Previously, the emphasis was on obtaining information from clients. In this chapter, the emphasis was on preparing witnesses for trial. To properly prepare witnesses for trial, the paralegal needs to….
Consider the preceding materials in determining whether Barr is likely to prevail on his claims.
William Barr was the head coach of the Richmond football team on a yearly basis for ten years. His current contract term was from 2015 to 2018. During a football game, a local sports reporter informed Mr. Reynolds, Richmond’s principal, that Barr had shouted a racial epithet at a player on the opposing team. At some point after this game, the principal met with the school district’s superintendent and discussed the renewal of Barr’s coaching contract. In January 2016, at the conclusion of the football season, Reynolds informed Barr that he would be fully compensated for the entire term of his coaching contract, but that all of Barr’s duties as coach would cease immediately. (Barr received the total amount due under his coaching contract.) Reynolds provided no reasons for terminating Barr and did not afford Barr a hearing to contest his termination. The school denied Barr’s request that he be permitted to present evidence at a hearing as to why his contract should be renewed. Mr. Reynolds announced to the local newspaper that “Coach Barr’s contract will not be renewed.” He made no comments as to the reasons why the contract would not be renewed. Following his termination, Barr sent out applications for several head football coaching positions but received no job offers. Barr has filed suit alleging breach of contract and that he has been deprived of his fundamental rights to continued employment and to his reputation. Consider the preceding materials in determining whether Barr is likely to prevail on his claims. Also see Puchalski v. School Dist. of Springfield, 161 F. Supp. 2d 395 (E.D. Penn. 2001); Ridpath v. Board of Governors Marshall Univ., 447 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2006) (university’s labeling as “corrective action” its reassignment of athletic director to a position outside of athletic department created a charge of a serious character defect, which in turn gave rise to a liberty interest and entitled plaintiff to a hearing that allowed him to contest the reassignment).