Matthew Schwencke Details How Defense Strategy Likely Led Jury to Boost Damage Award in Breach Case Against UF

Why did a jury award more than double the damages a University of Florida law professor sought during a breach trial against the school?

Because of a critical defense miscalculation at trial over allegations of secret settlement terms, Searcy Denney's Matthew Schwencke speculated to CVN.

The $222,717.17 award to UF law professor Lee-Ford Tritt in a 2017 trial is “unique in that the defense… is responsible for a verdict against them that was more than we had requested,” Schwencke, Tritt’s attorney, said.

That verdict was exactly $120,000 more than the $102,717.17 Schwencke requested in closings, when he told jurors Tritt, a five-time “Professor of the Year” at the law school, wanted “not a penny more, not a penny less” for the school's breach of an agreement to settle his discrimination claim. 

But understanding what Schwencke believes led the jury to reach its decision requires an understanding of the dispute itself: which includes allegations of secret deals and backroom hand-wringing involving Florida’s flagship university. 

Tritt, an openly-gay professor, had filed suit against the university claiming discrimination on the basis of his sexual orientation. Although the university wanted to settle the case, it was loathe to pay monetary damages as part of a settlement that would be public, Schwencke explained.

Instead, the school agreed to an end-around on paying damages that would not be part of the written agreement, Schwencke told CVN. Among the alleged, secret terms Tritt and school administrators agreed upon: UF would overpay Tritt’s legal fees and importantly, would allow him to keep a $102,717.17 payment from working at Boston University while he was given a sabbatical by UF.

Schwencke said the school overpaid the legal fees as agreed. But leadership changes at UF, along with Boston University’s payment of the salary directly to UF, and the school’s refusal to create a paper trail to get the money to Tritt, led it to renege on the agreement regarding the $102,000, Schwencke said.

The defense argued there was no secret agreement to pay money damages. But Schwencke told CVN that testimony and documents, including email from law school administration allegedly trying to devise a way to pay Tritt the money from BU, helped seal the verdict against the school.

As to the additional $120,000? During cross-examination of Tritt, defense counsel Richard McCrea highlighted an email between Tritt and his accountant regarding $120,000 in legal fees Tritt said he had incurred. In closings, McCrea maintained that, not only had the school not agreed to allow Tritt to keep his salary, it had never overpaid Tritt’s legal fees, because such a secret agreement never existed.

“It was a miscalculated statement and position to take when you see what the jury did,” Schwencke told CVN, “because the jury [seemed to say]: OK, if you’re going to take the position that you never overpaid them, and that’s what the settlement agreement contemplated then we’re going to award those fees to him.”

While Schwencke acknowledged he didn't speak to jurors afterward, he said he's confident that the cross-examination of Tritt, combined with the defense's position in closing, are the only way the award is borne out. “You don’t make any other sense of it,” he said. “It’s a number that came out only from the accounting email. It’s the only way you can explain it. There are no other numbers that were suggested at all.”