honest that this case is unique in that unlike most of the of the appeals that come before this court this appeal actually this the appeal actually springs from the district court determination regarding two common law state law klein's claims for breach of contract and claims for invasion of privacy because the district court's findings are incompatible with the contract allowed her to be terminated for colleagues and without paid meant if she violated her hate coaches duties any mississippi or federal criminal law or in the two way rooms in this case do coach taylor's duties which required her to know the university's policies and to ensure and monitor that the women's violation one breach in order to substantiate substantiate the university's this season to terminate coach tatler for my examples the first one that i will point to your honor's in these examples are on page three employees to allow them to feed students when they are own trips representing the university in this case based upon an od it of the women's basketball program for one year jackson state about roughly about fourteen hundred dollars it's interesting i think is important to note that coaches are required to submit a thing in sheets that hay of the names of players presumably or students who car without any reference to that being her child or any reference to that not being adjacent to student such that anybody reviewing those they have they and she would believe that that name was the name of a student money in advance and she use it for you on a desk when she testified at two however if you look at the actual university policies it states that if you are seeking reimbursements or phones it receives in their reimburse but also to the extent that you are used in funds outside of the purpose for which you have stated that those funds are going to be used the university expect here yes star yes on of that i also includes the airfare for her family and again your honor that was a nother at inappropriate use in violation of policy that was not a l university the employer in this situation can point to a breach that justifies terminations of the country i think it's important to point out too that the district court in its opinion analyzing title say have been discriminate discrimination and retaliation cases and as you all know wow motivation may matter in those federal discrimination in retaliation case  it relates to his judgment is a matter of law should be reversed under mississippi court law mississippi state law it is clear that motivation does not matter  decided a couple of weeks after the jury trial up on a b h brief from the district court judge in that case the district court judge awarded two hundred thousand dollars in damages for lier invasion of privacy based on jackson's face disclosure of nine pages nine pages of information related to its intent to terminate terminate coach taylor the publicized facts in this case did not involve a matter of concern regarding coach taylor's private life what jackson state university program and who stated during the trial that the public was interested because of her being a hit the hay out of a prominent basketball program for university in that state and what was going now with her employment checks the state released was a summary of allegations allegations regarding a purported mis appropriation of state funds and allegations regarding the alleged mistreatment of student athletes one other component the next album in ensures that there must be some type of showing that a reasonable person would have been of been about the release of that information culture taylor's own admission that she was the face of that program and that the public was interested in and what was happening with their program asked the media to your honor's they had a reasonable person she should not have been a fear and bit bad shacks the state run leasing a summary of allegations about how she was treating student athletes and house so her actions in relation to public phone the last element your honour's there has to be shown is that the information provided badge extant state was not a legitimate public concern here there are two reasons for sure this show that i was docu means dealt with information of legitimate public concern the first one is cause taylor's own admission she stated in her direct testimony at trial was i am a coach that has been in this community and have done lots the positive things in this community for thirteen years so it is public knowledge that what's going on with this situation that's going to be reported to the media coach taylor father went on to testify and state that the media had a responsibility to the public to know what was going on with that situation and that comes from pages two two one two three two two one three the case and say well as long as we can say there's a breach it only becomes a question of law but that's only if there's undisputed facts there are dispute facts here and what we put forward with not only the other coaches taking the same actions but the business manager director to take those actions and the athletic director and ordinator approving expressly approving these actions and jackson state may say we did not do that but that was up for the jury to decide and they ruled in our favor one of the issues that they feel that they just talked about and the court brought up was the travel we spent over an hour in in trial talking about coach taylor negotiating with the unit another university paying for coach taylor's husband and son to fly to texas for a game and then and there were possibly they have met that and another male coach did the exact same thing he negotiated for a trip to florida and that wasn't in his contract to that he could just go off and do that there's no evidence of that but that's where it goes back and forth they did in their reply brief they tried to say well here undisputed policies but if you look at those policies she really didn't violate them the first one th is the travel policy and they said the policy states that travel advances will be issued for employees who accompany students traveling that's true they do offer travel advantage for employees but there's nothing in th will know that that's assumption and then you have to look at what the practice was and this wasn't that and if the policy had said we will only issue travel advances for employees and nobody else for no other reason that might be a little hard argument but that's not what it says it says that we will do this that doesn't mean we won't do it for other situations like with other coaches watch football coaches wives that's the issue with each one of these on that and even if it was in the contract and the contract was put forward that doesn't mean you can contract him to go to violate their policies it's still of a violation of their policy their their saying and these coaches contract came violate any policy on there it's the same thing in coach taylor situation frankly in that where they're saying in an express contract we're going to assuming that was the case they were going to allow you to violate that policy and in that same contract say that you came violating policies it's the same thing as jay issues business manager travel coordinator athletic director confirming these things and saying yes this is this is fine you can do this on there it's the same it's the same thing once oral ones in writing that's the only difference and also a verb no it in advance now this was not like something that was  acknowledge it that's what her testimony is that this is something that happened over the years and that she did it every time that she worked for the university every game for instance with her son that  with her they knew she was a single mom and her son and i think was three or four years old when she got heart they knew that she was going to be traveling with her no one disputed that they all you know she's a very public figure they all knew her son when she listed her sign on a mail receipt they know who taylor kora was they know who their players are they know taylor carr is not a player and for them to argue otherwise was really silly on their the other thing with the meals on their they say you're just another example of where they're mischaracterizing policies he says well the policy states each person who has provided a meal must be listed with the receipts each person was in their violation is as well she listed somebody who ended up not eating on there but there's not that's not a violation there's nothing in the policy so you can't list somebody who didn't get a meal it only says anybody who did get a meal must be listed and everybody could business manager