Andrew Giuliani, son of Rudy Giuliani, has gone to court to fight for his right to golf on teh Duke University team. He was recently thrown off the team with little notice or explanation by its coach, O.D. Vincent. The filing is based on a loose theory of contract, even though decisions of eligibility are generally viewed as matter of discretion for university staff.
If you recall, Rudy Giuliani attacked his opponents, particularly Fred Thompson, for being weak on tort reform and complained about frivolous lawsuits, for a video click here. He actively sought penalties for people who brought such lawsuit, including the adoption of the English rule forcing losers to pay the legal fees of the other party.
Andrew wants to be a pro-golfer and it does seem like this coach handled the matter poorly. The complaint says neither notice nor a reason was given. It cites some past objections that do seem quite minor, including allegations that the 22-year-old “flipped his putter a few feet to his golf bag;” “leaned on his driver and it broke;” and drove too rapidly out of the parking lot one day.
However, we are left with the question of whether there is a contractual obligation to only remove a player for only objectively reasonable grounds. Many judges would be concerned over a floodgate problem as well as the competency of courts to rule on such matters. A court-ordered Mulligan could invite endless litigation over team decisions by irate players.
For the full story, click here
I’m guessing theres more underlying history here between the Coach and Andrew. Either that, or it may be some sort of perceived persecution of Andrew, given the less than favorable view of conservatives these days.
I think the case has merit given there doesn’t seem to be adequate justification for booting him out of the team. I know cases like this for things like girls playing on football teams and such, so I think the key for Andrews attorney is to figure out what motivated Mr Vincent to dismiss him so abruptly.
If it can be demonstrated that he was sacked because of some form of discrimination based on his political phliosophies or some other broad distinction that amounts to discrimination, then I would think it would be worth pursuing.
Here’s al ittle tidbit from the article I find fascinating:
“When Andrew sought reinstatement, the suit claims, the coach pressured him to sign a sweeping legal waiver and, when he refused, began turning other teammates against him.
“Andrew’s suspension would become a permanent cancellation of his athletic eligibility at Duke unless every single one of his twelve teammates wrote a letter to O.D. Vincent [the golf coach] that O.D. Vincent deemed ’satisfactory’ supporting Andrew’s reinstatement to the team and explaining the reasons why,” the suit says.”
This is an extraordinary thing for a coach to do especially given the person involved. It seems to me the coach’s actions are tantamount to guily knowledge since he was so anxious to have Guiliani sign an unspecified legal waiver and to pass the blame for the dismissal on to the other student athletes who could have saved him. Given the lacrosse scandal, judgment does not seem to be the watchword for that athletic program. Maybe new AD Kevin White, most recently of Notre Dame and Arizona State, can inject some sanity into those ivy covered Gothic spires.
Oops, make that “guilty knowledge”.
“However, we are left with the question of whether there is a contractual obligation to only remove a player for only objectively reasonable grounds.”
***********************
Legally, I think not, but for an institution of higher learning, I think the ethical answer is “yes.” I ofter wonder why the answer to both disciplines is not the same.
mespo727272
1, July 24, 2008 at 3:19 pm
It seems to me the coach’s actions are tantamount to guily knowledge since he was so anxious to have Guiliani sign an unspecified legal waiver and to pass the blame for the dismissal on to the other student athletes who could have saved him.
Very interesting indeed. I didn’t see that but am looking at it now. Indeed the contents of that waiver no doubt played a role in this seemingly arbitrary decision and getting a peek at it will likely reveal whats really the underlying motive here for dismissing such a high profile person, from a sport that he apparently intends on pursuing professionally.
Excellent catch.
Like I said, theres clearly more history here under the surface behind this, and my guess is once its revealed, it won’t prove favorable to coach Vincent.
Mespo,
I like your take on this issue. I am beginning to wonder what the heck is going on at Duke. Is this coach related to the former Lacrosse coach? It sounds like this new coach is class A hardass. I was surprised that he isn’t asking for reinstatement since he has one year of eligibility remaining. I guess he doesn’t want to return if that coach is still there. And as I think about it, there is probably no problem with Rudy being able to pay the tuition if he has lost his golf scholarship. Strange case.
There is no question that Duke has an obligation to protect players against arbitrary treatment, particularly a student who appears to have been recruited for his golf skills. The problem remains the floodgate fear. These positions are enormously valuable for the athletes in baseball, basketball, football etc. What is a coach does not remove a student from the team but never allows him to play?
JT
rafflaw:
The saddest part of this case may be 16 year coach Mike Pressler’s unceremonious dumping and scapegoating. By all accounts, a great guy and coach with an NCAA championship appearance under his belt, he was essentially fired when the season was canceled. He has a poignant book out called “Not About the Truth.”
JT:
“The problem remains the floodgate fear.”
