Defendants Seek Dismissal of Golson Lawsuit Over MGM Football Suspension

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Every defendant in the Golson lawsuit has now asked a judge to throw the case out. Two separate motions to dismiss the suit brought by former Mary G. Montgomery High School head football coach Zach Golson were filed Monday, Oct. 5, in Montgomery County Circuit Court, setting up a hearing next week on whether the case can go forward.

Golson, who was suspended from coaching for a year and later removed as MGM’s head coach after an investigation into alleged recruiting violations, sued the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA), AHSAA Executive Director Heath Harmon, AHSAA lead investigator Chuck Anderson, Mobile County Public School System Superintendent Chresal Threadgill and MGM Principal David Diaz.

Both motions were filed before Montgomery County Circuit Judge Tiffany McCord. A hearing on both is scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 14, at 9 a.m. in Montgomery.

Two motions, two sets of defendants

The defendants split into two groups, each with its own lawyer and its own arguments.

• Threadgill and Diaz filed a joint motion through attorney K. Paul Carbo.
• The AHSAA, Harmon and Anderson filed a joint motion through attorney William M. Espy of the law firm Melton, Espy and Williams.

Golson is represented by attorney Thomas M. Loper.

How the case got here

The dispute dates to May, when allegations of recruiting violations involving the MGM football program first became public. The case has drawn steady attention across the Mobile area ever since.

Following the AHSAA’s investigation, Golson was suspended from coaching for one year. The school’s football program was placed on restrictive probation, which includes a postseason ban this season. Golson was later dismissed as head coach and replaced by Alex Page, who had served as the Vikings’ defensive coordinator during the previous four seasons under Golson. Golson has since been transferred to a teaching role away from MGM, according to the school officials’ motion.

Golson filed suit on Sept. 5, arguing he was denied due process. The AHSAA has not publicly released its report on the MGM case.

What Golson is asking for

The lawsuit opens with Golson’s account of how the matter began:

“Zach Golson was the Head Football Coach at Mary G. Montgomery High School in the Mobile County Public School System (MCPSS). Allegations were made against Golson to the AHSAA by the principal at a rival high school. Defendants then made public, defamatory statements regarding those allegations to the detriment of Golson’s career and reputation. Golson has been refused due process and an opportunity to refute those allegations.”

The suit seeks several forms of relief:

• A permanent injunction regarding his one-year suspension, or alternatively an injunction directing the AHSAA and Harmon to provide due process and give Golson written notice of any allegations against him.
• A permanent injunction directing Threadgill and Diaz to rescind his removal as MGM’s head coach, or to provide him due process.
• Compensatory and punitive damages.

In the words of the complaint, “Plaintiff Golson seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive relief providing him due process from Defendants and nullification and termination imposed against him.”

The suit also poses a series of questions Golson wants answered, including whether the investigation was impartial and complete, why he was removed as head coach without Threadgill or Diaz allegedly investigating the charges themselves, what evidence was found, and whether people associated with rival schools led the push for an investigation. Taken together, the filing suggests that one of Golson’s central goals is the chance to clear his name.

The school officials’ argument

The motion filed on behalf of Threadgill and Diaz centers on who is actually being sued and who has the power to give Golson what he wants.

It argues that claims against government officials in their official capacity are, in effect, claims against the body they represent. Quoting legal precedent, the motion states that “claims against state officers in their official capacity are ‘functionally equivalent to claims against the entity they represent.’… The Board (of School Commissioners of Mobile County) is the entity that operates the Mobile County Public School System and is the employer of Golson (transferred to a teaching role away from MGM), Threadgill and Diaz.”

From there, the motion contends the Board is immune from Golson’s action. It further argues that the one-year coaching suspension was imposed by the AHSAA — not by the school system — and that Threadgill and Diaz therefore lack the authority to restore Golson’s eligibility.

Under Alabama law, local boards of education have generally been treated by the state’s courts as agencies of the state, which can shield them from many kinds of lawsuits under the state’s constitutional doctrine of sovereign immunity. That principle is a frequent feature of litigation involving public school systems in Alabama, and it underpins the school officials’ argument here.

The AHSAA’s argument

The motion filed by the AHSAA, Harmon and Anderson takes a broader approach. It argues the court lacks jurisdiction over both the subject matter of the lawsuit and over Golson, and it asserts that Golson “failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

The association also argues that the court lacks jurisdiction over the parties, the alleged cause of action and the subject matter because MGM is a member of the AHSAA and the school self-reported the violation. It adds that “the Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with AHSAA affairs.”

To support that position, the motion cites several cases, among them St. Paul’s Episcopal School v. The Alabama High School Athletic Association, decided in June 2018. In that case, the motion notes, the U.S. District Court in Mobile wrote:

“The Alabama Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized the AHSAA’s near absolute authority in its own affairs. A courtroom is rarely the proper field for competition when it comes to disputes over high-school athletic rules.”

Courts and high school athletics

The AHSAA is the governing body for interscholastic athletics at its member high schools in Alabama. Based in Montgomery, it sets eligibility and recruiting rules, conducts investigations and issues penalties to schools, coaches and athletes. Schools join the association as members and agree to abide by its rules.

Alabama courts have long been reluctant to second-guess the decisions of voluntary associations like the AHSAA, generally stepping in only in narrow circumstances, such as when an association fails to follow its own rules or acts arbitrarily or fraudulently. That tradition is why the 2018 St. Paul’s language figures prominently in the association’s motion: it frames the dispute as one that belongs inside the association rather than in a courtroom.

Golson’s suit, by contrast, focuses on process — whether he received notice of the specific allegations and a fair opportunity to respond — and on statements he says damaged his reputation.

Injunctions and damages, explained

Golson’s requests fall into two broad categories that courts treat differently.

An injunction is a court order directing a party to do something or to stop doing something. A preliminary injunction is temporary relief granted while a case is pending, usually only when a plaintiff shows a strong likelihood of success and a risk of harm that money alone could not fix. A permanent injunction is issued at the end of a case. In Golson’s suit, the injunctions he seeks would either undo his suspension and removal or require the defendants to give him the notice and hearing he says he never received.

Damages, by contrast, are money awards. Compensatory damages are meant to make up for actual losses, such as harm to income or reputation. Punitive damages are intended to punish especially wrongful conduct and deter it in the future, and they are generally harder to obtain.

The distinction matters for the motions now pending. The school officials’ argument that they lack authority to reinstate Golson’s eligibility goes directly to whether a court could order them to grant the relief he seeks.

What a motion to dismiss means

A motion to dismiss asks a court to end a lawsuit at an early stage, before the parties exchange evidence or go to trial. Such motions typically argue that the court lacks the authority to hear the case, that the defendants are immune, or that even if everything in the complaint were true, the law would not provide a remedy.

At this stage, a judge generally does not decide who is telling the truth. Instead, the question is whether the claims, as filed, can legally proceed. A judge may grant a motion in full, deny it, or grant it in part — dismissing some claims or some defendants while allowing others to continue. If the motions are denied, the defendants would be expected to file formal answers and the case would move forward.

What’s next

Judge McCord will hear arguments on both motions on Wednesday, Oct. 14, at 9 a.m. in Montgomery. Her ruling could come at the hearing or at a later date.

Meanwhile, the MGM football program continues its season under Page and under the restrictive probation imposed by the AHSAA, including the postseason ban. Whatever the outcome in Montgomery, the case has become one of the most closely watched high school sports disputes in the Mobile area this year — and the answer to whether Golson gets his day in court may come into sharper focus next week.