director her take those actions it's one thing and one other thing to consider is we want to have three claims one of the bridge contract claim breach of implied cover of good faith and fair dealing and invasion of privacy emotional pain and suffering was not the losing of a job it was the losing of a reputation she has never been able to coach and the college arena since this this trial was in two thousand and thirteen  got terminated at the can two thousand and twelve and her career is ruined she ended up having to move to another state because of the embarrassment of the invasion of privacy claim where they listed out that she had sexually harassed students when there was no evidence of it's and they don't even hardly mention in their brief and it really tarnished her reputation she talks about at some points where she was numerous times thinking about committing suicide because she couldn't get a job all you had to do is google her name and find out that there was you know all these bad things about her and even if even though she's won her case at trial you know nobody will touch or she can't she may get an interview but she can't get hired she's one been out too long but two her reputation is gone and this is still an appeal because any university can't take the risk because we're still here and if this court were to reverse well then they're they've hired potentially someone that has allegations of sexual hostile work environment in there and they can't take that risk any reasonable person could players that there's actual retention was that was made a big issue that no there were there was there was an allegation and about questioning about someone to take the bait i'm sorry there was a statement we went in and students about that and they didn't confirm it i think it was at one point there was one student who had been hit over the head with a gun bar roommate and she was upset that coach taylor was interfering in her life and think there and made some statements that she thought maybe she was doing it because she was gay but everything turned out to be know what you look at is the sexual hostile work environment is hands down a policy violation i meant the privacy klein yes it separate in part from the breach of contract on the step when you got to separate two hundred thousand or undisputed that women on the t made certain allegations against because it had to do with their sexual orientation there were at least one player that made that allegation and i do not remember the name but there was at least one player who release a record that says this allegation has been that because they didn't release the statement one but to me it was covered under state law to be a private it was not public if it was public they could have released it the state missed be public records law required that those personnel records this was all part of her personal record that it not be made public that it was and certainly we agree that a  don't know if that's correct you cannot release it and under a public records request act and what they did if you really look at it particularly in the motive to it frankly we decided to the personnel records it talks about all the records that public records that can be made and personnel records are that there's no there's no list of exception to the personal record on there and that's the big the big issue with our invasion of privacy klein is the law says these issues are private because they were part of a personnel record and i don't dispute that a public could have some interest in an issue like that but the issue the problem is  it's false they knew it was false they took nothing from the students and the reason they hardly interviewed anybody they didn't interview coach taylor they didn't release the written statements to the clan ledger they wanted to leave it as vague as possible because they didn't warn coach taylor to go back and provide any of us to diffuse they were more interested in protecting students not coach taylor and protecting their false allegations one student's complaint was coach taylor was treating her too well that was in talking point on there they didn't want the clarion ledger to see that they didn't want to see any of the other things that could have been easily followed up on the any of the misuse of funds issue the clear ledger would have been easily been able to interview any male or female coach out there  right well i wasn't a bench trial it was just a jury trial and then the court ruled based off the transcript yes so the judge judge one and the jury judge that's correct six weeks both of claiming right that's not the only thing the university will that's correct if they want to the entire trial and go back and do the whole six weeks so this this if we take both of your positions is like who leaves the kids magazine how many birds can you find three there's so many things wrong well there's not so many things wrong and that's what we're arguing is is there is not the only issue that we or containing is wrong but they have argued that that the supreme court's would be disregarded and they didn't really mean because when they said because i mean i guess you can save the supreme court doesn't mean because when they say because but that is what the supreme court has said they've been very consistent on it in coach taylor's total nikam points both orally and in writing to the president right around these this time that a player complains and they decide to gen it up and run with it on there i'm certainly not excited about going back and trying a case for six weeks and if we go back on top or not retaliation we will not it will be an undisputed fact they breach the contract it will be an undisputed fact invasion of privacy and so to basically be looking at well based off those undisputed facts and the other causation facts to that along with emotional pain and suffering is is there enough for causation for that the jury's or i mean the judges are a roar of emotional pain and suffering so i i don't think he would allow me to add on to that but certainly for back wages where she was limited on her breach of contract claim to the remainder of her contract in a title nine retaliation coin she would be allowed allowed under a bridge contract invasion of privacy there's just not a possibility because we're dealing with a university that cannot have to damages against so there was no possibility of attorneys fees the court has no further questions no  visit thank you jay just to address some of the questions as bag your honour's to be clear jackson state university has only requested a new trial in the outtara to see if we believe that is a relates to the breach of contract claim and the invasion of privacy klein that this court should rule in favor of jackson state based on the state of it was a jury question is whether that that was due to deliberate serious and willful violations don't you think that the fact which no yarn or because you didn't read the portion of the country this say is they refusal to perform those duties in good faith and we would submit to the court that the evidence is undisputed on this because of the language of the policy the policy specifically states that those travel travel dance that states that you're going to use forty dollars to one hundred twenty dollars for a lunch or three when you take that money in you use it for a nother park is other than west stated in dollars for that and you take it and use it for a nother purpose you have not used those funds for the purpose for which it was approved then that's not good for the matter what you want i think the problem here is that because the policies and also her contract we wired her to ensure in monitor that  showing receipts for have those phones were used under the policies that that's not acting in good faith when you're disbursed with state phones there's an obligation to make sure that you're going to use those state funds in the way that you represented that you're going to use them or to show receipts there has to be documentation of how you use those phones and that did not have been here your honor you asked the question  and about the actual information what was the information regarding the allegations in terms of the invasion of privacy online that jackson estate hits the media and in the record of the actual records  are four zero two seven through four zero three eight that actually show the pages that jackson state university hit released to the clear and ledger on those cases pages specifically say is that there were allegations there in specific charges against you that included student in student athlete will be in under that it includes the gender sexual gender