It was widely reported last summer that USC hired coach Kennedy Pola away from the Tennessee Titans’ staff just prior to summer camp.  Former Tennessee Titans head coach, Jim Fischer, berated USC head coach, Lane Kiffin, for his hiring practices and failing to contact him before hiring coach Pola.  Ultimately, the Tennessee Titans were left without a running backs coach and did not fill the position.  Obviously, the Tennessee Titans were less than impressed and filed suit against USC.  After several months of litigation, the parties resolved their dispute in an undisclosed agreement.

As the basketball coaching carousel winds down, this brings up an interesting argument.  When should institutions of higher learning enforce their agreements?  Florida Coastal Law School professor, Rick Karcher, drafted an insightful article on this topic and ultimately concluded that institutions should move more aggressively to retain coaches.  If an institution chooses to employ this strategy, it would seek a negative injunction.  The most famous negative injunction case relating to a coach is New England Patriots v. University of Colorado.  In that case, New England Patriots head coach Chuck Fairbanks informed his employer he was returning to the college football coaching ranks and had accepted a job with the University of Colorado.  Similar to the Tennessee Titans, the New England Patriots were less than amused and filed suit.  Ultimately, the New England Patriots obtained negative injunctive relief, which prohibited the institution from accepting coach Fairbanks’ services (later resolved).  In sum, institutions have the ability to seek injunctive relief, but rarely do.  Of course, the philosophy is simple.  Why do we want someone who does not want to be here?  That philosophy has strength, but would coaches move so cavalierly if they knew of the threat of an injunction?  

For any questions, feel free to contact Christian Dennie at cdennie@bgsfirm.com.