May 12, 2006
Sports lawsuit goes on
MU?s Ridpath says he was made scapegoat
By Tom Searls
Staff writer
A federal appeals court ruled in a scathing opinion Thursday that the former NCAA compliance officer for Marshall University can continue with his lawsuit, which contends the university made him a scapegoat to conceal athletic violations.
David Ridpath was Marshall?s NCAA compliance officer in 1999 when the football program violated NCAA rules by giving some players copies of a test. That investigation led to revelations that a Marshall booster, Marshall Reynolds, paid some Marshall players high salaries for doing little or no work.
In his lawsuit, Ridpath claims he was forced to take another job at the university, made a scapegoat for the violations and was threatened by university officials. He alleged fraud, breach of contract and violations of his free speech and due process rights. He has asked for $1 million in damages.
U.S. District Judge Robert Staker ruled that Ridpath?s case could proceed. Marshall officials said they had ?qualified immunity,? because they are public officials, and appealed Staker?s decision to the U.S. 4th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Robert King wrote the opinion for the 4th Circuit, sending the case back to Staker?s court. King, who is from West Virginia, wrote that based on the available information, it looked like Marshall officials retaliated against Ridpath because they didn?t like what he said.
?Since filing, my client has anxiously awaited his opportunity to litigate this and clear his name,? said Charleston attorney Jason Huber, who represents Ridpath.
He says the university violated an agreement with him when it forced him to take a different job outside the Athletic Department and told NCAA investigators he was removed from his post as a ?corrective action.?
Marshall officials said Ridpath was aware of the program that paid players who didn?t qualify academically, known as Proposition 48 players, $200 a day for working at McCorkle Machine Shop, a Huntington business owned by Reynolds.
Proposition 48 players must attend school for a year and make sufficient grades in order to play.
Ridpath ?was threatened against publicly challenging this label or the other conclusions in the infractions report,? according to his suit. His suit alleges former Marshall President Dan Angel said he would ?cut the limb from the tree? and have ?no problem firing Ridpath on the spot? if he made a public comment.
Similar threats were allegedly made by F. Layton Cottrill, Marshall?s general counsel at the time, who told Ridpath ?you need to think about your family, young man? when discussing the ?corrective action? label, according to the lawsuit.
Another former Marshall official, longtime vice president K. Edward Grose, allegedly threatened to ?bury [Ridpath] personally and professionally? if he spoke about the infractions, according to the lawsuit.
When Ridpath spoke in general terms about NCAA violations to a class he taught at Marshall, he was stopped from teaching the class, which violated his First Amendment rights, according to his lawsuit.
Ridpath has said the label has ruined his reputation in his chosen field of athletic administration. He is currently a professor at Ohio University, but not in the school?s athletic department, Huber said.
Ridpath?s suit claims Bob Pruett, Marshall?s former football coach, and members of his staff stopped him from conducting an investigation into the jobs scam and prevented him from interviewing Reynolds.
The NCAA found that the jobs were an illegal form of financial aid in September 2001. Marshall lost several football scholarships and could not recruit Proposition 48 players for several years. It was also ordered to sever all ties with Reynolds, one of Marshall?s largest contributors, for at least five years.
In his opinion Thursday, King wrote the case may ?present a murky picture of why? Ridpath was removed from the teaching position for remarks he made.
?Read in the proper light, it alleges that the administrators retaliated against Ridpath for making [First Amendment] protected statements that they did not like,? the judge wrote.
Such action ?goes to its very core? of ?chilling? the First Amendment rights of Ridpath, King wrote, and ?a clearer violation of constitutionally protected free speech would be difficult to fathom.?
Thursday?s ruling will allow Ridpath?s attorney to begin subpoenaing documents and deposing administrators and coaches. After that, unless it is settled, the case will be presented before a jury.
|
/
Marshall fans; the most blatantly stupid and annoying fans..
