Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., No. 1:11CV570.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 1:11CV570. |
| Citation | 856 F.Supp.2d 717 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of North Carolina |
| Parties | Rashard MENDENHALL, Plaintiff, v. HANESBRANDS, INC., Defendant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
David William Sar, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Greensboro, NC, Eric M. David, Brooks Pierce McLendon Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., Raleigh, NC, Richard H. Tilghman, Steven J. Thompson, Ungaretti & Harris LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
John F. Morrow, Jr., Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, PLLC, Winston–Salem, NC, Brendan J. O'Rourke, Victoria L. Loughery, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, NY, for Defendant.
This matter is currently before the Court on Defendant Hanesbrands, Inc.'s (“Hanesbrands,” “HBI” or “Defendant”) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. # 11] which seeks judgment on Plaintiff Rashard Mendenhall's (“Mr. Mendenhall” or “Plaintiff”) claim for breach of contract. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings [Doc. # 11] will be DENIED.
Taking as true the facts alleged in the Complaint, the Court will recount the relevant background facts surrounding Plaintiff's claim against Defendant. Mr. Mendenhall is a professional athlete in the National Football League (“NFL”) and is employed as a running back by the Pittsburgh Steelers. (Complaint ¶ 1). In May 2008, Mr. Mendenhall and Hanesbrands, a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business located in Winston–Salem, North Carolina, entered into a Talent Agreement (the “Talent Agreement”). (Complaint, Ex. A at 1). Under the terms of the Talent Agreement, Hanesbrands would use the services of Mr. Mendenhall to advertise and promote Hanesbrands' products sold under the Champion trademark. (Complaint, Ex. A at 1). The Talent Agreement was for a three-year term, beginning on May 1, 2008, and expiring on April 30, 2011. (Complaint, Ex. A at 1).
In August 2010, the parties executed an “Amendment and Extension of Hanesbrands Inc. Talent Agreement” (the “Extension Agreement”), which extended the term of the Talent Agreement for an additional four years, until April 30, 2015. (Complaint, Ex. B at 1). In addition to extending the term of the Talent Agreement, the Extension Agreement modified Section 17(a) of the Talent Agreement. (Complaint, Ex B at 4). Under the original terms of Section 17(a) as stated in the Talent Agreement:
If Mendenhall is arrested for and charged with, or indicted for or convicted of any felony or crime involving moral turpitude, then HBI shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement.
(Complaint, Ex. A at 7). Pursuant to Section 3(a) of the Extension Agreement, the
terms of Section 17(a) were modified to state the following:
If Mendenhall commits or is arrested for any crime or becomes involved in any situation or occurrence (collectively, the “Act”) tending to bring Mendenhall into public disrepute, contempt, scandal, or ridicule, or tending to shock, insult or offend the majority of the consuming public or any protected class or group thereof, then we shall have the right to immediately terminate this Agreement. HBI's decision on all matters arising under this Section 17(a) shall be conclusive.
Beginning in January 2011, Mr. Mendenhall “used the Twitter social media platform (“Twitter”) to be himself, to express his opinions and [to] foster debate on controversial and non-controversial issues.” (Complaint ¶¶ 3, 18). On his Twitter profile, Mr. Mendenhall describes himself as a “Conversationalist and Professional Athlete.” (Complaint ¶ 19; Answer ¶ 19). Between March 15, 2011, and May 1, 2011, Plaintiff used his Twitter account to candidly express his views about Islam, women, parenting and relationships, and made comments in which Plaintiff compared the NFL to the slave trade. (Complaint ¶¶ 20–32). Plaintiff alleges that in response to these tweets, “Hanesbrands at no time suggested that it disagreed with Mr. Mendenhall's comments or that his tweets were in any way inconsistent with the values of the Champion brand or his obligations under the Talent Agreement, or that because of his tweets, Hanesbrands believed Mr. Mendenhall could no longer continue to effectively communicate on behalf of and represent Champion with consumers.” (Complaint ¶¶ 25, 27, 29, 31).
On May 2, 2011, Plaintiff issued the following tweets regarding Osama bin Laden, whose death had been announced by President Obama on May 1, 2011:
What kind of person celebrates death? It's amazing how people can HATE a man they never even heard speak. We've only heard one side ...
I believe in God. I believe we're ALL his children. And I believe HE is the ONE and ONLY judge.
Those who judge others, will also be judged themselves.
For those of you who said we want to see Bin Laden burn in hell and piss on his ashes, I ask how would God feel about your heart?
There is not an ignorant bone in my body. I just encourage you to # think
@dkller 23 We'll never know what really happened. I just have a hard time believing a plane could take a skyscraper down demolition style.
In response to the May 2, 2011 tweets noted above, Plaintiff received some comments in support and some comments opposed to his views. (Complaint ¶ 36). On May 4, 2011, “[i]n response to some negative reaction” to the May 2, 2011 tweets, Mr. Mendenhall issued the following explanation:
I appreciate those of you who have decided to read this letter and attain a greater understanding of my recent twitter posts. I see how they have gotten misconstrued, and wanted to use this outlet as a way to clear up all things that do not truthfully represent myself, what I stand for personally, and any organization that I am a part of.
