• Jobs
• Cars
• Real Estate
• Apartments
• Shop Local
• Classifieds
• Dating

Gillispie goes to court over UK pay

Former University of Kentucky basketball coach Billy Gillispie is seeking more than $6 million from the UK Athletics Association in a federal lawsuit alleging breach of contract and fraud.

The 24-page lawsuit, filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Dallas, argues that the athletics department should pay the coach an untold amount in damages and attorney fees in addition to the $6 million Gillispie says he's owed for being fired two years into a seven-year term.

Gillispie never agreed to a formal contract, but he did sign a memorandum of understanding with the athletics association.

Whether the buyout clause in that memorandum of understanding is binding has emerged as the central sticking point between the athletics department and Gillispie, whom the suit repeatedly describes as one of the country's "premier men's head basketball coaches."

"Since the date of termination, defendant has refused to honor the very signed, written agreement with Coach Gillispie which the general counsel for the University of Kentucky described in November of 2007 as 'contain(ing) all the basic terms needed for an employment agreement, and can itself serve as the employment contract for the coach,'" the lawsuit says.

The suit requests a jury trial in Dallas, which Gillispie's attorney argues is the proper venue because, among other things, Gillispie was on a recruiting trip there for Texas A&M University when he first agreed to take the UK coaching position during a phone conversation.

UK issued a statement Wednesday expressing surprise at the lawsuit and saying its lawyers had been trying to work out a settlement with Gillispie's representatives.

"The University of Kentucky learned of the lawsuit filed in Texas by Mr. Gillispie late this afternoon, which is surprising as the university was continuing to negotiate a separation in good faith and his counsel had asked for more time," said the statement from UK spokesman Jimmy Stanton. "Since this now involves pending litigation, the university will not be able to discuss any further details of the case."

UK is represented in the matter by Steve Barker of Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney in Lexington, Stanton confirmed.

Gillispie's attorney, Demetrios Anaipakos, declined to comment late Wednesday about any attempts at a settlement.

"Coach Gillispie, for the time being, prefers to let the lawsuit speak for itself, and we look forward to our day in court," Anaipakos said.

Stuart Campbell, Gillispie's agent, also declined to describe any negotiations between the two sides.

When asked whether the two sides were close to an agreement, he laughed. "We'll see what happens," he said.

Campbell also declined to say whether he supported or opposed the idea of a lawsuit.

"We are still certainly hopeful that the matter will be resolved in the immediate future," he said.

Much of Gillispie's lawsuit hinges on the argument that UK considered a memorandum of understanding between the athletics association and Gillispie as a binding contract.

The memorandum of understanding said that Gillispie, if fired, would be paid $1.5 million a year for up to four remaining years on the agreement.

Gillispie and UK Athletics Director Mitch Barnhart negotiated terms of the seven-year employment agreement during an April 5, 2007, phone call while Gillispie was in Dallas, according to the lawsuit. Both men signed the document after Gillispie arrived in Lexington about 2:30 a.m. April 6.

However, the two sides never signed a formal contract because they couldn't agree on Gillispie's deferred compensation plan or how to define a termination "with cause," according to the lawsuit.

The suit lays out a series of instances when UK's attorneys referred to the memorandum of understanding as the equivalent of a legally binding contract.

For instance, a memo from UK general counsel Barbara Jones to Gillispie's agent cited the agreement as she sought to quash an endorsement deal the coach was considering with a Houston firm. The memo said that doing so "would place Billy in violation of the terms of the April 7, 2007 Memorandum of Understanding," the lawsuit says.

Next Page

reprint or license Print E-Mail

tool name close tool goes here

@Nyx.AuthorDisplayName@ wrote on @Nyx.PostedAtTime@:

@Nyx.repliedToText@

@Nyx.replyAnswerText@

Reply to this Comment @Nyx.Recommender@ @Nyx.AbuseReporter@