***************
I have always thought the floodgate argument specious. We have heard it since the days of Nader and the Corvair. The best way to combat a flood of this type of conduct is to put a judicial stamp of disapproval on it once and for all. Cases with high profiles like this do that. One would think the Court would be more concerned with stopping proliferation of the conduct as opposed to worrying about how much free time it has for such weighty matters as corporate debt collection and contract claims, which as anyone knows in the system takes up about 65% of the Court’s time.
jonathanturley
1, July 24, 2008 at 4:31 pm
What if a coach does not remove a student from the team but never allows him to play?
Implying that a court decision would then assign the courts odd role of deciding how the coach must manage not only the team, but his approach to game winning, his choices of strategy, etc.. thus effectively, making the courts like some sort of absentee coach of the team?
Yea, that would present a dilemma that could easily open a pandora’s box of tedious litigation for disgruntled players.
On the other hand, I still think theres an underlying reason for this termination that we can’t quite see yet, and this waiver mentioned by messpo seems like it may shed some light as to whats really going on.
Obviously students should not be able to launch frivolous law suits, but at the same time, should coaches, of colleges, be able to arbitrarily make potentially harmful decisions with regards to a students future (such as wanting to play golf professionally) without demonstrating at least a modicum of procedure and precedent, or reasonable cause for his decisions?
Its a tough one, to be sure, however in this “particular” case, I anticipate some further history or dealings not quite on the surface yet, between Andrew and Coach Vincent, and I think the nature of the complaint will shift once those are brought to life.
JT:
Let’s make it really tough and wonder what would happen if the star quarterback, promised during the recruiting process that he would start every game, was denied playing time because the coach honestly believed he wasn’t a “team player.” There the coach’s discretion would come into play versus the inducing promises with notions of constructive fraud thrown in for good measure. I think we analyze it like any contract case and determine its terms and whether the parties were acting in good faith. The framework for the workmen is there. The question is do the Judge’s want more to do to earn their salaries and lifetime appointments.
Prof. Turley,
I have seen situations where the coach takes a dislike to a specific player and that player never sees any playing time. I don’t know if it is as big a problem in golf as it might be in Basketball or Football where the players need exposure to get into the pros. In golf, the player can languish on the bench and still make it on the lower level tour and earn his tour card for the show. Not as easy to do in BB and Football. Notwithstanding the above, the sheer cost of tuition at a place like Duke would make it worth taking the dismissal to court in order to save the scholarship and save big dollars. Probably not an issue for the son of Rudy.
Also, I think its significant here that in this instance, the student is not just being “benched” by a particular coach, but was effectively “expelled” from any participation the Schools athletic program.
And while I can understand a judges trepidation at opening the door for a windfall of litigation from disgruntled student athletes, it seems to me that a good attorney merely needs to approach the case from careful angle.
That would mean to me at least, to mean not approaching questions of contractual obligations of the coach to his team members, but instead would focus on the idea of an across the board expulsion from programs and activities which other students are not procluded from, without demonstrating some reasonable cause for such a broad restriction on this one student.
Which is also why I’d look at the underlying motives and history between these two, and see if its possible that some sort of prejudice is being applied here.
After all, if the students intent is to pursue a career in professional athletics, which unbelieveably, golf is considered a part of (lol) and if this coach, acting as an official representative of the school, has literally expelled this student from ever participating in the athletics program, then its not a stretch to conclude that School, “via” this coach has effectively broken the schools contract with the student to provide him a reasonable well rounded education in the field of his choice, and in line with their academic offerings, as agreed upon with the exchange for monies the school accepted from him as payment for that education.
If I were a lawyer, which I am not, and if I were pleading this case, and if the underlying factors between the student and the coach don’t pan out to anything of significance, then I would focus on the contract the student has with the school to provide him an education which he selects from their regular curriculum in exchange for monies paid to the school, and I would steer clear of any implied contract between the coach and the student, thus avoiding priming that floodgate of potential litigation down the road for disgruntled athletes to file a suit after suit.
Anyway thats what I’d probably do.
The FIRST rule of amateur sports: GET ON THE BUS OR GET UNDER IT.
I’ve got to give a very strong benefit of the doubt to the coach here. Coaches at this level generally have the best interests of the team in mind. Furthermore, golf (like wrestling) is a sport where the decisions as to who plays in given matches can be made pretty objectively, whoever shoots the lowest gets to play.
Although I do find it hard to believe that Andrew Guiliani could ever be a disruption…..(cue sitcom flashback sequence)
1L
1, July 24, 2008 at 7:31 pm
I’ve got to give a very strong benefit of the doubt to the coach here. Coaches at this level generally have the best interests of the team in mind. Furthermore, golf (like wrestling) is a sport where the decisions as to who plays in given matches can be made pretty objectively, whoever shoots the lowest gets to play
Why?
The coach seems to be defying reason by not demonstrating a reasonable cause for his extreme action.
Also, your statement about “decisions as to who plays in given matches” is not only erroneous, its also essentially misleading as to defining this incident.
