After an investigation into falsified information on a basketball recruit’s application to Vincennes University, Daniel Sparks, who was the head basketball coach at the time, agreed that in lieu of facing disciplinary proceedings, he would forfeit his tenure and be subject to a zero tolerance policy.  The University employed Sparks for another year, but then notified him that his contract would not be renewed the following year.  Sparks sued the University, contending that the University had to continue to employ him as long as he did not violate the zero tolerance policy.  The trial court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment, and a jury ultimately returned a verdict in Sparks’s favor.  On appeal, the University argues, alternatively, that the trial court should have granted its motion for summary judgment, the trial court should have granted its motion for a directed verdict, and the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict.