Harold Jackson sues


He wasn't fired without cause. The mane sucked at his job and didn't do well. Period. Sounds like a perfectly good reason to me to be fired. If he knew contracts so well he should have negotiated better as BBF said and not signed a bogus contract. That's on no one but him.
 

He wasn't fired without cause. The mane sucked at his job and didn't do well. Period. Sounds like a perfectly good reason to me to be fired. If he knew contracts so well he should have negotiated better as BBF said and not signed a bogus contract. That's on no one but him.

That's just it. He is claiming that since he was fired without cause, they should have negotiated with him on his termination payment, instead of issuing him a $65k buyout. Per his contract, the $65k buyout was the minimum termination payment in case he breached his contract or with cause. Losing games or performing poorly as a coach would not be considered a breach of contract. It seems like Carolyn Meyer should have allowed the university's counsel to review his contract for the proper procedures for termination. For what I understand, she was firing people at-will, which she could not do if there's an existing contract that hasn't expired.
 
What people have to realize, JSU fired Harold Jackson without cause. Therefore, since Jackson wasn't fired based on him breaching his contract, JSU should have negotiated with him on his termination payment, which they did not. The discrimination part is an added piece in the lawsuit to sweeten the deal, which all good attorneys do when they present a case. Basically, Jackson's attorney is providing two legitimate arguments instead of one. IMO, depending on the actual true language of his contract, Jackson should be able to win the negotiation part easily, with the discrimination part as a way of saying, Mississippi IHL Board practices race discrimination...... I'm sure he has hired big sport and entertainment law firms like Loeb & Loeb to negotiate professional contracts. My ex-wife used to work for them in Los Angeles as a paralegal and they handled contracts for big sports clients.
And how do you know this for sure that Jackson was fired "without cause"? You're merely guessing.
And how do you know that he's hired a big sports and entertainment law firm? Again, you're guessing.

The term "without cause" is left up to general interpretation. You don't know what happened behind the scenes with players, coaches etc.
"Without cause" could mean a number of things and is left open to interpretation. It's not necessarily limited to on-the-field play.
Unbeknownst to many, Jackson had lost control of his players not only on the field, but off the field as well. That could weigh heavily against him.
 
Last edited:
And how do you know this for sure that Jackson was fired "without cause"? You're merely guessing.
And how do you know that he's hired a big sports and entertainment law firm? Again, you're guessing.

The term "without cause" is left up to general interpretation. You don't know what happened behind the scenes with players, coaches etc.
"Without cause" could mean a number of things and is left open to interpretation. It's not necessarily limited to on-the-field play.
Unbeknownst to many, Jackson had lost control of his players not only on the field, but off the field as well. That could weigh heavily against him as well.

In this case, he hired some young Black lawyer from Ole Miss, BUT I'm sure when he played professional sports, he had some big law firm helping him with his contracts. Since most of those firms have offices located in areas with a large entertainment industry, such as Los Angeles, New York, and Nashville, I'm sure those same firms have made recommendations of which attorneys in Mississippi are good with contract laws.

If he was fired due to a breach of contract or with cause, all JSU has to do is produce evidence. It is simple as that.
 
Another point no one has mentioned. He was paid $70,000 more than the previous coach and he had very little head coaching experience.
I think, Jackson's law suit is a waste of time.
 
Another point no one has mentioned. He was paid $70,000 more than the previous coach and he had very little head coaching experience.
I think, Jackson's law suit is a waste of time.

Lol dang he sure was. discrimination my ass.
More like favoritism.
 

That man is getting an NFL pension, Social Security benefits and Medicare. His retirement has been set. He's just being petty. LOL
You know I am man, but he still deserves his money. No coach can guarantee that he can turn a program around 100%. He wasn't given enough time to make it happen.
 
You know I am man, but he still deserves his money. No coach can guarantee that he can turn a program around 100%. He wasn't given enough time to make it happen.
It ultimately boils down to the verbiage in the contract, and whether or not he breached it. Wins/ losses is one thing on the surface level. But Harold also skipped out on some media obligations like call-in shows and whatnot. We will see how it all plays out. Personally, I think the lawsuit will get thrown out in the end.
 
That pattern has already been establish and is the basis for the discrimination suit.

If they hadn't hired Hopson they might have been able to argue successfully that it is standard practice for FCS level coaches or something of that angle.


You are looking at different scenarios tho. I don't know what it was before Comegy. I know Bell had a full buyout but his salary was only 85K. I don't think Comegy's original contract had a $50K buyout. Comegy got the $50K because if was either accept that clause or get fired. It was during the whole APR mess.

However with Hopson, Alcorn may not have had any leverage. He was hired in May. If turned down their original offer. They came back. I am not sure of the buyout in the original offer.
 
Back
Top