Category: NCAA

  • HR and the Courts — October 2024

    HR and the Courts — October 2024

    by CUPA-HR | October 15, 2024

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    NCAA & Power Conferences Receive Preliminary Approval of Name, Image and Likeness and Anti-Trust Settlement — Ivies Win Dismissal of Anti-Trust Lawsuit

    A federal district court judge has given preliminary approval to the NCAA and Power Conferences’ revised $2.8 billion settlement proposal to be paid to college athletes over 10 years. The judge set a fairness hearing for April 2025, with all objections to be filed by January 31, 2025. The federal judge in the Northern District of California concluded that the revised settlement was “fair, reasonable and adequate” (In Re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Ca. No. 4:20-cv-03919, 10/7/24)).

    Commentators immediately voiced concerns that the settlement addresses a small group of male athletes in specific sports to the disadvantage of female athletes. In addition, a number of Division I athletes may express objection on the grounds that the settlement continues to give the NCAA too much control over the free market compensation for student-athletes.

    Separately, the eight Ivy League institutions won a dismissal of a federal lawsuit that claimed their ban on athletic scholarships violated anti-trust laws. The federal district court judge assigned to the case granted the Ivy League’s motion for summary judgement, holding that the plaintiffs failed to allege any properly defined market and therefore failed to allege market wide anti-competitive effects (Choh v. Brown University, et. al. (D. Conn. No. 3:23-cv-00305, 10/10/24)).

    University of Louisville School of Medicine Loses First Amendment Retaliation Claim Brought by Terminated Professor

    A former professor at the University of Louisville School of Medicine will receive a trial over his First Amendment retaliation claims regarding statements he made about gender dysphoria to a conservative think tank. Following comments he made during an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, the former medical school professor was demoted and his annual contract was not renewed. The professor expressed the view that gender dysphoria in children “is a sociocultural, psychological phenomenon that cannot be fully addressed with drugs and surgery.”

    The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled unanimously that the university officials who terminated Allan M. Josephson should have known that he was engaged in protected speech, and that terminating him would violate his First Amendment rights. Moreover, the court ruled that the professor’s outside speech was not part of his professorial duties, and therefore subject to his First Amendment claims. The court concluded that a trial is necessary, as there are facts in dispute regarding the rationale for the actions taken against the professor (Josephson v. Ganzel (6th Cir., No. 23-05293, 9/10/24)).

    Tenured Professor Loses Defamation Case Against Harvard

    A federal district court judge partially dismissed a noted behavioral scientist’s $25 million defamation and breach-of-contract lawsuit against Harvard University. Professor Francesca Gino was placed on administrative leave following claims of data fraud in her research. Gino claimed that the university’s notice on her faculty page that she had been placed on administrative leave after conducting an investigation of her research was libelous because the university acted with ill will.

    The court concluded that the professor was a “public figure” and therefore faces a higher standard for proving defamation. A public figure in these circumstances can only prove defamation if the alleged defamer had knowledge that their statement was untrue or acted with reckless disregard for the truth. Moreover, the court concluded that the issue of “research integrity and potential misconduct” is one of public concern, adding to the reason for the dismissal of the defamation claim (Gino v. Presidents and Fellows of Harvard College (D. Mass. No. 1:23-cv-11775, 9/11/24)).

    Regarding the professor’s breach-of-contract claims, the professor alleged that the university’s decision to place her on administrative leave and its related disciplinary sanctions were the same as tenure removal. The judge concluded that it is premature to rule on the breach-of-contract claims.

    Public School Employees Lose Free Speech Case Challenging Anti-Racism Training

    In a case with possible application to public higher ed training, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a case brought by two Missouri public school employees who claimed that anti-bias employee training violated their First Amendment rights. The lawsuit failed because the court concluded that they were never asked to leave nor were they disciplined for expressing contrary views and that they received professional development credit for attending the anti-racism training (Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District (8th Cir No. 2301374, 9/12/24)).

    The decision provides some clarity on such training, as the court noted that the employees were not compelled to express certain views or refrain from expressing certain views during the training. The appellate court did reverse the trial judge’s ruling requiring the plaintiffs to pay $300,000 in attorney fees for filing a frivolous claim.

    Former Student’s Title IX Claim Dismissed as Alleged University Internship Did Not Exist

    A federal district court judge dismissed allegations of a sexually abusive internship at the University of Michigan because the plaintiff could not prove the internship actually existed. The court noted that none of the usual formalities, such as an application or a university authorization of an internship, were established.

    In light of this, the court dismissed the Title IX claims and allegations of failure to investigate sex harassment and abuse allegations as the plaintiff did not allege discrimination while “participating in or at least attempting to participate in” a university program or activity, as the internship did not exist. The University of Michigan prevailed in the case (Doe v. Baum ((2024 BL 340244 E.D. Mich. No. 4-21-cv-12492, 9/26/24)).

