264 So. 3d 9
Miss. Ct. App.2018Background
- Ernest Jones was hired as Alcorn State University head football coach under a four-year, for‑cause termination contract; disputes arose after Darren Hamilton became athletic director in 2008.
- Jones alleged Alcorn fired seven assistant coaches, withheld equipment and resources, and made false financial-misconduct accusations; he sued in December 2008.
- After an administrative hearing, Alcorn terminated Jones (Jan. 28, 2009); Jones pursued certiorari review (unsuccessful) while also litigating related claims in state and federal court.
- At trial (Jan. 2016) the jury found Alcorn breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and awarded $500,000, but the court granted JNOV for Alcorn.
- On appeal, Jones argued (1) the JNOV was erroneous, (2) he should have been allowed to amend to assert wrongful‑termination breach of contract, and (3) the tortious‑interference claim against Hamilton was improperly dismissed under the MTCA.
- The Court of Appeals reversed in part: the implied‑covenant claim is viable but governed by the Mississippi Tort Claims Act (MTCA) (pre‑suit notice required); Jones should have been permitted to amend to assert wrongful termination; and the tortious interference claim against Hamilton survives post‑Springer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Viability of implied covenant claim | Jones: covenant breach available even without breach of an express term (equipment, firing assistants, false charges) | Alcorn: claim fails absent breach of express contract terms | Court: covenant claim is viable independent of express term breach; Cenac controls |
| MTCA applicability to implied‑covenant claim | Jones: MTCA should not bar this implied‑duty claim | Alcorn: MTCA applies to any breach of implied contractual term and limits suit | Court: MTCA applies to implied‑term claims; waiver under §11‑46‑5 permits damages (subject to limits) but pre‑suit notice and bench‑trial rule apply; libel/slander claims remain barred |
| Pre‑suit notice / effect on verdict | Jones: did not comply but statute of limitations tolled; merits should proceed | Alcorn: failure to give MTCA notice requires dismissal | Court: failure to give MTCA notice requires dismissal without prejudice; statute of limitations tolled while suit was pending; MTCA claims must be heard by judge without jury on refiling |
| Leave to amend to add wrongful‑termination breach claim | Jones: original complaint and defendants’ earlier positions put them on notice; amendment timely and non‑prejudicial | Alcorn: undue delay, prejudice, and new theory less than five months before trial | Court: denial was abuse of discretion; facts were part of the case, no specific prejudice shown; Jones may pursue wrongful‑termination breach claim (jury right preserved) |
| Preclusion by prior administrative/certiorari appeals | Jones: prior appellate rulings do not bar a separate breach‑of‑contract suit | Alcorn: prior appellate decision upholding termination precludes relitigation | Court: Brewer controls—having a written contract, Jones may bring independent breach‑of‑contract damages claim despite administrative proceedings |
| Tortious interference against Hamilton (individual capacity) | Jones: claim against Hamilton individually is proper | Alcorn: MTCA bars such claims against state actors | Court: Springer held MTCA does not apply to tortious interference claims against individuals; dismissal was error; Jones may proceed against Hamilton individually |
Key Cases Cited
- Cenac v. Murray, 609 So. 2d 1257 (Miss. 1992) (establishes implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in all contracts)
- Estate of Stewart v. City of Jackson, 908 So. 2d 703 (Miss. 2005) (MTCA bars suits "on account of any...breach of implied term or condition of any...contract")
- Board of Trustees of State Insts. of Higher Learning v. Brewer, 732 So. 2d 934 (Miss. 1999) (employee with written contract may pursue separate breach‑of‑contract damages action notwithstanding internal administrative process)
- Springer v. Ausbern Constr. Co., 231 So. 3d 980 (Miss. 2017) (MTCA does not apply to tortious interference with contract claims against individuals)
- Daniels v. Parker & Assocs. Inc., 99 So. 3d 797 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (discussed; court confirms dicta misread if interpreted to require an express‑term breach for implied‑covenant claim)
- Carma Developers (Cal.) Inc. v. Marathon Dev. Cal. Inc., 826 P.2d 710 (Cal. 1992) (supporting authority that implied covenant breach may occur without dishonesty or express‑term breach)