An Update on Rashard Mendenhall's Suit Against Champion For Terminating Him After the Bin Laden Tweets

Last week, the trial court denied summary judgment in the case. Hanesbrand (Champion) tried to argue that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because it had a morals clause that vested in it the right to terminate the contract at its discretion. In addition to specific clauses about criminal actions, it contained the following that allowed the contract to terminate if Mendenhall:

"[Became] involved in any situation or occurrence . . . tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, shock, insult, or offend the majority of the consuming public . . . . [Hanesbrands’] decision on all matters arising under the contract are conclusive."

As the Technology and Marketing Law blog points out, the Court found that the contract was constrained by the duty of good faith and fair dealing. If that clause really provided Champion with the ability to terminate under those terms as they saw fit, without any ability to challenge, then it might render the rest of the clause fairly meaningless.

This does not mean that Mendenhall will win, by any means, and recover any of the money he would have been paid as an endorser. That’s still a fact issue as to whether what he said a year ago created “public disrepute” or shocked or offended the majority of the consuming public.

Of course, Mendenhall’s lawyers may want to utilize pieces like what Ty wrote last year, or what Jason Whitlock wrote. It definitely created a momentary storm, but did it really offend the majority of the public?

[photo via US Presswire]