    University of Texas Professor Loses First Amendment Complaint

    A federal district judge dismissed a University of Texas professor’s First Amendment claim that his speech was “chilled” by unspecific threats following comments critical of “critical race theory and DEI-based ideology.” The judge dismissed the case, holding that the unspecific threats did not rise to the level of an adverse employment action (Lowery v. Mills ((W.D. Tex. No. 1:23-cv-00129, 10/2/24)).

    The judge ruled in favor of the University of Texas McCombs School of Business. The judge noted in a footnote, however, that the dismissal was not meant to approve of the university’s actions and that “in the context of a world-class university like UT, differences of opinion should be tolerated by those in authority, no matter that they are uncomfortable, so long as they do not incite violence or disrupt the school’s ability to function as a teaching institution.”

    Supreme Court to Review Split in Circuits Regarding Higher Ed ERISA Lawsuit

    The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments over the split in circuit courts of appeals as to when a university may be sued by employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Employees of Cornell University alleged that improper service provider fees were charged to their pension fund. They are appealing an adverse 2nd Circuit decision stating employees must plead that the alleged “prohibited transaction” by the service provider involved either “unnecessary services” or the fees were “unreasonable” (Cunningham v. Cornell University (US No. 23-1007 cert granted 10/4/24)).

    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the 3rd Circuit, the 7th Circuit, and the 10th Circuit all require the additional pleading that alleges some kind of fraud or impropriety in order to allow the case to move forward. This contrasts with the 8th Circuit and the 9th Circuit, which apply the “ERISA-as-written” rule. That rule allows a plaintiff to simply allege that a transaction between an employer and a pension or welfare plan service provider occurred and proceed with discovery over whether fraud or some other impropriety exists. We will follow developments in this case as it proceeds.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — September 2024

    HR and the Courts — September 2024

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    Fired Professor Who Praised Hitler Loses Free Speech Retaliation Lawsuit

    The New Jersey Institute of Technology prevailed in a federal lawsuit brought by a former philosophy lecturer alleging retaliatory discharge. The professor’s employment agreement was not renewed after a New York Times article exposed his involvement in the “alt-right” (a far-right, white nationalist movement), including his praising Adolph Hitler as a “great European leader” and linking IQ to race. In dismissing the lawsuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey held that the professor’s speech disrupted, and would likely continue disrupting, the university’s administration and interfered with the university’s mission (Jorjani v. N.J. Inst. of Technology ((D.N.J. No. 2:18-cv-11693, Jud entered 7/31/24)).

    The judge held that public employers can restrict the speech of employees without violating the First Amendment when necessary to maintain effective and efficient operations. The judge also emphasized that the university did not need to wait for protests and demonstrations in order to show disruptions in operations before acting.

    NLRB: Private Colleges and Universities Must Bargain With Unions Representing Student Employees Over FERPA-Protected Information

    On August 6, 2024, the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a memo acknowledging the potential conflict between the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) regarding union requests for personal information about student employees. The NLRB general counsel concluded that colleges and universities in this situation must bargain with the applicable union over disclosure of such information and explain why the information request would violate FERPA.

    Further, the NLRB concluded that the college or university can bargain with the union over the distribution of FERPA waivers to applicable student employees but that asking the union to hand out such waivers would be unreasonable and a violation of the employer’s duty to bargain in good faith because the union does not have the student contact information. The general counsel concluded that the college or university should hand out the waivers when the union does not have the student employees’ contact information.

    Proposed $2.8 Billion NCAA Settlement on Hold as Some Student-Athletes Object

    Some student-athletes claiming the NCAA artificially capped the size of college athlete scholarships too low, as well as those pursuing fair-pay claims, objected to the $2.8 billion proposed settlement of the NCAA and the Power Five conferences antitrust case. Plaintiffs in these two areas are asking the Northern District of California court to carve out their claims from the proposed settlement so that they can pursue individual claims in further litigation. The federal judge overseeing the matter questioned the proposed settlement and concluded that the settlement needed a better explanation of damages and a clearer understanding of how much each class member can expect to gain (In re College Athlete NIL Litigation (N.D. Cal. No. 4:20-cv-3919. Brief filed 8/9/24, Fontenot v. NCAA D. Colo. No. 1:23-cv-03076, and Cornelio v. NCAA D. Colo. No. 1:24-cv-02178)).

    Two former Brown University student-athletes have dropped their objection, concluding it will not preclude them from proceeding separately in an antitrust claim against the Ivy League. The two former men’s and women’s basketball players have alleged separately that the Ivies have engaged in an illegal agreement which raised the price of an Ivy League education by illegally suppressing compensation for their services. They alleged that Brown only provided them with need-based assistance that did not cover the full cost of their education.

