The Razorback Foundation has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit brought against them by former Arkansas head football coach, Bret Bielema.
This comes two weeks after Bielema filed a lawsuit against the Foundation claiming he was owed upwards of $7 million in unpaid wages.
Below is a part of the motioned filed by the Razorback Foundation:
“Former Razorback Coach Bret Bielema brings claims against the Foundation for breach of contract, contending that the Foundation has failed to pay him what he is owed and claiming that he was painted in a false light by the Foundation. Bielema preemptively filed suit in an effort to avoid being sued himself in Washington County Circuit Court and presumably to frame the media’s report of the dispute. In truth, while Bielema attempts to point the finger at the Foundation, he shoulders the blame. Had he abided by his rather simple promises to the Foundation in the Release and Waiver Agreement (“Release Agreement”), there would be no dispute. Instead, he violated his promises to mitigate the Foundation’s financial obligations by failing to use his best efforts to obtain, or even to look for, other employment that would fulfill his obligations of mitigation. Specifically, his obligations would be satisfied only by obtaining a job that paid more than $150,000…”
The motion continues by saying, “Bielema’s 64-page2 complaint is chock full of distorted facts, mischaracterizations, and baseless claims.”
The Foundation also compares this situation to that of the Razorbacks previous head football coach, Chad Morris.
“Unlike former Razorback Coach Chad Morris, who obtained a coordinator position at a major college football program with a lucrative contract that included a seven-figure annual base salary within weeks of being terminated for convenience by the University of Arkansas, Bielema claims that the highest paying position he could find initially was a part-time consulting role that paid a mere $35,000. Moreover, by the start of the 2018 football season, each member of Bielema’s coaching staff was re-employed in comparable or higher paying positions and most were in higher paying positions than Bielema.”
Lastly, the motion for dismissal reads in part, “In sum, Bielema made no effort to look for another job; did not obtain another job; did not report his efforts to find a job; and signed a contract in violation of the Release Agreement by contractually prohibiting himself from meeting his affirmative duty of mitigation, including his duty to seek other employment. See generally id. As a result, the Foundation notified him in January 2019 that he had breached the Release Agreement and the Foundation therefore would cease all future payments. Despite failing to fulfill his contractual obligations, Bielema now brings a lawsuit that must be dismissed as a matter of law.”
To read more about Bielema’s lawsuit against the foundation click HERE.