In Inside Courts, retired judge Tom Hodson explains the complexities of the law and legal cases, helping you understand what’s at stake — and how it affects you.
Former Ohio University football Head Coach Brian Smith has put the university on the defensive with a “wrongful termination” lawsuit filed in the Ohio Court of Claims on May 8.
He is asking for full compensation for the remainder of his contract, expectancy and consequential damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and reasonable attorney fees for bringing the lawsuit.
Although the lawsuit does not state a specific amount, he is asking for a boat-load of money.
Over my career, I spent several years doing play-by-play and color analysis on radio of football, basketball and baseball games. Given the nature of this lawsuit, I am going to break it down in as simple language as possible — like I would a football game.
Sides
Brian Smith, his attorneys Rex H. Elliot and Sara C. Schiavone, of the firm of Cooper Elliot in Columbus, comprises the plaintiff’s team. On its website, Cooper Elliot describes itself as:
Ohio Lawyers Dedicated to Helping Victims of Life-Changing Harm For decades, our attorneys have chosen to work with clients who have suffered the most serious and life-altering losses – people who need guidance through our complex legal system, so they aren’t taken advantage of by big insurance companies or bad actors with deep pockets.
In their eyes, OU would be the bad actor with deep pockets in this case. OU is the defendant. Being a state university, it is limited in its representation. The university will be represented by a group from the Ohio Attorney General’s office. Since the university has not yet made an official appearance in the case, the names of the attorneys are not available yet.
Venue
The lawsuit will play out in the Ohio Court of Claims in Columbus.
According to its website, “The Ohio Court of Claims was created to hear claims against the state for money Damages and to hear appeals from Attorney General decisions regarding claims filed under the Victims of Crime Compensation Program.”
The Smith case is a claim against the state for money damages.
The Court of Claims website lists the kinds of cases that are heard: “contract disputes, employment discrimination, immunity of state officers and employees, medical malpractice, personal injury, and property damage.”
The case will be decided by a single judge or a panel of three judges who are appointed by the Ohio Supreme Court.
While the case is pending, negotiations between the parties will take place to see if the matter can be resolved and settled without a trial.
Complaint (Offensive strategy)
The initial document, the opening salvo, in any civil case is called a complaint. It is a written document that establishes venue, allegations of facts, and designates the legal theories upon which the plaintiff’s claims are based.
Unlike in a football game where game plans are secretly held by each team, in a civil lawsuit the game plan is laid out in detail for all to see from the git-go. Like, “Here is our best shot — now defense, try to refute these allegations, either factually or with the law, or both.”
I’ll break down the complaint’s component parts.
Venue
Establishing the venue is easy in this case: It all happened in Athens, Ohio, between Smith and OU, a state university. Hence, the Ohio Court of Claims has jurisdiction.
Allegations of facts
This is what the plaintiff (Smith) claims is true. These allegations can be refuted by the defense in an answer, to be filed later. The defense might also submit its own version of the facts in its answer.
In this case, Smith’s allegations of facts take up six of the complaint’s nine pages — and they are extremely detailed. I’ve condensed them here.
Let’s examine them:
- Smith signed a written multiyear contract (employment agreement) with OU in December 2024. The duration of the contract was from Dec. 17, 2024, to Dec. 31, 2029.
- Under the contract, Smith had a base salary of $615,000 annually, supplemental compensation of $135,000 per year, and a retention bonus of $100,000 annually. He also could receive more money based on performance incentives written into the contract.
- Smith claims that OU could terminate his employment only “for cause” based upon a “good faith determination” supported by “specific, enumerated grounds.” A termination “without cause” would have required the university to pay Smith the remainder of his contract. An example of a dismissal without cause would be if the university thought Smith didn’t win enough games and wanted a new coach.
- On Nov. 25, 2025, Smith was given a written reprimand about his and his coaches’ toasting victories with bourbon in Smith’s office after games. Smith claims the letter was a “corrective measure” and not a “terminable” offense. (By the way, the bourbon was given to Smith by OU President Lori Stewart Gonzalez’s husband, Randy.)
