Scott responds to UA lawsuit against him

By: Tom Murphy
Published: Wednesday, January 1, 2020
Former Arkansas defensive line coach John Scott Jr., is seen here at a Razorback practice before the 2018 season. Scott's attorney has filed Scott’s response to a breach of contract complaint lodged against him by the UA board of trustees last month.
( Ben Goff)
Former Arkansas defensive line coach John Scott Jr., is seen here at a Razorback practice before the 2018 season. Scott's attorney has filed Scott’s response to a breach of contract complaint lodged against him by the UA board of trustees last month.

FAYETTEVILLE -- The attorney for former University of Arkansas defensive line coach John Scott Jr. has filed Scott's response to a breach of contract complaint lodged against him by the UA board of trustees last month.

In the filing made Monday in U.S. District Court for the western district of Arkansas by Memphis-based attorney Alan G. Crone, Scott claimed the complaint is "frivolous, unreasonable and groundless."

The lawsuit filed Nov. 8 in Washington County Circuit Court sought more than $187,000 in liquidated damages from Scott, who signed a two-year deal at a salary of $340,000 per year on Jan. 19, 2018. He left after one season to take a similar job at the University of South Carolina at a salary of $435,000.

According to the original complaint, UA attorney Matt McCoy claimed Scott was contractually bound to pay the UA 50% of the annual salary remaining on the agreement if he left before the term ended. The amount in dispute is $187,862.32.

In Scott's response, he claimed "Coach Chad Morris and Athletic Director [Hunter] Yurachek ... specifically represented the following to the Defendant: Should Defendant accept a position that was better for his family or career, Plaintiff would 'take care of' the buyout provision of the Agreement at issue in this case."

Scott also claimed the UA obtained his consent to the contract "through fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation," and that as a result the deal was invalid.

In a notice of removal filed Dec. 16, Scott and Crone argued the jurisdiction of the complaint was more proper in U.S. District Court because the action "exceeds the sum or value of $75,000" and "is between citizens of different states."

Sports on 01/01/2020

Discussion

Have a comment on this story? Join the discussion or start a new one on the Forums.