By JEFFREY McMURRAY
Associated Press Writer
LEXINGTON, Ky. (AP) -- The University of Kentucky countersued fired men's basketball coach Billy Gillispie Thursday, claiming it doesn't owe him pay because he never signed a contract.
The employment dispute escalated when the university filed a lawsuit in Franklin Circuit Court in Kentucky, one day after Gillispie filed his own claim in Dallas, asking for $6 million in back pay, punitive damages, attorneys' fees and court costs.
Gillispie, who was fired March 27, was working under a seven-year memorandum of understanding but hadn't signed a formal contract during the two years he coached the Wildcats.
A call to Gillispie's attorney, Demetrios Anaipakos, was not immediately returned.
UK's lawyers are asking the court to rule that the two-page memorandum of understanding Gillispie signed after his hiring in 2007 was not the equivalent of a full contract. Gillispie says it is and that he is entitled to $1.5 million a year for four of the five years left on the deal.
"UK contends that the (memorandum of understanding) is not an enforceable long-term contract of employment, and that it owes no damages to Gillispie, having paid him for each basketball season in which he coached," the lawsuit says.
University attorneys also argue that Kentucky, not Texas, is the proper place for any litigation between the two sides.
Gillispie's claim accuses the school of fraud and breach of contract, saying it never intended to sign him long-term.
However, the school claims the coach turned town six versions of a full employment contract, quibbling over the language involving what actions would constitute dismissal without pay.
(Copyright 2009 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)
Release from the University of Kentucky:
LEXINGTON, Ky. (May 28, 2009) − Today, the University of Kentucky announced that it has filed a suit in Franklin Circuit Court, where all contract matters involving state agencies must be adjudicated, seeking a declaration of the respective rights and obligations under its Memorandum of Understanding with former coach Billy Gillispie that was signed on April 6, 2007. UK contends that repeated efforts to reach a definitive long-term employment contract were rejected by Gillispie, therefore the MOU is not an enforceable contract, and no "cause" was required for its termination of him. These are questions of law which we hope can be determined without much delay.
It is unfortunate that Mr. Gillispie has sued the UK Athletics Association, a nonprofit supporting foundation that was not his employer, in Federal Court in Texas. Mr. Gillispie was a university employee, and the volunteer Board of the UKAA serves the university in a valuable, but purely advisory capacity.
The decision to terminate Mr. Gillispie's employment was a university decision. UKAA will vigorously seek the dismissal of the Texas lawsuit. The university is the proper party to any suit, not UKAA, and the university will rely upon the allegations of its Franklin Circuit Court complaint as the true version of this contract dispute.
Since this now involves pending litigation, the university will not be able to discuss any further details of the case. The university is being represented in the matter by Steve Barker of Sturgill, Turner, Barker & Moloney in Lexington.