    Boston University Graduate Workers Strike Is Longest in the Last Decade

    Lasting over 150 days, the Boston University graduate workers strike is the longest student employee strike in the last decade, according to the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, located at the City University of New York’s Hunter College. The BU strike, which began on March 25, eclipses a similar work stoppage of 147 days at the University of Michigan in 2023. An unauthorized “wildcat” strike at the University of California, Santa Cruz may have lasted longer but the National Center points out that strike was unauthorized by the applicable union. The center concludes that this is part of the significant increase in unionization of both undergraduate and graduate student workers that has occurred over the past few years.

    The Boston University graduate workers formed their union in December 2022. The union is still engaged in efforts to secure their first collective bargaining agreement. September 3 will be the beginning of the second semester in which the grad student workers are striking. Teaching and regular higher education functions have continued at the university, though some interference with regular activities has been reported.

    Source link

  • Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize – CUPA-HR

    Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team Votes to Unionize – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | March 6, 2024

    On March 5, 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union. The election marks the first time in nearly a decade that student-athletes have been authorized to vote for union representation and may be the first case in which their election results in certified representation.

    Background

    On February 5, the National Labor Relations Board Regional Director Laura Sacks determined that players on the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees under the National Labor Relation Act and are thus eligible to unionize. The decision argues that the student-athletes are employees because Dartmouth has the “right to control the work performed by” the players on the team and players receive several benefits, including, but not limited to, lodging, meals, gear and training. Sacks’s decision ordered a secret-ballot election for representation, allowing all 15 players on the roster to determine whether or not to unionize.

    On February 29, Dartmouth filed a request to the NLRB to reconsider the decision made by the regional director and to place a stay on the election or impound the ballots during the reconsideration period. The NLRB rejected these requests to reconsider the decision and stay the election, allowing the election to move forward as scheduled.

    On March 5, before the 13-2 vote, Dartmouth appealed the regional director’s decision to recognize the student-athletes as employees. The appeal asked the NLRB to review and reverse the regional director’s decision and dismiss the petition, making the following arguments in favor of doing so:

    • The NLRB regional director inaccurately defined a student-athlete as an employee.
    • The NLRB regional director contradicted precedent set by a 2015 NLRB decision involving the Northwestern University men’s football team by asserting jurisdiction in this case.*
    • There will be several adverse and unintended consequences for institutions and players if student-athletes are found to be employees, including potential immigration and Title IX issues.

    Looking Ahead

    The SEIU has five days to respond to this appeal, after which the NLRB will consider both motions. The review by the NLRB, along with any further legal challenges that could go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, might significantly delay the union’s official recognition and the start of collective bargaining negotiations. These processes could take months or even longer to complete.

    Several lawsuits challenging NCAA policies are also ongoing, and other recent NLRB decisions and complaints further challenge the NCAA’s structure and question the classification of student-athletes as employees. Last month, a district court judge in Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction that bars the NCAA from enforcing its policy prohibiting incoming student-athletes from capitalizing on name, image, and likeness deals prior to enrolling at a college or university. Additionally, the NLRB has also issued a complaint against the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference and the NCAA, alleging the three have misclassified USC’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees and that they are joint employers of the athletes. The NLRB complaint is currently being challenged in court.

    The establishment of a student-athlete union is a divergence from the NCAA’s amateurism standards; for example, unionized players gain opportunities to negotiate compensation and working conditions related to practice hours and travel. With unionized players empowered to negotiate, the landscape of collegiate athletics may undergo a significant shift.

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of upcoming developments as it relates to this case.

    *In 2015, the NLRB declined to assert jurisdiction in a case involving the Northwestern University men’s football team. Prior to issuing the decision, the men’s football team had voted for representation, but the NLRB ultimately dismissed the petition filed by the union that planned to represent the unit. The NLRB held that, though Northwestern is a private institution, it is a part of the Big Ten Conference, which was comprised of all public schools except for Northwestern at the time.



    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Policy for Recruits Nationwide – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judge Blocks NCAA Name, Image and Likeness Policy for Recruits Nationwide – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | February 27, 2024

    On February 23, a federal judge with the District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued a preliminary injunction barring the NCAA from enforcing its rules prohibiting name, image and likeness compensation for recruits. The injunction applies nationwide.

    The policy in question prohibited student-athletes from negotiating and signing NIL contracts prior to enrolling at a college or university. This meant NIL compensation could not be used to “induce” a recruit to a specific school. This policy stood in contrast to the NCAA’s policy for student-athletes already enrolled at a college or university, who, as of 2021, have been allowed to seek NIL compensation.

