Quote:
Originally Posted by MattyC
Honestly have no idea, specifically. That's why I'd be talking to a lawyer.
But yea, wrongful dismissal sounds right. Not on the grounds that he didn't breach his contract. But that the Kings are using the wording in the contract subjectively. You could probably make the case, based on the fact that Voynov is retained for breaking the same clause, that he was dismissed purely due to his contract status.
I have no idea if that has any legal grounds at all (again, hence the lawyers), but it seems like something like that would have a judge raising their eyebrows.
|
Without a doubt, Voynov's contract could be terminated. Its just their choice whether to or not.
Most employment contracts (not sure about pro athlete) have a "employment is at will" in their contract, meaning that an employer can terminate the contract at any time without cause. Employers will probably find a suitable justification just in case it ever goes to court, but the "at will" gives them proper grounds. (I remember asking my recent job offer contract what that means)
I really have trouble thinking of something Richards could sue for, and what he would sue for? Is it to terminate Voynov's contract?
I think the equivalent you are saying is something like getting caught for speeding, then sueing the city because there are other people that are driving even faster and get away with it.
In the end, I think its all for not as I imagine Voynov's contract will be terminated... I can't imagine LA/Lombardi is very happy with this gong show of Voynov, Stoll and now Richards.