## Facts

- The Georgia Tech Athletic Association employed Franklin C. “Pepper” Rodgers as head football coach under a written contract providing a salary plus benefits and “perquisites.”
- The contract referenced “various insurance and pension benefits and perquisites as he became eligible therefor” and listed limited grounds for termination.
- Rodgers’ employment term was extended through December 31, 1981.
- On December 18, 1979, the Association’s board voted to remove Rodgers from his coaching position despite the unexpired contract.
- The Association continued paying Rodgers’ base salary, health insurance, and pension benefits through December 31, 1981, but discontinued various fringe benefits associated with the head coach role.
- Rodgers sued for breach of contract seeking only the value of claimed “perquisites,” identifying approximately 29 items, including items provided by the Association and items provided by third parties due to his head coach status.
- The trial court granted summary judgment to the Association and denied Rodgers’ partial summary-judgment motion on liability.

## Issues

1. Whether the employment contract entitled Rodgers to recover the value of claimed “perquisites” after he was removed from coaching duties but remained employed and paid through the contract term.
2. Whether Rodgers had an independent, compensable property right in his status as head football coach separate from the written contract.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
- The court held Rodgers was not entitled, as a matter of law, to recover the value of all claimed perquisites.
- The court held genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether certain items (including television and radio proceeds, use of an automobile, and certain tickets) were contractual compensation; summary judgment for the Association was improper as to those items.
- The court rejected Rodgers’ separate property-right theory in the coaching position beyond any contractual rights.

## Legal Principles

- When a contract term such as “perquisites” is ambiguous, courts may consider extrinsic evidence (including course of dealing) to determine the parties’ intent.
- Ambiguous contract language is construed against the drafter where reasonable.
- Employment-related “perquisites” may be noncompensable job-function amenities that end when duties end, or they may be bargained-for compensation that may continue through the contract term; the classification can present fact questions.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where ambiguity and disputed evidence create genuine issues of material fact.
- Removal from a particular job title, while continuing salary and core benefits, does not itself create a free-standing property interest or claim separate from the employment contract.

## Conclusion

The court limited recovery for claimed “perquisites” to those items that a factfinder could reasonably treat as contractual compensation rather than duty-dependent amenities, and it remanded for further proceedings on disputed items while rejecting any independent property-right claim to the head coach position.


Rodgers v. Ga. Tech Athletic Ass’n, 166 Ga. App. 156, 303 S.E.2d 467 (Ga. Ct. App. 1983)