Cases & Developments - National Association of College and University Attorneys

FILTERS

Latest Cases & Developments

Date:
10/18/2024
Choh v. Brown Univ. (D. Conn. Oct. 9, 2024)
Opinion granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, current and former student athletes, filed a putative class action, claiming a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 against Brown University, the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York, Cornell University, the Trustees of Dartmouth College, Harvard University, the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania, Princeton University, Yale University, and the Ivy League Council of Presidents. Plaintiffs allege the Universities formed a price-fixing agreement, referred to by the Universities as “the Ivy League Agreement,” “not to provide athletic scholarships to their Division I Athletes and not to pay Ivy League Athletes any compensation (or reimbursement of education-related expenses).” Plaintiffs further allege the Agreement is per se illegal because the Universities are “horizontal competitors in the commercial activities in the Relevant service markets.” The Universities argued that they hold authority in setting rules for financial aid and compensation, and the ban on sports scholarship is meant to “foster campus cultures that do not prioritize athletics.” In finding that plaintiffs do not allege a cognizable antitrust violation, a restraint that violates the Rule of Reason, or the requirements for defining a plausible relevant market, the court wrote “at best, the plaintiffs’ allegations of anticompetitive effects relate to just some market participants, not effects in the market as a whole.”
Topics:
Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Financial Aid, Scholarships, & Student Loans | Students | Taxes & Finances
Date:
10/11/2024
House v. NCAA (N.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2024)
Order granting preliminary approval for the proposed Settlement Agreement. The Agreement resolves three pending antitrust lawsuits, House v. NCAA, Hubbard v. NCAA, and Carter v. NCAA, and upon final approval will (1) require the NCAA and its conferences to pay over $2.5 billion to athletes, (2) allow institutions to make direct payments to athletes, and (3) expand the availability of compensation and benefits to athletes. The claims period will run from October 18, 2024, to January 31, 2025, with a Fairness Hearing to follow on April 7, 2025.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports
Date:
9/27/2024
House v. NCAA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 26, 2024)
Supplemental submission pertaining to settlement agreement. Following the concern of the Court regarding the definition of “a valid business purpose” and the potential consequences of eliminating pay-for-play payments, the Court instructed the parties to file supplemental material addressing the issues raised by the Court. In the newly submitted materials, the term “boosters” is limited to a narrower group of entities and individuals closely affiliated with schools (“Associated Entities or Individual”) in contrast with the prior Name Image and Likeness (NIL) Rules where “boosters” more broadly encompassed all third-party NIL deals. Additionally, under the supplemental settlement proposal any limitations on payments are subject to neutral arbitration review thus limiting the NCAA’s role in review of the payments.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports
Date:
9/6/2024
House v. NCAA (N.D. Cal. Sep. 5, 2024)
Order instructing the parties to prepare a supplemental submission pertaining to settlement. The National Collegiate Athletic Association, along with the Atlantic Coast, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12, and Southeastern Conference reached an historic settlement to resolve claims regarding the use of postsecondary student-athletes’ name, image, and likeness (NIL). Under the putative agreement, the associations would pay more than $2.75 billion to former Division 1 student athletes, and on a forward-looking basis, establish a revenue sharing model for the power conference schools and their players. Under that model, participating colleges and universities will disburse approximately one fifth of their annual revenue to their student-athletes. During the fairness hearing the Court held a ruling on preliminary approval of the settlement agreement in abeyance after expressing concerns regarding restrictions on third-party NIL payments from booster-led NIL collectives and the rationale for the restrictions. After expressing concern regarding the definition of “a valid business purpose” and the potential consequences of eliminating pay-for-play payments, the Court instructed the parties to file supplemental material addressing the issues raised by the Court, which must be filed by September 26th, 2024. Keep an eye on your in-box for upcoming NACUA programming on this developing issue!
Topics:
Athletics & Sports
Date:
8/9/2024
Becker v. North Dakota University System (8th Cir. Aug. 14, 2024).
Opinion affirming-in-part and reversing-in-part. Plaintiffs, four non-students, brought Title IX claims challenging the University of North Dakota’s decision to discontinue its women’s hockey team after the 2017 season. The District Court dismissed the case for lack of standing absent allegations concrete injury. The Eighth Circuit affirmed dismissal of two plaintiffs, confirming that Article III imposes limitations on when prospective students have standing to bring Title IX claims based on a university’s lack of an athletic team, including that they must sufficiently allege that they have both the requisite academic credentials for admission and the athletic skills to compete. The Circuit reversed and remanded two other plaintiffs’ claims reasoning that one putative student who alleged she was recruited to play hockey at the University, and another who was accepted to attend the University and a two-time state hockey champion but did not have the chance to try-out for the team, both adequately alleged a “definite intent to attend” the University and were “able and ready” to compete if women’s hockey were available.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Gender Equity in Athletics
Date:
7/19/2024
ACE Issue Brief on the College Student Athletics Policy Landscape (July 16, 2024)
