Johnson v. Sorensen
22 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1881, 2005 Ala. LEXIS 72, 914 So. 2d 830 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A misrepresentation or concealment of a matter of law, such as the effect of sovereign immunity, does not constitute actionable fraud because all parties are presumed to know the law. To establish fraudulent suppression, a plaintiff must prove the defendant had a duty to disclose and actual knowledge of the material fact, which is not met when a sophisticated party contracts with a state entity whose immunities are expressly reserved in the agreement.
Facts:
- In January 1997, Ellis Johnson was hired as an assistant football coach for the University of Alabama under an employment contract.
- The contract, signed on behalf of the University by President Andrew A. Sorensen and Athletic Director Robert L. Bockrath, included a liquidated-damages provision for termination without cause.
- The contract also contained a clause explicitly stating that the University was not waiving any legal immunities provided by law.
- A 1998 amendment to the contract, also signed by all parties, restated the liquidated-damages provision and added that such damages were 'recoverable... in any such court of competent jurisdiction.'
- During the 2000 football season, the head coach was terminated, and the new athletic director, Mal Moore, informed Johnson and other assistant coaches that their employment was also terminated.
- Johnson was subsequently offered and accepted a new head coaching position at The Citadel on January 5, 2001.
- Prior to suing, Johnson submitted a settlement proposal to the University for the difference in pay between his terminated contract and his new one, which the University rejected.
Procedural Posture:
- Ellis Johnson sued the University of Alabama in an Alabama state trial court for breach of contract.
- The University moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the defense of sovereign immunity.
- Johnson amended his complaint to add a claim of fraudulent suppression against University President Andrew Sorensen and Athletic Director Robert Bockrath in their individual capacities.
- The defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The trial court granted the defendants' summary-judgment motion and denied Johnson's cross-motion.
- Johnson, as appellant, appealed the summary judgment on the fraud claims against Sorensen and Bockrath, appellees, to the Supreme Court of Alabama.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state agent's failure to explain the legal effect of sovereign immunity on an employment contract's enforcement clause constitute fraudulent suppression when the contract itself preserves the state's immunities and the other party is charged with knowledge of the law?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Bolin
No. A state agent's failure to explain the legal effect of sovereign immunity does not constitute fraudulent suppression. The court affirmed the summary judgment for Sorensen and Bockrath, holding that Johnson failed to establish a prima facie case of fraudulent suppression. First, Johnson failed to prove that Sorensen and Bockrath owed him a duty to disclose the applicability of sovereign immunity, as no confidential relationship existed and it was an arm's-length transaction. The law charges those dealing with the State with knowledge of its immunity, and there is no duty to disclose laws that are publicly accessible. Second, Johnson did not present substantial evidence that Sorensen and Bockrath had actual knowledge that the contract provision was unenforceable; both testified to having little or no understanding of sovereign immunity. Finally, the court agreed that the alleged misrepresentation was a non-actionable misstatement of law, as there was no evidence it was intended or understood as an assertion of fact rather than an honest error.
Analysis:
This decision strongly reinforces the doctrine of sovereign immunity in Alabama and clarifies the high burden on plaintiffs alleging fraud against state agents. It establishes that sophisticated parties contracting with the state cannot later claim ignorance of fundamental legal principles like immunity, especially when the contract itself references such protections. The ruling significantly limits the viability of fraudulent suppression claims based on a failure to explain the legal enforceability of a state contract, placing the onus of due diligence squarely on the non-state party. Consequently, it protects state officials from liability for what the court deems 'honest errors' in legal statements within contracts.