The coach didn’t decide “who gets to play in given matches”.
The coach expelled this student from the entire athletic curriculum of the school. He is barred from particpating in any further athletic activities and that is vastly different than deciding who gets to play in a “given match”.
1L,
I would normally agree that the coach should be given the benefit of the doubt, but when you have the coach trying to get the other players involved in whatever problem the Coach and Guilani have, something isn’t right. By the way, I assume by your title that you finished your first year of law school. Congrats. It gets better each year.
I’m no fan of Julie-Annie, by any means, but per the limited information provided herin, it does seem like there is at least sufficient cause for reasonable doubt as to his motives, not to mention the school effectively breaching its contract with the student, to provide him with an education based on his chosen profession from among their official curriculum in exchange for monies paid by him, to them, for that education.
Considering Giuliani apparently intended on pursuing professional golf, and considering the coach, acting as an offical rep of the school, has expelled him from any sort of athletic area of study, how then can the school fulfill their obligations to provide this student with the education for they contracted with him to provide in exchange for monies they accepted from him?
At the very least it seems a tuition refund would be in order. Compelling the school to take him back into the program to me is unseemly, and unlikely, however they should not be permitted to take monies from him if they do not intend on providing the services to him for which they are accepting monies for. Additionally, it seems a loss to me for him to have to start over at a new school, as the loss of time, variances in course offerings and academic requirements and expectations, all constitute real loss, and to me seem to be worthy of some compensation.
Unless the school demonstrates a reasonable cause for this denial of the agreed upon educational services promised to the Giuliani when they took his money.
“Coaches at this level generally have the best interests of the team in mind.”
**********************
In my experience, coaches at this level, with some notable exceptions, generally have the best interests of the coach at heart.
Bartlebee
The coach has not expelled him from all athletic areas, only from those at Duke University. He is free to transfer, and given the fact that he was kicked off the team (rather than leaving of his own free will, which it should be noted he could do at any time) the NCAA requirement that he sit out a year before competing for another school would be waived. So he has literally hundreds of other places in which to compete if he wants to do it while simultaneously studying at a university. Furthermore, golf unlike football or basketball, has a significant amateur circuit for people of his age, so he has plenty of opportunities to pursue his professional interests outside the “student-athlete” realm. Lastly, he’s welcome to turn pro now, and pursue his interests outside the cushy setting he’s no doubt accustomed to.
Mespo:
I obviously can’t speak to your experiences, but save for the most visible of college athletics (D1 Football and Basketball for the most part), my experience with college athletics has shown that coaching often is not a very glamorous job. Coaches are frequently holding their programs together with both hands and genuinely love the sport and the teams their involved with. Also, given that they’ve generally worked hard to recruit their players and they have limited resources with which to do this, its going to take a good amount for a coach to dismiss player who is or could potentially contribute to the team in any respect. In this case, Guiliani was the 12th best player on a 14 man roster that needed to be cut in half. Athletics, and especially golf, is a meritocracy. Players get cut from teams at all levels is (forgive me) “par for the course”.
1L
1, July 25, 2008 at 1:06 am
Bartlebee
The coach has not expelled him from all athletic areas, only from those at Duke University. He is free to transfer
So?
How does that change the fact the school owes him at a minimum tuition reimbursement?
Your entire response to me 1L, is based on the false assumption that my premise was that he was barred from other participation in other schools, which it was not.
I am only addressing the monetary compensation due him for the school accepting monies, then failing to provide the service for which they accepted those monies.
A wrongful firing suit, is not based solely on whether or not the plaintiff can seek employment elsewhere. The only significant impact that would have is on the amount of the damages awarded assuming wrongful termination is demonstrated.
And since I never referred to such damages, but only compensation for the school, failing to honor its contractual agreement with Mr Giuliani, to provide him with a reasonable education according to the career path he has chosen.
I’m not being difficult here, I’m just pointing out your response is based on something I never stated, and is thus moot.
In fact, if you re-read my comment, you’ll see I even addressed transitionary issues, like differences in curriculum, and varying academic requirements, etc.
I never suggested nor implied what you were responding to.
1L:
“, my experience with college athletics has shown that coaching often is not a very glamorous job. Coaches are frequently holding their programs together with both hands and genuinely love the sport and the teams their involved with.”
*******************************
Having played collegiately, albeit in the Dark Ages of the 1970’s, and having several friends who coach both so-called major and minor sports at universities in the area, I could not agree more. This fact compels them to be ruthlessly self-serving in their decision-making. In the major sports, the pressure is to win and that encourages the type of excesses we have seen from time to time. In the “minor” sports, the worst offenders are those coaches trying to “step stone” to a more prestigious positions since as we know what is “minor” to the University of Georgia, may not be “minor” to say Pepperdine University. Volleyball springs to mind. I do see some love of the game, but more often I see love of ambition. I am not casting aspersions, but I have no “Pollyannish” notions of either coaches or athletes.