- Smith’s complaint also alleges that the consumption of alcohol in university offices and on university property is commonplace, including in distinguished professors’ offices, and in the presidential and athletic director suites during home football games.
- The reprimand letter stated that neither Smith nor any of his coaches were impaired during their toasts and that Smith was never intoxicated at any OU events or while coaching.
- The letter also said that only “future” violations of the university’s alcohol policy could result in future discipline. Smith claims he did not violate that policy after the reprimand.
- Just six days later, on Dec. 1, 2025, Smith received another letter putting him on paid administrative leave, but saying it was “not a disciplinary matter.”
- Smith was required to refrain from being on campus and to return all university property. Smith says he complied.
- On Dec. 12, 2025, Smith received a letter saying that a complaint had been filed against him. The complaint was later dismissed.
- On that same day, before any investigation and before discussing any allegations of wrongdoing with Smith, President Gonzalez sent a “Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment” letter to Smith.
- The notice said that additional evidence “may come to light.” Smith says that clause demonstrates that a termination decision had occurred without a factual record; and that “may come to light” is also nebulous.
- Smith claims the university had not “interviewed witnesses, assessed the credibility of the allegations or made factual findings.”
- The notice, according to Smith’s complaint, falsely accused him of “moral turpitude and reputational harm” to the university.
- He claims that he and his wife were involved in a divorce and that both had pursued other relationships. Smith claimed that any additional relationship he may have had did not violate university policy and was not made part of his divorce proceedings.
- The notice mentioned the office drinking, which had previously been characterized as a corrective action and not a basis for termination.
- The notice also, for the first time, brought up an alleged public appearance by Smith where he “smelled strongly of alcohol” and was “intoxicated in his demeanor.” No other details were provided.
- Smith was given only four days to respond. He did so on Dec. 16, 2025. Smith submitted a “detailed written response’” through his attorney. He disputed all the university’s accusations, cited a lack of policy violations, and noted “factual inaccuracies and procedural failures.”
- The next day on Dec. 17, 2025, President Gonzalez sent a letter to Smith terminating him “for cause.”
- Smith says the university did not interrogate witnesses, did not request clarification, did not make findings and did not give him an opportunity to be heard in accordance with his contract and university policies.
Alleged violation of law
Although such lawsuits are sometimes called “wrongful termination” cases, the real basis is a “breach of contract” claim: Smith is claiming that the university terminated him “for cause” without a proper “good faith” investigation or substantiating any grounds.
He says that the university failed to comply with both contractual obligations and university policies and procedures for a proper termination.
If the university’s position that they properly terminated Smith “for cause” is upheld, then he is not entitled to further compensation.
If, however, the university improperly terminated him without cause, he is claiming entitlement to all the added bonuses for 2025, plus all his contractual compensation for the remainder of his three-year contract.
Next steps
In an answer to the complaint, the university, through its counsel, will respond to Smith’s allegations and raise any defenses.
The answer is the defense’s game plan, and will frame the issues upon which there are disagreements between the parties.
This written answer is due within 28 days of the university’s counsel receiving a formal copy of the complaint, so an answer should be filed by June 8.
After the initial complaint and answer are filed, the parties will engage in discovery proceedings trying to flesh out their cases and grill the opposition. In a case like this, I am sure that both President Gonzalez and Smith will be required to give oral testimony under oath prior to a trial (a deposition). We will explore the discovery process in a future column.
Analysis
If I were analyzing this like a football game, I would say, at this early stage, things look good for the Smith team. It appears from the complaint that that university may have leaped over some necessary steps and that President Gonzalez may have jumped the gun and fired Smith too soon to try to avoid paying him money owed on his contract.
However, the defense has not yet laid out its gameplan. Once we see the answer to the complaint, a better and more accurate analysis will be forthcoming.
Stay tuned. Much more to come.
