As the Trump administration slashes grants across the government, National Football League Alumni Inc. finds itself in a legal battle regarding a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention grant with the Georgia Department of Public Health.
In January, Atlanta-based health care company CBR International sued NFL Alumni for breach of contract, whistleblower retaliation, unjust enrichment and related claims in a case that is now before a federal district court in Georgia. Headquartered in New Jersey, NFL Alumni consists of former NFL players, coaches, cheerleaders, staff, spouses and others who work on youth- and community-based initiatives, assist players in need and arrange for personal appearances, among other activities.
According to CBR, its president, Tanya Hart, began to provide services to NFL Alumni in 2021. At the time she was a program manager for a nationwide COVID-19 vocational awareness program associated with the CDC.
The complaint, authored by attorney Sherifat O. Oluyemi, says Hart served as a “direct subcontractor for NFL Alumni” in its application for a grant. The grant was allegedly worth $250,000 from 2021 to 2023 but, because of Hart’s “instrumental” work, was increased to $1 million in 2024. Hart also provided NFL Alumni with expertise “in all areas of public health.”
Hart contends that she and NFL Alumni had “reasonable expectations” that she would continue to work as program manager through 2024-25. But last April, Hart became concerned that NFL Alumni’s budget allegedly directed much of the grant to be used on “structural development” at NFL Alumni’s national office. She worried that would leave “very little” of the grant for “community programming in Georgia.”
Hart says she told NFL Alumni executives the Georgia DPH grant contract “required 60% of the funding be spent on direct outreach activities for Georgia populations of concern.” Hart contends she was assured she would receive a response about her concerns but “never heard back.”
The response she instead received was a call from the NFL Alumni chapter for Georgia stating her services were no longer needed. CBR says NFL Alumni staff declined to identify a reason for the parting of ways.
Hart believes she was engaged in protected activity when she “voiced her concerns” that NFL Alumni was not, in her view, sufficiently directing outreach activities to “populations of concern in the state of Georgia.”
She contends NFL Alumni is liable for engaging in whistleblower retaliation, because she was allegedly terminated in response to her “efforts to stop or report violations.” Hart demands reinstatement, two times the amount of back pay and interest on the back pay, and other types of compensation.
Through attorneys D. Barton Black and Christian Jensen, NFL Alumni recently filed a motion to dismiss in which they rebuked CBR’s case. NFL Alumni argues that there was no contract and that all CBR has described is a “non-specific, verbal agreement” between Hart (through CBR) and NFL Alumni. NFL Alumni asserts CBR “is simply upset that the relationship between the relevant parties ended,” but being upset is not a legal claim.
“A valid contract,” NFL Alumni contends, “must specify a definite time and place, duties to be performed, and compensation to be paid to be enforceable.”
NFL Alumni also insists that even if a verbal agreement could be construed as a contract—some oral contracts are enforceable—the arrangement described by CBR doesn’t fit. NFL Alumni cites Georgia’s Statute of Frauds, which, like in other states, instructs that contracts generally must be in writing to be enforceable. One exception is an agreement to complete services within one year. NFL Alumni argues that since CBR references an agreement that “allegedly lasted over 3 years” it must be in a signed writing to be enforceable.
NFL Alumni also maintains CBR’s whistleblower assertion falls flat because, as NFL Alumni interprets Georgia DPH rules, “there is no locality requirement.” Further, NFL Alumni claims, “actual bid requirements” greatly differ from CBR’s description of them.
The case is before U.S. District Judge J. P. Boulee. It arrives at an interesting time, when grants are expected to become harder to obtain as the Trump administration cuts government funding for them. The likely scarcity of grant money could spur more litigation.
