His contract didn't expire until December 31, 2015.

If he left outside of 11 months, he had to give 30 days notice or suffer a $400K "penalty".

So, had he given notice on Dec. 1, 2014, and left right after the bowl, he wouldn't have owed LSU a dime.

If had waited until Feb. 1, he could have left without giving LSU any notice and not owed LSU a dime.

BUT, if he left LSU any time before February 1, 2015 without giving LSU 30 days notice, he would owe LSU $400K.

The problem was that both he and A&M wanted him at A&M for recruiting purposes. A&M wanted to tell recruits who they would be playing for -- especially given A&M tremendously horrific Defense over the last two years.

Let's get this straight. Chavis is suing aTm in case LSU doesn't come through? How many guys do you know who would sue a new employer? And get away with it? I strongly suspect that aTm is having second thoughts. After all, what does all this have to say about the school?

quote:

---

GeeOH

---

quote:

---

I read an article with the same information that is has been floating around for many days, so nothing groundbreaking or new information. My question is aimed at his starting with aTm. Since it is beyond easy to prove Chavis started recruiting for aTm way back in January, LSU didn't "fire" him on the spot. Is this because firing him would negate the buyout? In normal firing, yes I'm sure it would. But a firing for finding out your coach is working for another college (fricking wierd), although that college hasn't started paying him yet, sure seems like firing for cause would still qualify. So for the lawyers (or wanna be lawyers) out there, will Chavis be considered "working" for aTm in January if recruiting for them without pay? Wouldn't the free ride on their jet be enough to be considered compnsation? etc What is the one thing that LSU has to show to get the money? IYHO Article

---

You cannot submit a notice of intent to resign with a 30 day advance notice and then begin working for another employer within that same timeframe. The notice of intent to resign or "4 week notice" in this case means that you will continue to work for your employer until the actual day you intent to resign.

Chavis did not do that. Employment security law is very clear here for Louisiana. He broke the employment agreement, failed to provide proper notice, left the current employment prior to his stated notice and began working for another employer prior to his final day of work.

This is a slam dunk.

I say sue them for the buyout, then report them for recruiting violations