College Legal Blitz: Fitzgerald, Tucker, Walker Cases Blow Up
Thursday was a busy day for college sports law controversies, with fired Northwestern football coach Pat Fitzgerald suing his former employer for at least $130 million, suspended Michigan State football coach Mel Tucker claiming new evidence that his accuser has made a “career out of misleading and manipulating people,” and the NCAA abruptly changing the status of UNC wide receiver Tez Walker from ineligible to eligible while blasting the school for its conduct in the matter.
When it rains it pours.
More from Sportico.com
Mel Tucker Lawyers Fire Back at Michigan State Over 'For Cause' Firing
Athletes in NCAA NIL Case Gain Class Certification for Part of Lawsuit
I. Fitzgerald v. Northwestern
Fitzgerald’s complaint, filed in a Cook County, Ill., trial court, names Northwestern and its president, Michael Schill, as defendants. As Fitzgerald’s attorney, Dan Webb of Winston & Strawn, tells it, the university entered into a “binding, legal, oral contract” with Fitzgerald following an investigative report into hazing over the summer. The report, authored by the law firm ArentFox Schiff, found evidence of hazing but insufficient evidence that Fitzgerald knew about the hazing.
The so-called contract called for Fitzgerald to be suspended two weeks without pay and for him to publicly support the program. This contract was allegedly breached four days later when Schill reconsidered and fired Fitzgerald without cause. Fitzgerald claims Schill’s “callous and outrageous misconduct” has destroyed his career and “irreparably and permanently” damaged his reputation.
Fitzgerald would have been paid $43 million had he been fired without cause. He says the school did not inform him on what grounds he had been fired “for cause,” a designation that must be authorized by alleged misconduct spelled out in his employment contract. Fitzgerald says Northwestern failed to do so because there were no such grounds—he broke no law and the university has not identified conduct that would constitute “moral turpitude,” which under Illinois law refers to acts that reveal a person’s “baseness or depravity,” as detailed in the employment contract.
Fitzgerald argues two forms of breach of contract. The first pertains to his written employment contract and his contention that the university fired him for cause without sufficient grounds. The second concerns his alleged oral contract for his suspension.
His complaint also maintains that the school intentionally inflicted emotional distress on him by giving him the false assurance he was only being suspended, and then, four days later, partaking in an “extreme, outrageous, callous, intentional and senseless course of conduct” by firing him for cause “based on new facts or information,” a move that Fitzgerald says was intended to destroy his career and inflict peril on him and his family.
Lastly, the complaint contains claims for defamation and false light, which means a statement that technically might not be false but is offered by the defendant in a deceiving fashion that it is callous and reputation-harming. Fitzgerald’s complaint cites, among other statements, Schill explaining his decision to fire Fitzgerald by saying the hazing was “widespread” and “clearly not a secret within the program” and that Fitzgerald had the “opportunity to learn about what was happening.” Fitzgerald argues this statement contradicts the investigation commissioned by the university and wrongly concludes Fitzgerald should have known.
The university will offer a number of defenses.
Expect Northwestern to insist that it possessed contractual grounds to fire Fitzgerald for cause and to claim that there was no “oral contract”—which can be difficult to prove in terms of evidence—between Fitzgerald and Schill but rather an understanding that Schill, as president, could reconsider upon further reflection and gaining new insights.
The university will also argue that nothing it said raises to defamation or false light since its statements were based on available information and drew defensible inferences from that information. As a public figure, Fitzgerald must also prove actual malice, meaning Northwestern not only made false and hurtful statements about him, but did so with knowledge that the statements were false or with reckless disregard as to whether they were true or false.
Northwestern is also likely to rebuke the demanded damages figure of at least $130 million as excessive and unfounded. The number is based on Fitzgerald’s loss of his contract plus “lost ability to obtain similar employment during the prime of his professional coaching career after March 31, 2031 [when Fitzgerald’s contract with Northwestern would have ended], for a reasonable period of time.” Fitzgerald will need evidence and testimony, including from experts, to corroborate this calculation and the school would offer its own rebuttals.
II. Tucker Claims New Evidence Regarding Brenda Tracy
Thursday also featured an attorney for Tucker presenting what is called “new evidence” to Michigan State regarding the veracity of his accuser, national sexual assault victims rights advocate Brenda Tracy, whom the university retained in 2021 as an outside vendor for one event. The allegations are contained in an eight-page letter, with nearly 100 pages of attachments, submitted in response to a university disciplinary hearing on Tucker, who is accused of improper sexual conduct while engaged in “phone sex.”
Foley & Lardner partner Jennifer Belveal writes that her firm has “received approximately 20,000 new communications or documents involving Ms. Tracy.” These communications, Belveal wrote, “completely contradict Ms. Tracy’s claims” and further suggest she “manipulated a key witness” and “deleted key evidence” in a scheme to falsely accuse Tucker and “malign” his reputation “for personal gain.”
For example, Belveal wrote that Tracy’s “own statements” indicate she had a “consensual personal relationship” with Tucker and “at least one other married coach,” which is contrary to what she told school investigators. While Tracy allegedly told the investigator she was “single on purpose” and “does not date people in her field,” Belveal said evidence of Tracy becoming romantically involved with coaches contradicts those statements.
The letter refers to text messages in which Tracy allegedly said she “had a consensual relationship with [Georgia Tech head basketball coach and former Boston Celtics assistant coach] Damon Stoudamire” during a time period that overlapped with her relationship with Tucker.
Belveal’s letter attempts to paint Tracy as untruthful, and thus her allegations against Tucker ought to be accorded less credibility. If her statements are inaccurate about certain topics, Belveal will argue there’s no way of knowing when her statements might be accurate.
The letter is also intended to set the table for a likely lawsuit against Michigan State, which is following required procedures before terminating him for cause. After he is terminated, Tucker will likely sue the school for breach of contract, defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress, among other potential claims related to Tracy’s claims and whether she counts as a university vendor for purposes of a for-cause firing. Should a case advance into pretrial discovery, it could feature many witnesses including Tucker, Tracy, Stoudamire and others with potentially relevant information. Tucker is owed about $80 million in a 10-year, $95 million fully guaranteed contract.
III. NCAA Blasts UNC, Reinstates Walker
In a letter, NCAA president Charlie Baker and Division I Board of Directors chair Jere Morehead called North Carolina’s decision to “wage a public relations campaign” over the NCAA’s earlier denial of Walker’s transfer eligibility “inappropriate” given its membership duties.
Last month, UNC head football coach Mack Brown said the NCAA “couldn’t care less about the young people it’s supposed to be supporting” after the NCAA deemed Walker, who transferred from Kent State to UNC in his second college transfer, ineligible. Walker sought an exemption given mental health challenges and a desire to be closer to his ailing grandmother. The NCAA later claimed board members had received “violent and possibly criminal threats” after the denial and UNC’s acrimonious reaction to it.
The NCAA now argues that UNC is to blame for the controversy, because the school allegedly “failed to provide” necessary information about Walker’s situation.
The closure of Walker’s case ends the possibility that he and UNC would sue the NCAA for unreasonably failing to follow its own rules and potentially violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