American Council on Education Issue Brief on the College Student Athletics Policy Landscape in 2024. This Issue Brief discusses the traditional role of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) in shaping the relationship between student athletes and their institutions of higher education and the impact of recent legal and legislative developments on that relationship. It discusses, among others, issues related to name, image, and likeness (NIL) compensation; questions about whether athletes might be categorized as employees; and efforts related to collective bargaining and unionization.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
7/12/2024
Johnson v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, et al. (3rd Cir. July 11, 2024)
Opinion on interlocutory appeal affirming-in-part denial of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiffs, student-athletes at several NCAA Division I member schools, on behalf of themselves and a putative class, brought FLSA and unjust enrichment claims against the NCAA and multiple member schools, seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages, and attorneys’ fees. The district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss, rejecting the assertion that as amateurs the athletes could not as a matter of law be classified as employees. It held that plaintiffs had pleaded sufficient facts under the multifactor balancing test from Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures, Inc. (2nd Cir. 2016), which considered when unpaid interns may be entitled to compensation under the FLSA, to proceed with their claim. On interlocutory appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed denial of the motion to dismiss but vacated the application of the Glatt test in favor of a common-law economic realities analysis. In distinguishing the instant question from the internship context in Glatt, the court noted that “interscholastic athletics are not part of any academic curriculum” and “the educational and vocational benefits of college athletics cited by Appellants as alternative forms of remuneration (increased discipline, a stronger work ethic, improved strategic thinking, time management, leadership, and goal setting skills, and a greater ability to work collaboratively) are all exactly the kinds of skills one would typically acquire in a work environment.”
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Faculty & Staff | Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) & Categorization of Employees | Student Athlete Issues | Students
Date:
6/14/2024
DOJ Proposed Final Judgment in Ohio v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletics Ass’n (June 11, 2024)
Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement in Ohio v. Nat’l Collegial Athletics Ass’n. The Department of Justice joined ten states and the District of Columbia in suing the National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA), challenged NCAA Bylaw 14.5.5.1 (“Transfer Eligibility Rule”), which requires a one-year delay in eligibility for certain athletes transferring between institutions, alleging that it “unjustifiably restrains the ability of these college athletes to engage in the market for their labor as NCAA Division I athletes.” “The proposed Final Judgment, filed on May 30, 2024, requires the NCAA to refrain from enforcing the offending rules and to restore eligibility to certain affected athletes.” Public comment is due within 60 days of the publication of the notice in the Federal Register.
Topics:
Antitrust | Athletics & Sports | Athletics Compliance & NCAA Rules | Taxes & Finances
Date:
4/12/2024
Atl. Coast Conference v. Bd. of Trs. of Fla. State Univ. (N.C. Super. Ct. Apr. 4, 2024)
Order and Opinion granting-in-part and denying-in-part Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff, the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), sued the Board of Florida State University, alleging breaches related to the Board’s efforts to secure a larger share of revenue under the ACC’s Media Rights Agreements with ESPN, Inc., including by discussing withdrawing from the ACC, holding an emergency meeting to authorize a lawsuit against the ACC, and discussing confidential information from the Media Rights Agreements during that public meeting. The court found the ACC’s assertions regarding the Board’s effort to bring the lawsuit sufficient to allege breaches of both the irrevocable Grant of Rights Agreement that was required to enter into the Media Rights Agreement with ESPN and the duty of good faith and fair dealing implied in the ACC’s Constitution and Bylaws. It further found assertions that the Board discussed details of the Media Rights Agreement in its public meeting and included details in a Florida lawsuit against the ACC sufficient to allege violation of the confidentiality agreements the ACC required parties to enter before viewing the Media Rights Agreements in the ACC’s North Carolina headquarters. The court dismissed the ACC’s breach of fiduciary duty claim, noting that because the ACC is an unincorporated nonprofit association there is no de jure fiduciary duty and that the ACC had pled insufficient facts to establish either a de facto fiduciary relationship arising out of an arrangement in which one side “hold[s] all the cards” or a contractual obligation arising from the ACC Constitution not to defeat or destroy its common purpose.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Athletics Operations | Contracts
Date:
4/5/2024
Update: DOJ Letter to Univ. of Md. Balt. Re: Title IX Investigation (Apr. 3, 2024)
Letter from the Department of Justice to the University of Maryland, Baltimore County re: Title IX Investigation. The Letter details the findings of the Department’s investigation into allegations that the University responded inadequately to notice that the head coach of its Swimming and Diving Team subjected student-athletes to a hostile environment, unwanted touching, and other sexual harassment. The Letter also notes the University’s commitment through a comprehensive Settlement Agreement, which is subject to a state-mandated approval process, to enhance its Title IX Office, provide targeted training and support to student-athletes, and provide financial relief to certain student-athletes. Update: On April 3, 2024, the Department and the University entered a Settlement Agreement detailing new policy and compliance requirements and providing that the University will pay up to $4,140,000 in financial relief to impacted student-athletes.
Topics:
Athletics & Sports | Discrimination, Accommodation, & Diversity | Employee Sexual Misconduct | Sex Discrimination

NACUA Annual Conference

Join us in the Music City June 29 – July 2 to connect, learn, and lead alongside higher education attorneys shaping policy, practice, and impact nationwide together.