<table bgcolor=#eaeaea> <td> <font color=#000000> <blockquote> <p align=justify>
An attorney for a former head football coach at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette told jurors Wednesday a sorry football program had begun to show promise when the coach was axed for racially discriminatory reasons.
Jerry Baldwin is seeking damages in a lawsuit alleging discrimination and breach of contract.
The lawsuit, filed in 19th Judicial District Court in Baton Rouge, names as defendants the university, the Board of Supervisors for the University of Louisiana System and the university’s athletic director, Nelson Schexnayder.
Baldwin’s attorney, G. Karl Bernard, said the coach inherited a bankrupt program with few quality athletes and poor equipment and university officials did little to help him turn the program into a success.
In the end, Baldwin lost his job because the officials did not want a black man as head coach, the attorney claimed.
Bernard’s comments came during the trial’s closing arguments late Wednesday afternoon.
State District Judge Don Johnson will instruct the jurors on the law today, then deliberations should begin in the weeklong racial discrimination trial.
UL officials fired Baldwin in 2001 after three years as coach.
University attorney Steve Oats told jurors that Baldwin was fired because the football program was not progressing.
During Baldwin’s three seasons, the teams had a record of 6-27.
<center><p><a href="http://www.2theadvocate.com/news/acadiana/10623212.html?showAll=y&c=y" target="_blank">The rest of the story</a>
By ADRIAN ANGELETTE
Advocate staff writer
<!--
“Coaches know they need to win,” Oats said.
Oats also said it is unfair to claim university officials were practicing racial discrimination when they fired Baldwin.
Oats said the same officials hired Baldwin as the first black head football coach at a major Louisiana university.
“We’re not saying Jerry Baldwin didn’t do anything at the university,” Oats said.
“We’re not saying Jerry Baldwin is a bad guy.”
Oats urged jurors to not let emotions enter into their decision.
“You don’t have to agree with their decision,” Oats said. “You have to decide (whether) it was based on race.”
Bernard, on the other hand, told jurors he does not think the officials who chose to fire the coach are racists; however, he said, they made a racist decision.
Bernard said by the end of Baldwin’s third season, attendance at games was up, the quality of players was improved and Baldwin was caught by surprise by the firing.
Bernard also said steps were taken by officials to make sure Baldwin did not succeed.
Bernard said Baldwin was forced to work with used equipment and the marketing director for the football program was fired during Baldwin’s second season and not replaced.
A previous coach, Nelson Stokley, had a television show and improved weight room while Baldwin was not given a television show and there were no weight room improvements.
Bernard urged jurors to compare how Baldwin was treated to how white coaches before and after him were treated.
The trial took place only after the 1st Circuit Court of Appeal intervened.
In 2005, state District Judge Don Johnson threw out the lawsuit and said the termination was not illegal.
A 1st Circuit panel earlier this year ruled that the facts alleged by Baldwin and UL are open to different interpretations and therefore it is up to a jury to decide whether there was a legal problem with the firing.
Baldwin is seeking damages for breach of contract and emotional distress.
Since his firing, Baldwin has worked as pastor at New Living Word Ministries in Ruston.
-->
</td> </table>
