Greg LaFleur claims breach of SU contract

Southern University breached the contract of then-Athletic Director Greg LaFleur when it announced "to the whole country" last year, three days after his arrest on a misdemeanor prostitution charge, that LaFleur had been fired, his attorney told a judge Monday.

A Houston jury acquitted LaFleur on the charge earlier this year.

LaFleur was arrested April 3, 2011, and on April 6, 2011, Southern announced in a news release that he had been terminated. LaFleur, who received a termination letter April 8, 2011, sued the university April 14, 2011.

LaFleur attorney Scott Wilson argued Monday to state District Judge Todd Hernandez that Southern breached LaFleur's contract because the university had no cause to fire him.

Then-Chancellor Kofi Lomotey has said his decision to fire LaFleur was one that had to be made quickly for the overall stability of the school's athletic program.

Wilson also argued LaFleur was not given an opportunity to refute the alleged cause for his termination.

Winston Decuir Jr., who represents the Southern Board of Supervisors in the case, countered that LeFleur was given 30-day notice on April 8, 2011, and was paid until May 6, 2011 - which gave LaFleur plenty of time to appeal.

"He provided no good reason for not responding," Decuir told Hernandez. "He had an opportunity to appeal. He failed to take advantage of it."

But Wilson said LaFleur's firing was a "done deal" on April 6, 2011.

"The decision had been made. They announced it to the whole country," he argued.

Wilson added that Southern could have placed LaFleur on paid or unpaid administrative leave after his arrest, but chose not to do so.

Decuir asked Hernandez to take the arguments under advisement and rule after the judge has had a chance to review LaFleur's deposition testimony in the case. Hernandez agreed to do so.

LaFleur, 53, is seeking damages, including his base salary for the remainder of his contract, which he says was to expire June 30, 2013.

LaFleur, a former LSU tight end who played for three NFL teams from 1981 to 1986, was attending the NCAA men's Final Four in Houston seeking potential candidates for the vacant Southern men's basketball coaching job when he was arrested during a prostitution sting.

He was accused of soliciting an undercover police officer posing as a prostitute to engage in "sexual intercourse for hire," according to a criminal complaint.

A six-person jury found him not guilty.


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (4)


1) Comment by rdm41234 - 08/08/2012

@Duckyluve - Couldn't connect the dots? Are you saying that the 'jury of his peers' was ignorant or biased in it's decision? Did you see all of the court proceedings that led up to his acquittal? That jury of 'his peers' is also a jury of 'your peers'. I don't think the jury was comprised of only black college athletic directors. And I guess the 'jury of his peers' in the Torrance Hatch case was comprised of only 'black rappers'? Ducky- you've no clue how the justice system works. I doubt prosecutors would allow such a one sided jury to manifest. Your remarks have racist overtones. A jury of my peers would reach that same conclusion.

2) Comment by Duckyluve - 07/08/2012

A jury of "his peers" found him not guilty. That doesnt mean he didnt commit the crime. Just means that a "jury of his peers" couldnt connect the dots.....same reason rappers get off

3) Comment by LawyerDan65 - 07/08/2012

So if he was found not guilty of the act that was the cause for the termination, the the termination was wrongful, if he had a contract of employment.

4) Comment by rdm41234 - 07/08/2012

While only Mr. LaFleur, the lady, and God knows what really happened here, he is well within his rights to sue SU out the wazoo. This was a rush to judgment. A more suitable handling of this case would have been to suspend him with pay until there was a resolution in the courts which there was. He was not guilty, BUT, so was OJ. I met Mr. LaFleur once, as the keynote speaker at a health fair at a church on Hollywood Street. I was very moved by his speech as was most of the other listeners, or so it appeared. Going back to SU as AD doesn't appear to be an option now (it would be too much of a distraction) but suing them certainly is.