Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

contractbreach of contractdamagesappealtrialmotionsummary judgmentspecific performancemotion for summary judgment
contracttrust

Related Cases

Garvey v. Roberts, 203 F.3d 580, 163 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2449, 140 Lab.Cas. P 10,643, 00 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1090, 2000 Daily Journal D.A.R. 1611
View Case »
Harris ex rel. Harris v. McCray, 867 So.2d 188, 186 Ed. Law Rep. 990
View Case »
Schick v. Ferolito, 167 N.J. 7, 767 A.2d 962
View Case »
Champion Pro Consulting Group, Inc. v. Impact Sports Football, LLC, 976 F.Supp.2d 706
View Case »
Lewis v. Rahman, 147 F.Supp.2d 225
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Rodgers v. Georgia Tech Athletic Ass’n, 166 Ga.App. 156, 303 S.E.2d 467, 11 Ed. Law Rep. 1075

Facts

Franklin C. 'Pepper' Rodgers, the former head coach of football at the Georgia Institute of Technology, brought a breach of contract action against the Georgia Tech Athletic Association to recover the value of certain perquisites he claimed were due under his employment contract. After being removed from his coaching position, Rodgers sought to recover various benefits and perquisites that he believed were part of his compensation package. The trial court granted the Association's motion for summary judgment, leading to Rodgers' appeal. The case primarily revolved around the interpretation of the contract regarding the perquisites available to Rodgers as head coach.

Rodgers was removed from his coaching position by vote of the Association's Board of Trustees on December 18, 1979, notwithstanding a written contract of employment through December 31, 1981.

Issue

Whether Rodgers is entitled to recover the value of certain perquisites or 'fringe benefits' of his position as head coach of football under the terms of his contract of employment with the Association.

Whether Rodgers is entitled to recover the value of certain perquisites or 'fringe benefits' of his position as head coach of football under the terms of his contract of employment with the Association.

Rule

An employee may not generally obtain specific performance of his contract of employment; his only recourse for breach is damages. The contract must be interpreted to determine the intention of the parties regarding perquisites, which are defined as emoluments or incidental profits attaching to an office beyond salary. Ambiguities in the contract are construed against the drafter, and the employee is entitled to recover only those perquisites that were intended as part of the contract.

The term 'perquisites' is defined as '[e]moluments or incidental profits attaching to an office or official position, beyond the salary or regular fees.' Black's Law Dictionary 1299 (4th ed. 1968).

Analysis

The court analyzed the contract's language to determine whether the perquisites claimed by Rodgers were intended as part of his compensation. It found that the contract was ambiguous regarding whether Rodgers was entitled to perquisites common to all employees or additional ones specific to his role as head coach. The court noted that the intention of the parties could be inferred from the context and the conduct of the parties, leading to the conclusion that Rodgers was entitled to certain perquisites based on his position.

The evidence offered as to the nature of the items in Section A was in considerable dispute. The fact that these items were not reported as taxable income by Rodgers is not conclusive as to their nature (see Mullinax v. Mullinax, 234 Ga. 553, 555, 216 S.E.2d 802 (1975)), nor is the fact that Rodgers reimbursed the Association for occasional 'personal' expenses which it had paid.

Conclusion

The court affirmed in part and reversed in part, indicating that while some claims for perquisites were not recoverable, substantial factual issues remained regarding others, precluding summary judgment.

Judgment affirmed in part; reversed in part.

Who won?

The Georgia Tech Athletic Association prevailed in part as the court affirmed the summary judgment regarding certain claims made by Rodgers. The court found that Rodgers was not entitled to recover for items such as the services of a secretary and administrative assistant, as well as costs related to trips to football conventions, since these were not considered perquisites under the terms of his contract. However, the court also recognized that there were substantial factual issues regarding other claimed perquisites that warranted further examination.

You must be