Sports Science (A+ work, No plagarism, Quality Work)

10 COLLEGE ATHLETICS AND THE LAW

November 2015

DOI: 10.1002/catl

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company

All rights reserved

LAWSUITS & RULINGS DISCRIMINATION

Lack of evidence stalls former sport management student’s suit

Case name: Grimes v. Todd, No. CV 613-75 (S.D. Ga. 06/29/15).

Ruling: The U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in favor of the director of a graduate sports program at Georgia Southern University.

What it means: Conclusions unsupported by facts will never prevail in a lawsuit.

Summary: Before she graduated from Georgia South- ern University in 2009, Lakeita Grimes — a black female — submitted an application for provisional admission to the GSU sport management graduate program. Samuel Todd was the director of the program at that time.

When she applied, the written GSU criteria for pro- visional admission required a score of 36 on a nation- ally administered exam known as the Miller Analogies Test. However, the manner and method of scoring the MAT were completely changed after those requirements were published. Using the applicable conversion tables, the old requirement of a MAT score of 36 meant that a 2009 applicant would have to score at least 389.

Grimes received a score of 386 on the April 2009 MAT. That score was in the 32nd percentile rank for the total group of test takers. According to the conversion tables, that was the equivalent of a 34 in the former system of scoring.

In response to a question about sports experience on the applicant questionnaire, Grimes stated she had volunteered at a GSU football game and an NFL Punt, Pass and Kick competition. She also wrote she had once talked with someone in the field of sport management.

Her application was denied in June. Two months later, Grimes filed a complaint with

the Office for Civil Rights alleging she was denied pro- visional admission because she was a black female.

In February 2010, OCR concluded her MAT score of 386 fell below the provisional admission cutoff. It also observed that Todd had stated that applicants with work experience in the industry were looked upon more favorably for admission because they tended to be more successful in the program.

Grimes sued Todd, claiming he lied to OCR be- cause of racial discrimination. She first argued he had falsely stated that her MAT score fell below the minimum requirement, contending that the refer- ence to 36 in the written GSU requirements meant only that her score had to be in the 36th percentile.

However, the judge ruled that whether Todd had lied was irrelevant because Grimes still fell short

even if her interpretation was correct, because her score was only in the 32nd percentile.

Grimes alternatively claimed Todd made misrep- resentations to OCR regarding her experience in the sports industry.

But there was no evidence to prove either Todd or OCR knew about anything other than the three examples Grimes had listed on her application, the judge said. He also noted the three people provi- sionally admitted into the GSU program instead of Grimes all had more significant work experience.

The judge granted summary judgment in favor of the university. ■

MEDIA

Competitive nature of NCAA rules keeps student-athletes from being paid

Case name: Marshall, et al. v. ESPN Inc., et al., No. 3:14-01945 (M.D. Tenn. 06/04/15).

Ruling: The U.S. District Court, Middle District of Tennessee dismissed a suit brought against col- legiate athletic conferences and broadcast networks.

What it means: Because National Collegiate Ath- letic Association rules actually promote competition, the requirement that student-athletes receive only scholarships remains unchanged.

Summary: Eight former college football players sued various collegiate athletic conferences and broadcast networks, claiming a conspiracy with the NCAA to collect billions of dollars, while the student- athletes upon which the system depended received only athletic scholarships.

The plaintiffs alleged a recent study revealed the average football student-athlete had a fair market value $456,612 above and beyond the value of a scholarship. They attacked the NCAA amateurism rules as anticompetitive agreements.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The district judge found that the NCAA and its

conferences marketed college football — which was the epitome of competition — because it consisted of contests between competing institutions. He ex- plained that the entire structure of college football would fall apart if there were no rules on which the competitors agreed that affected the size of the field, the number of players on a team, etc.

Thus, the judge ruled that NCAA rules actually promoted competition because they played a vital role in enabling college football to preserve its character and as a result enabled a product to be marketed that might otherwise be unavailable.

He dismissed the case, ruling that the amateur

11COLLEGE ATHLETICS AND THE LAW

Vol. 12, Iss. 8

DOI: 10.1002/catl

© 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc., A Wiley Company

All rights reserved

LAWSUITS & RULINGS

Jossey-Bass/Wiley Guarantee: If you are not completely satisfied with this newsletter, let us know and we will refund

the cost of your subscription.

4 EASY WAYS TO ORDER

CALL Toll-Free: 800.835.6770

MAIL: John Wiley & Sons Inc. P.O. Box 55381 Boston, MA 02205-9850

EMAIL: [email protected] or

ONLINE AT:

YES! Please start my one-year subscription ( issues) to PAYMENT OPTIONS: (all payments must be in U.S. dollars)

My Check payable to John Wiley & Sons is enclosed.

Name: _____________ Title: __________________________

Company: ________________________________________

Address: _________________________________________

City: ______________ State: ___ ZIP Code: ________________

Email: _____________ Phone: _________________________

Yes, I’d like to hear about special discount offers, new products, and more. Place me on the Jossey-Bass email list.

Individual rate subscriptions must be paid by personal check or credit card. All orders subject to

credit approval. Price includes postage, packing, and handling charges worldwide. Canadian

residents add GST and any local sales tax. GST #128424017. Individual-rate subscriptions

may not be resold or used as library copies.

To make payment by credit card, please contact Customer Service 24 x 7 at +1-800-835-6770.

College Athletics and the Law for $225

www.collegeathleticslaw.com

12

character of a student-athlete was a fundamental part of those competitive rules. ■

DISCRIMINATION

Failure to prove pretext dooms former coach’s lawsuit

Case name: Minnis v. Board of Supervisors of Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Me- chanical College, No. 14-31251 (5th Cir. 06/29/15).

Ruling: The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit affirmed a summary judgment in favor of Louisiana State University.

What it means: After a university is sued, it may provide additional consistent reasons for its actions.

Summary: Louisiana State University hired An- thony Minnis, a black male, in 1991 as head coach of its women’s tennis team.

One of his supervisors issued Minnis a written reprimand in 2008 for: (1) making inappropriate com- ments about a team member, (2) failing to properly account for expenses, and (3) purchasing books for team members.

Throughout his time at LSU, Minnis regularly complained to administrators about the lack of an indoor facility.

Minnis was reprimanded in February 2012 for being overzealous in disciplining a team member. In June, the university refused to renew his contract.

In each of the three preceding years, his team had losing seasons. In 2011, his team didn’t reach the

national tournament. In the course of his 21 years as head coach, his overall win-loss record in the Southeastern Conference was 86–146.

At that time, Minnis was earning $85,000 per year. He was replaced by a white female at a base salary of $110,000 per year. She had no prior head coaching experience but had been an assistant coach.

Minnis filed a suit against LSU alleging racial discrimination. The trial judge granted summary judgment in favor of the university.

On appeal, Minnis argued he was paid less than both the white men’s tennis coach and his replace- ment because of discrimination. LSU responded that it paid Minnis less because of his failure to meet established goals, a losing record and morale issues.

Minnis contended that the university’s reasons were pretextual because it first said he was being fired because it had decided to go in another direc- tion, but administrators came up with the three reasons after his lawsuit was filed.

However, the court concluded that proving an employer’s reasons had become more detailed as the dispute turned into litigation wasn’t evidence of pretext.

It affirmed the ruling of the trial judge. ■

LAWSUITS & RULINGS

This regular feature summarizes recent court or agency

records in rulings of interest to athletics administrators.

Lawsuit court records are summarized by Richard

H. Willits, Esq. ([email protected]). OCR rulings

are summarized by Aileen Gelpi, Esq. ■

Copyright of College Athletics & the Law is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.