Review the O’Brien Focus Case on pages 65-66 and then answer the following questions related to that case.
1. The Court of Claims judge in this case interpreted the facts in favor of O’Brien when the judge characterized the loan as given for humanitarian reasons and not given to gain an improper recruiting advantage. What facts might support 4 more sinister interpretation of the coach’s conduct?
2. Discuss how Ohio State could have strengthened its grounds for termination for cause.
3. Discuss the implications of this decision relative to other colleges that may wish to terminate coaches “for cause.”
4. Review Section V of the Greenberg article listed in “Other Sources” at the end of this chapter and consider the language of other termination provisions ‘n coaches’ contracts to determine how a termination clause may be written which favors the university. You may also consider the termination clauses in the coaches’ contracts that may be found by using the coaches’ contract databases included in the list of relevant websites below.

Transcribed Image Text:

O'Brien v. Ohio State University 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 4316 (Sept. 20, 2007) FACTS In 1997, plaintiff O'Brien was hired as the men's basketball coach at the defen- dant university. On May 14, 1998, Alex Radojevic, a talented basketball player from Yugoslavia, arrived on campus for an unofficial visit. At the time of the visit Radojevic was enrolled at a community college in Kansas and was playing basket- ball for that community college. In the fall of 1998, O'Brien learned that Radojevic had played professional bas- ketball for a Yugoslavian team. At trial O'Brien testified that he believed Radojevic was not eligible to play college basketball since he had played professionally. How- ever, O'Brien's staff continued to recruit Radojevic, and on November 11, 1998, Radojevic signed a National Letter of Intent with Ohio State and came for his offi- cial visit to the university in December 1998. FOCUS CASE