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.
The battle lines have been drawn.
The two framing documents (pleadings) outlining the issues of the case and the positions of the parties have been filed with the presiding court.
On May 8, former Ohio University football coach Brian Smith filed a complaint in the Ohio Court of Claims against Ohio University for wrongful termination and money damages following his December 2025 firing from the university.
The Court of Claims is the court designated to hear money damage claims against a state institution such as Ohio University.
On June 22, Ohio University filed its answer to the complaint denying Smith’s claims.
The issues are set. But much more will unfold before this case ends.
Let’s examine where the case now stands.
The players
Both Smith and Ohio University have notable legal counsel, so this likely will be a hard-fought legal battle. Nobody will roll over on this one.
Smith is represented by the Columbus law firm of Cooper Elliott — specifically by Rex H. Elliott, who has more than 30 years of trial experience.
His biography on the Cooper Elliott website says he “has achieved numerous multi-million dollar jury verdicts and settlements in complex state and federal cases.”
He worked at two Big Law firms — Sullivan & Cromwell on Wall Street and Porter Wright — before launching his own firm to serve “individuals and businesses that need protection from those in positions of extreme power. Since the firm’s inception, Rex has been directly involved in more than half a billion dollars in verdicts and settlements.”
It’s safe to say that he is no slouch in employment law cases.
On June 3, Ohio University’s attorneys made their appearance. David DeVillers of the Columbus firm of Barnes and Thornburg LLP is the lead counsel. He is a former U.S. Attorney and an experienced trial lawyer who defends “individuals and businesses in high-stakes white collar criminal matters, compliance issues, and complex litigation.”
In the Ohio Court of Claims there are no juries — meaning the judge, alone, will ultimately decide the case.
Judge Lisa L. Sadler has been assigned to hear the case. Judge Sadler has a wealth of judicial experience. She certainly is no novice to the bench and has handled numerous large cases.
Before being appointed to the Ohio Court of Claims, she spent nearly two decades on the 10th District Court of Appeals in Franklin County. Prior to that, she presided as a judge in the Franklin County Common Pleas Court and the Franklin County Municipal Court.
Prior to becoming a judge, she served as deputy chief counsel in the Ohio Governor’s Office and as an assistant city attorney for Columbus.
Framing the case
After receiving a brief time extension, Ohio University filed its legal response to Smith’s complaint on June 22.
The “Answer and Affirmative Defenses” pleading is 22 pages long and contains the university’s responses to Smith’s claims.
The document denies all essential claims by Smith and claims that the university had “factual, legal, and contractual grounds for terminating Smith’s employment for cause.”
In the document, the university claims it “made a good-faith determination” that Smith had violated the agreement (employment contract).
The university also claims that it exercised its discretion in November 2025 by giving Smith only a reprimand for consuming alcohol in his office after victories with other coaches, instead of terminating his contract based on that matter.
The university admits that it issued a letter on Dec.1, 2025, placing Smith on Administrative Leave and that he complied with all the requirements contained in the letter.
The university admits that two letters were sent to Smith on Dec. 12, 2025. One was a letter for the Office of Civil Rights Compliance, stating that it had received a complaint from a student alleging Smith “may have potentially violated Ohio University Policy 03.004 Sexual Harassment and Other Sexual Misconduct.”
The university also admits that on that same date, Ohio University President Lori Stewart Gonzalez sent a “Notice of Intent to Terminate Employment” for cause to Smith.
Smith had four days to respond, and he did so, in writing, through counsel on Dec. 16, 2025. The very next day on Dec. 17, President Gonzalez sent a letter to Smith terminating his employment for cause.
The university’s legal answer also denies any wrongdoing on the part of the university and denies that the university failed to follow appropriate procedures for a termination “for cause,” in accordance with its contract with Smith.
The issues are now set. We have Smith’s complaint and Ohio University’s answer.
Next steps
On June 24, Judge Sadler issued a legal document called an Original Scheduling Notice outlining key dates or benchmarks to meet for the case to proceed.
She set the case for trial for Dec. 6–10, 2027. Please note that this date is about a year-and-a-half from now. Without a settlement, this case will not end quickly.
A pretrial conference is slated for 11 a.m. Oct. 28, 2027, where representatives for all parties must be present. The court order says: “During the conference, counsel must have either the authority to negotiate a settlement or the ability to contact the client for the purpose of settlement.”
This means that the October2027 conference will be the last try for a settlement before the case proceeds to trial.
The most immediate court date scheduled is a “case management conference,” which will take place in just a few days, on July 23 of this year. The parties can attend virtually.
At this conference, the court expects: “Parties shall be fully prepared to discuss issues relating to service of process, venue, pleadings, discovery, joinder of additional parties, theories of liability, damages, actions in other courts, issues of employee immunity and applicable defenses. The parties also will be expected to review the proposed trial date and to discuss the timing of discovery.”
In short, the court wants to ascertain how long discovery (the exchange of information between the parties and oral depositions) will take in the case; make sure all appropriate parties have been joined in the litigation; see if any of the framing documents (complaint and answer) need to be amended; and check on the feasibility of the December 2027 trial date.
It is anticipated that discovery will be extensive in this case. I expect that Smith’s attorney will seek the production of documents germane to the case from the university, written interrogatories (questions answered in writing under oath) from various university officials, a series of depositions (oral testimony under oath prior to trial) of university administrators including President Gonzalez.
The university also is entitled to discovery from Smith including his deposition, production of documents, and interrogatories. They also may seek depositions from other witnesses to the underlying reasons for termination.
What can we expect next?
After the case management conference, it is expected that Judge Sadler will set out new dates in a court order. These dates would be to complete discovery, to establish a date for potential pretrial motions to be filed and potentially a new trial date.
The judge will be responsible for moving this case toward termination be it by settlement or trial and will likely keep the attorneys, Smith and university officials on task.
