Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Association
Georgia Court of Appeals
303 S.E.2d 467 (1983)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
In 1977, Franklin Rodgers (plaintiff) signed a three-year contract with Georgia Tech Athletic Association (the association) (defendant) to serve as head coach of football at the Georgia Institute of Technology (GT). Rodgers’s contract was subsequently extended until December 31, 1981. Under the letter contract that had been drafted by the association, Rodgers could only be terminated for delineated reasons, such as illness, incapacity, or conduct involving moral turpitude. Rodgers was contractually entitled to a salary, insurance, and pension benefits (ordinary benefits) as well as certain perquisites (perks) like tickets to sporting events, use of a car, and club memberships. In late 1979, the association decided to relieve Rodgers of his head-coaching duties “in the best interest of” GT and not for cause. Rodgers was to remain an employee of GT, with the association paying his ordinary benefits through December 31, 1981. Rodgers sued the association for breach of contract to recover the value of nearly 30 itemized perks. Some claimed perks were given to Rodgers directly from GT, and other claimed perks were given to Rodgers from external sources because he was GT’s head football coach. On summary judgment, the trial court ruled in favor of the association. Rodgers appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Pope, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.