Atlanta, GA — A legal dispute has surfaced involving the National Football League Alumni Inc. and the health care company CBR International, following a controversial handling of a substantial grant from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The grant, initially valued at $250,000 and later increased to $1 million for the year 2024, was aimed at spearheading a nationwide COVID-19 vocational awareness program.
The lawsuit, filed in a federal district court in Georgia by CBR International, accuses NFL Alumni of breach of contract, whistleblower retaliation, unjust enrichment, and related claims. NFL Alumni, based in New Jersey, is an organization composed of former NFL players, coaches, cheerleaders, and staff dedicated to various community and youth initiatives.
The conflict began when Tanya Hart, president of CBR and the program manager for the grant, raised concerns over the allocation of the grant’s funds. According to documents, she reported that a significant portion of the budget was being diverted for structural developments at NFL Alumni’s national office rather than the community programming in Georgia, which was the intended purpose of the grant.
Hart claimed that during her tenure, she was led to believe there was a mutual understanding that her leadership as program manager would extend through the 2024-25 cycle. However, after expressing her concerns about the misallocation of funds in April last year, she was informed by the Georgia chapter of NFL Alumni that her services were no longer required.
CBR argues that dismissing Hart was a case of whistleblower retaliation, stating that Hart was acting within her rights when voicing concerns that the NFL Alumni was failing to adequately serve the “populations of concern” in Georgia. The complaint highlights that the grant contract stipulated that 60% of the funds should go directly towards outreach activities for these communities.
In response, NFL Alumni filed a motion to dismiss the case, challenging the validity of Hart’s claims. Their attorneys, D. Barton Black and Christian Jensen, argued that there was never a formal contract but merely a “non-specific, verbal agreement”. They contend that merely being dissatisfied with the end of a business relationship does not constitute a legal claim.
Furthermore, NFL Alumni defends their stance by referencing the Georgia Statute of Frauds, which necessitates certain contracts to be in writing to be legally binding. They argue that the supposed agreement, described to span over three years, does not meet these criteria and thus is unenforceable.
As this case unfolds under U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, it coincides with a broader tightening of budgetary belts under the Trump administration, which has been reducing grant allocations across various federal programs. This cutback raises the stakes in grant management and may trigger more disputes over the scarce resources available.
This evolving legal battle not only questions the integrity of contractual engagements but also highlights the challenges of ensuring that public health funds serve their intended purpose during critical times.
Disclaimer: This article was automatically written by OpenAI and may contain inaccuracies. For corrections or removal requests, please contact contact@publiclawlibrary.org.