In a surprising move, LSU recently announced the firing of head coach Brian Kelly. However, a new lawsuit suggests that, technically, the program is acting as if that decision never really took place.
Kelly, along with his attorney, has filed suit against the LSU Board of Regents, claiming the program has not “officially finished” the termination process. Interestingly, Kelly maintains that he is still the head coach and seeks to be fired “for the greater good.”
If LSU’s effort to terminate him is successful, it could potentially avoid paying Kelly a hefty sum of $54 million, which would be one of the largest buyouts in college football history.
The lawsuit asserts that Kelly was only informed of this abrupt change in LSU’s stance on a recent Monday, as cited in filings obtained by ESPN.
Shortly thereafter, Kelly’s legal team submitted a 48-page lawsuit, requesting a declarative judgment that would confirm Kelly’s termination was without cause and assert his entitlement to full liquidated damages as per his contract.
In 2022, Kelly had signed a hefty 10-year, $95 million deal with LSU. He was first fired on October 26, just after the team lost its third straight game against Texas A&M, leaving them with a 5-3 record.
At the time of the termination, then-athletic director Scott Woodward stated that the decision stemmed from LSU not reaching the expected levels of success.
The lawsuit contends that LSU did not inform Kelly or his representatives why his actions warranted a termination “for just cause.” Woodward was supposedly informed that he didn’t possess the authority to fire Kelly or present him with a settlement offer.
Just four days post-firing, Woodward left the program, facing backlash from Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry, who declared at an October 29 press conference that Woodward wouldn’t play a role in future recruiting.
Governor Landry’s comments were included in the legal filings, underscoring the chaotic circumstances. He mentioned that the program was facing considerable debt, stating, “We are $53 million in debt. We will never do that again.”
The lawsuit counters three main claims purportedly made during that phone call. These included assertions that Kelly hadn’t been fired, that Woodward lacked the authority to make these claims, and that there was just cause for his dismissal.
Kelly’s contract featured a clause concerning termination “for cause.” For this to be enacted, there would need to be serious reasons such as outright violations of NCAA rules, felonies, or any illegal activities detrimental to LSU’s reputation. Just underperforming as a football coach doesn’t fit the criteria.
In his lawsuit, Kelly also claims that LSU has never substantiated the reasons for his firing or indicated any justifiable cause.
On the contrary, it’s stated in the filing that LSU has consistently acknowledged that the termination stemmed from performance issues, not from misconduct.
The lawsuit elaborates on what should occur in a “for cause” termination process, highlighting that LSU was obligated to notify Kelly within seven days, allowing him another week to respond. Yet, as of two weeks later, no such communications had taken place, according to the complaint.
This alleged abrupt shift in LSU’s position seems to have been influenced by failed attempts to settle with Kelly. The lawsuit references emails that revealed offers of $25 million and later $30 million for a settlement, which Kelly turned down.
