Shoup Finds Precedents for Coaches Getting Tenure : Cal Lutheran: His contention that job security extends to football position finds support.

A key element in Bob Shoup’s grievance against Cal Lutheran, his contention that he has tenure as football coach, could be supported by court cases involving coaches’ employment status.

Shoup said that he and his attorneys have been researching cases, such as McHugh vs. Kenyon College and a suit filed by former Dartmouth Coach Joe Yukica. In both cases, the court placed limitations on the school’s power to fire a football coach.

“The thing we have to find out is whether or not they’re germane to my status,” said Shoup, whose dismissal as football coach became public Aug. 8. “I think I’ll wind up being like Dred Scott here before we’re finished.”

Shoup has not revealed whether he will litigate. He remains mired in the university’s faculty grievance process, and he has appealed his case to the Board of Regents’ Executive Committee, which will meet Jan. 23.

A possible area of litigation is Shoup’s claim that he is tenured not only as an associate professor of physical education but also as football coach, a position he has held for all 28 years Cal Lutheran has fielded a team.

Notarized statements by former Cal Lutheran administrators, included in a document prepared by Board of Regents member Jim Tyner, support Shoup’s contention that he had tenure as football coach.

Cal Lutheran won the National Assn. of Intercollegiate Athletics national championship in 1971, a time when the school was under severe financial distress. Two former Cal Lutheran administrators now say that they offered Shoup job security in lieu of greater remuneration, which would have been impossible for the college to muster.

“All I could offer (Shoup) was employment security as a teacher and head coach. This was the same as tenure for both positions,” wrote Maurice Knutson, Cal Lutheran president at the time. “I regret not stating that in a letter to him.”

Former regent John Woudenberg supports Knutson’s claim. “I assured (Shoup) that job security was the one factor he would receive from the college that he could not receive from other institutions,” Woudenberg wrote.

However, according to the Tyner document, President Jerry Miller “has stated he doesn’t feel bound by this commitment from his predecessor.” Miller also said in August: “I am not aware of any university in the country that has a coaching position that is controlled by tenure considerations.”

Shoup said that he is awaiting a statement from the American Football Coaches Assn. attorney regarding coaches who are tenured.

Tenure is designed to afford professors the academic freedom necessary to pursue their research and teaching without endangering their job security. However, in 1984, fired Kenyon College football Coach Tom McHugh was awarded $118,000 in his tenure-related suit against the college.

“McHugh was awarded judgment really on the basis that the judge and jury refused to recognize the college’s interpretation of what tenure is,” a Kenyon official said. “He claimed that as a member of the faculty, which he claimed he was, that he served seven years and that he had tenure. They said if you don’t have tenure, you have something that’s just as good and that the college was liable for not renewing your contract.”

McHugh was not a professor but was assistant director of physical education. He joined Kenyon as an assistant football coach in 1967 and was head coach from 1978 to 1982. He sued only for damages and not to remain as coach.

Yukica, the former Dartmouth coach, did sue for the right to coach another season. Fired after a disappointing 1985 season, Yukica fought to complete the remaining 1 1/2 years of his three-year contract after Dartmouth attempted to reassign him. Yukica took Athletic Director Ted Leland to court.

A judge ordered an injunction prohibiting Leland from filling Yukica’s coaching position, and the university responded by allowing him to coach one more season.

Shoup might use these cases should he proceed with a legal action that he says has drawn the attention of lawyers from around the country.