In this follow-up episode, co-host Rudy Davis and attorney/host Dwayne Smith break down the legal landscape since Jerome Tang's for-cause firing from Kansas State. Topics include Tang's return to Baylor and how it affects his damages claim, the duty-to-mitigate argument, the comparator coaches, K-State's strongest and weakest arguments, the settlement dynamics, and key takeaways for HR professionals and high-profile employees.

Timestamps:

0:30 – Introduction & episode overview

1:33 – Jerome Tang lands at Baylor: what happened after the firing

2:46 – The for-cause firing explained

3:16 – Tang's legal team and the threat of a lawsuit

3:52 – How Tang's new job affects his legal case

4:22 – Duty to mitigate damages: the financial math

5:44 – What Tang could allege against K-State

6:19 – The comparator coach: a two-week suspension for worse conduct

7:59 – The football coach comparator (Chris Kleiman)

9:03 – Contract consistency and the disparate treatment argument

9:39 – K-State's defense: the unilateral authority argument

11:36 – K-State's weakest argument

12:22 – What K-State should have done differently

12:56 – Timeline to resolution — and what happens if they can't settle

13:33 – The potential hammer letter and what it signals

14:40 – The bigger picture: NIL and institutional power

15:12 – Who has the power right now

16:59 – Takeaway for HR professionals and executives

17:30 – Closing