## Facts

- In 1997, Jim O’Brien became head coach of men’s basketball at The Ohio State University (OSU), an NCAA member institution.
- In 1998, OSU recruited a foreign prospect, Alex Radojevic, who visited campus and signed a letter of intent to attend OSU.
- Around that time, O’Brien apparently provided $6,000 to Radojevic’s family as a loan (the “Radojevic loan”) and did not report the payment to OSU or its athletic director, Andy Geiger.
- Radojevic ultimately did not play for OSU.
- After a successful season, OSU and O’Brien entered a new employment contract in 1999 that was favorable to O’Brien and limited OSU’s ability to terminate him “for cause.”
- The contract’s “termination for cause” grounds included (among limited bases) an unremedied “material breach” of the agreement and an unreported NCAA rules violation that resulted in severe sanctions imposed on OSU.
- In 2004, O’Brien disclosed the Radojevic loan to Geiger for the first time and maintained that the payment did not violate NCAA rules.
- The loan became public, the NCAA began investigating, and later in 2004 OSU terminated O’Brien under the contract’s material-breach provision.
- In May 2005, the NCAA alleged that the loan violated NCAA recruiting rules prohibiting providing financial aid to a prospective recruit or the recruit’s relatives; no final NCAA decision had been issued when O’Brien sued OSU.
- O’Brien filed a breach-of-contract action, claiming OSU lacked contractual cause to terminate him under the material-breach clause.

## Issues

1. Whether O’Brien’s unreported $6,000 payment connected to a recruit constituted an unremedied “material breach” of the coaching contract permitting OSU to terminate him for cause.
2. Whether OSU could justify a for-cause termination under the contract’s NCAA-violation language when, at the time of termination, the NCAA had not yet issued findings or imposed severe sanctions on OSU.
3. If OSU lacked contractual cause, what contractual consequences followed from treating the termination as “for cause” rather than a termination requiring payment of contract compensation and benefits.

## Decision

- The court analyzed OSU’s termination decision under the specific, limited “for cause” grounds set out in the parties’ 1999 contract.
- The court rejected OSU’s reliance on the NCAA-violation provision as a basis for the termination because, when OSU fired O’Brien, the NCAA had not yet imposed severe sanctions on OSU tied to the loan.
- The court concluded that OSU did not establish that the Radojevic loan and the related nonreporting fit the contract’s material-breach standard in a manner that permitted immediate termination for cause under the contract’s procedures.
- As a result, the court treated OSU’s for-cause termination as inconsistent with the contract and allowed O’Brien to pursue contract remedies tied to the compensation and benefits associated with a non-cause separation, subject to ordinary limitations such as proof and mitigation.

## Legal Principles

- A “for cause” termination clause is enforced according to its text; an employer must show the employee’s conduct fits the contract’s defined grounds for cause.
- Where a contract lists specific, limited causes for termination, a court will not expand those grounds based only on general misconduct characterizations or public controversy.
- A “material breach” standard requires more than a technical or arguable violation; the employer bears the burden to prove the breach is material under the agreement and that any contractual prerequisites to termination are satisfied.
- When a contract ties a termination ground to later events (such as NCAA findings and severe sanctions), the employer generally cannot rely on that ground before the triggering event occurs.
- Misclassifying a termination as “for cause” can constitute a breach when the contract makes the classification determinative of pay, benefits, and other post-termination rights.

## Conclusion

In *O’Brien v. The Ohio State University*, the court construed OSU’s coaching contract as allowing for-cause termination only on narrowly defined grounds and held that OSU failed to justify firing O’Brien for cause based on the unreported recruiting-related loan and an unresolved NCAA investigation, leaving O’Brien able to seek contract damages associated with a termination not supported by contractual cause.


O'Brien v. The Ohio State University, 2006 Ohio Misc. LEXIS 52 (2006)