First, I want people to understand that I am not in support of Bin Laden, or against the USA. I understand how devastating 9/11 was to this country and to the people whose families were affected. Not just in the US, but families all over the world who had relatives in the World Trade Centers. My heart goes out to the troops who fight for our freedoms everyday, not being certain if they will have the opportunity to return home, and the families who watch their loved ones bravely go off to war. Last year, I was grateful enough to have the opportunity to travel over seas and participate in a football camp put on for the children of U.S. troops stationed in Germany. It was a special experience. These events have had a significant impact in my life.
This controversial statement was something I said in response to the amount of joy I saw in the event of a murder. I don't believe that this is an issue of politics or American pride; but one of religion, morality, and human ethics. In the bible, Ezekiel 33:11 states, I wasn't questioning Bin Laden's evil acts. I believe that he will have to face God for what he has done. I was reflecting on our own hypocrisy. During 9/11 we watched in horror as parts of the world celebrated death on our soil. Earlier this week, parts of the world watched us in horror celebrating a man's death.
Nothing I said was meant to stir up controversy. It was my way to generate conversation. In looking at my timeline in its entirety, everything that I've said is with the intent of expressing a wide array of ideas and generating open and honest discussions, something I believe we as American citizens should be able to do. Most opinions will not be fully agreed upon and are not meant to be. However, I believe every opinion should be respected or at least given some thought. I apologize for the timing as such a sensitive matter, but it was not meant to do harm. I apologize to anyone I unintentionally harmed with anything that I said, or any hurtful interpretation that was made and put in my name.
It was only meant to encourage everyone reading it to think.
In a letter dated May 5, 2011, and addressed to Rob Lefko, one of Mr. Mendenhall's representatives at Priority Sports and Entertainment, Hanesbrands' Associate General Counsel, L. Lynette Fuller–Andrews, indicated that it was Hanesbrands' intent to terminate the Talent Agreement effective Friday, May 13, 2011, pursuant to Paragraph 17(a) of the Agreement. (Complaint, Ex. C). On May 6, 2011, Hanesbrands issued a public statement to ESPN, stating the following:
Champion is a strong supporter of the government's efforts to fight terrorism and is very appreciative of the dedication and commitment of the U.S. Armed Forces. Earlier this week, Rashard Mendenhall, who endorses Champion products, expressed personal comments and opinions regarding Osama bin Laden and the September 11 terrorist attacks that were inconsistent with the values of the Champion brand and with which we strongly disagreed. In light of these comments, Champion was obligated to conduct a business assessment to determine whether Mr. Mendenhall could continue to effectively communicate on behalf of and represent Champion with consumers.
While we respect Mr. Mendenhall's right to express sincere thoughts regardingpotentially controversial topics, we no longer believe that Mr. Mendenhall can appropriately represent Champion and we have notified Mr. Mendenhall that we are ending our business relationship. Champion has appreciated its association with Mr. Mendenhall during his early professional football career and found him to be a dedicated and conscientious young athlete. We sincerely wish him all the best.
(Complaint, Ex. D; Answer ¶ 39).
In a series of correspondence between Mr. Mendenhall's representative at Priority Sports and Entertainment and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Action NC v. Strach, 1:15-cv-1063
...attached to the Answer are part of the pleadings for Rule 12(c) purposes, and may be considered." Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc. , 856 F.Supp.2d 717, 724 (M.D.N.C. 2012).C. Eleventh Amendment Immunity Both Defendant Strach and the Agency Defendants assert Eleventh Amendment immunity, which......
-
Howard v. City of Durham
...court may consider the complaint, the answer, and documents incorporated by reference into these pleadings. Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 724 (M.D.N.C. 2012). "Specifically, exhibits integral to and explicitly relied on in the complaint may be reviewed, provided thei......
-
Taylor v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co.
...may consider the complaint, the answer, and any documents incorporated by reference into these pleadings. Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F.Supp.2d 717, 724 (M.D.N.C.2012). Documents attached to an answer or a motion to dismiss can only be considered if they were integral to and explic......
-
First Protective Ins. Co. v. Rike
...was not required to reply to defendant's answer, and all allegations in the answer are deemed denied." Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717, 724 (M.D.N.C. 2012) (alterations and quotations omitted); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b)(6) ("If a responsive pleading is not required, an a......
-
Diversity Corner
...[6] Ludtke v. Kuhn, 461 F. Supp. 86 (D.N.Y. 1978). [7] Mendenhall v. Hanesbrands, Inc., 856 F. Supp. 2d 717 (M.D.N.C. 2012). [8] Diana Moskovitz, The NFL Quietly Changed its Obscure Rule About Standing For The National Anthem, Deadspin (Oct. 9, 2017) available at https://deadspin.com/the-nf......