Former Utah State head football coach Blake Anderson filed a complaint Tuesday to initiate a lawsuit against Utah State University and named defendants Mica McKinney and Diana Sabau for alleged damages arising from Anderson’s termination as the Aggies’ coach this past summer.
Anderson contends that his termination as USU’s football coach has caused him “significant damages and reputational harm,” and that he was fired for “convenience” rather than “for cause,” which entitles him to compensation per his employment contract with the university.
Utah State fired Anderson “for cause” July 18, with the university alleging that he committed “significant violations of his contractual obligations related to USU’s employee reporting requirements.” Further statement from the university noted that “these reporting requirements include a prohibition on employees outside the USU Office of Equity from investigating issues of sexual misconduct, including domestic violence.”
Why was Blake Anderson fired by Utah State?
An incident involving a now-former USU football player in spring 2023 is at the core of the dispute between Anderson and Utah State.
The former player was arrested away from USU’s campus in Logan for a pair of misdemeanor offenses — domestic violence in the presence of a child and assault.
According to Utah State and an independent investigation conducted by the law firm Husch Blackwell, Anderson violated university policy by not reporting the arrest and incident in the way prescribed by USU policies. Moreover, USU and Husch Blackwell allege that Anderson undertook “investigation efforts,” which led him to interview players and the victim, an additional violation that ultimately, when combined with other issues, led to Anderson’s firing.
Anderson, on the other hand, contends he did not conduct an investigation and reported the incident to his superior — then interim athletic director Jerry Bovee — in accordance with university policy.
A summation of what Utah State and Anderson contend can be read here.
In the simplest terms, USU alleges that Anderson violated Title IX and university policies while Anderson claims he did not.
Who is Blake Anderson’s lawsuit against?
In his complaint, Anderson singles out four parties:
- Utah State University
- Mica McKinney
- Diana Sabau
- DOES I-X, which “constitutes one or more persons or entities that may be liable for the acts and omissions complained of herein, which may, as discovery reveals necessary, be added to this action.”
McKinney is the vice president of legal affairs and the general counsel at Utah State University, and Anderson alleges that McKinney is among those responsible for his termination by Utah State.
In his complaint, Anderson contends that McKinney had a “personal vendetta” against him and pushed for the independent investigation by the law firm Husch Blackwell, whose findings ultimately led to Anderson’s termination.
Anderson contends that McKinney wanted to find the means to fire him with cause and approached now-former USU president Noelle Cockett in hopes of getting her to initiate an investigation in order to “dig up dirt.” Upon Cockett declining, McKinney then allegedly went to the Utah State Board of Trustees and the BOT ultimately signed off on an independent investigation.
Anderson alleges that Sabau, the current athletic director at Utah State, has “engaged in a public smear campaign” against him in the aftermath of his termination. Specifically, that she has knowingly made false and/or misleading statements about the independent investigation and Anderson himself on multiple occasions and in multiple mediums.
When contacted by the Deseret News for comment, Utah State responded with this statement: “Utah State University stands by its decision to terminate Anderson’s contract for cause.”
What is Blake Anderson arguing?
There are four causes of action in Anderson’s complaint:
1. Breach of contract
- Anderson contends that Utah State violated the coaching contract that he and the university agreed upon when he was hired and later when his contract was extended.
- Anderson argues that USU fired him “for cause” when there wasn’t cause.
- Anderson says that even if Utah State could show a technical violation of policy, his contract prevents a single misstep as being grounds for termination.
- Anderson claims that USU “breached” his contract in a way that was “callous, public and in a defamatory manner in an effort to make a public example and scapegoat of him,” with the ultimate aim of deflecting attention from the university’s shortcoming when it comes to Title IX.
2. Breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing
- Anderson argues that USU breached an implied covenant of good faith that exists in every contract in Utah when the university allegedly fired him for cause without cause, as it undermined his ”ability to appreciate the benefits of the contract.”
3. Defamation
- Anderson contends that statements made by Sabau and then published are “untrue, defamatory (by calling into question Anderson’s integrity and reputation and exposed him to public ridicule), and not privileged.”
- Anderson alleges that said statements were published with “negligence, recklessness and actual malice,” and that those who published the statements had a knowledge that they were false or had serious doubts about the veracity of Sabau’s statements.
- Anderson also argues that Sabau acted outside of the scope of employment.
4. Tortious interference with economic relations
- Anderson alleges that McKinney, Sabau and those “persons or entities that may be liable for the acts and omissions complained of herein,” damaged both Anderson’s economic relations with USU and with “prospective” employers.
- Anderson contends that said interference was done via improper means.
Beyond those actions, Anderson contends that he has been unable to obtain employment since his termination, despite his best attempts.
Anderson says that he has been left “unemployable,” despite interest from multiple schools.
In the complaint, Anderson claims that prospective new employers have been ”concerned about the optics,” due to the public nature of Anderson’s firing.
Additionally, any position he could get would be as a private consultant behind the scenes for a fraction of what he was making as the head football coach at Utah State.
What does Blake Anderson want?
As expressly laid out in his complaint, Anderson is asking for “no less” than $15 million in damages.
That money is to be derived from general damages, special damages, punitive damages, compensatory damages and consequential damages, to be determined at trial.
Anderson has requested a trial by jury “on all issues so triable.”