    In his decision, U.S. District Judge Clifton Corker explained, “The NCAA’s prohibition likely violates federal antitrust law and harms student-athletes.” He clarified, “Without the give and take of a free market, student-athletes simply have no knowledge of their true NIL value. It is this suppression of negotiating leverage and the consequential lack of knowledge that harms student-athletes.” He further argued that the NCAA “fails to show how the timing of when a student-athlete enters such an agreement would destroy the goal of preserving amateurism,” thereby not establishing rationale for treating recruits differently than enrolled student-athletes.

    The lawsuit was filed by the attorneys general of Tennessee and Virginia after the NCAA investigated the University of Tennessee for potential violations of the policy. The NCAA will likely appeal the case to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overseeing Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio and Michigan, but in the meantime, reports indicate the organization is already considering potential policy changes.

    This case is only one of the lawsuits targeting the NCAA and its policies towards student-athletes. Several lawsuits are currently pending before various federal courts, alleging the NCAA in its current form violates federal antitrust law. Additionally, the National Labor Relations Board recently ruled that the Dartmouth men’s basketball team are employees of the university, allowing them to organize and schedule a union representation election for early March. The NLRB has also issued a complaint against the University of Southern California, the PAC-12 Conference and the NCAA, alleging the three have misclassified USC’s football and men’s and women’s basketball players as student-athletes rather than employees and that the three organizations are joint employers of the athletes.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for and keep members apprised of any updates on these cases.



    Source link

  • HR and the Courts — January 2024 – CUPA-HR

    HR and the Courts — January 2024 – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | January 10, 2024

    Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.

    Medical School Surgeon Awarded $15 Million in Damages Resulting From Biased Harassment Investigation

    A federal trial court jury awarded a medical school surgeon $15 million in damages. The jury concluded that the Thomas Jefferson University Hospital medical school’s sex harassment investigation of the plaintiff, who was accused of harassment and sexually assaulting a female medical school resident, was biased against males (Abraham v. Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, et al (Case No. 2:20-cv-02967, E.D. Pa. 12/11/23)). The plaintiff claimed that prior to the incident, he had an “unblemished” reputation. He claimed that due to the medical school’s mishandling of the disciplinary proceeding, he had been labelled a “rapist,” had been ostracized by professional colleagues, and had suffered damages to his livelihood.

    The incident, subject to the lawsuit, involved a pool party at the plaintiff’s home in 2018. The plaintiff alleged that the medical resident became sexually aggressive toward him without his consent, and he was too intoxicated to resist. The plaintiff claims to have reported the incident to the hospital and found that the resident had filed a complaint against him, which resulted in the allegedly anti-male biased investigation and proceedings. Prior to the verdict, the medical school filed a motion for mistrial, alleging that the “belligerent” treatment of the court by the plaintiff’s counsel unduly influenced the jury. As of writing, there has been no action on the defendant’s motion.

    LSU Associate Athletic Director Claims Race and Sex Discrimination, Retaliation, and Hostile Work Environment in Lawsuit

    A federal district court judge granted partial summary judgement dismissing some charges brought against Louisiana State University by a terminated, former associate athletic director, but allowed some allegations of race and sex retaliatory discrimination and hostile work environment to move forward to a jury trial against the university’s board of supervisors (Lewis v. Board of Supervisors, Louisiana State University (2023 BL 437930, M.D. La., No. 3-21-cv-00198, Partial summary judgement, 12/1/23)).

    The university argued that the former associate athletic director was fired in a shake-up made by a new university football coach, which had nothing to do with the plaintiff’s race or sex. However, the new coach denied at deposition that he made the decision to fire the associate athletic director, creating a factual dispute that the court ruled should go to a jury. The federal judge concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations of a sexually hostile work environment should proceed to a jury trial as well as the allegations that she was denied a pay raise and ultimately fired because she is a Black woman.

    NCAA Proposes Plan to Allow Institutions to Pay Student-Athletes

    The NCAA proposed a plan in December 2023 to allow some institutions to invest at least $30,000 into an educational trust for at least half of their student-athletes to address the ongoing controversy over payments to student-athletes. Commentators point out that there will be many challenges to the new plan, including possibly running afoul of Title IX. Moreover, the plan will not make the pending Fair Labor Standards Act and National Labor Relations Act student-athlete claims go away.

    Commentators also point out that the proposal does not address the pending class action damage claim filed against the NCAA in the name, image and likeness (NIL) litigation, which is scheduled for trial in January 2025. Plaintiffs in that class action are claiming damages of $4.5 billion as a result of the NCAA’s past ban on NIL payments, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Alston in August 2021 on anti-trust grounds.

    Federal Judge Rejects Religious Discrimination Claim Against Princeton

    A federal district court judge recently granted a motion to dismiss filed by Princeton University in a case brought by a former budget analyst who claims she was fired because of her religious beliefs when she refused to comply with COVID-19 protocols, including wearing a mask (McKinley . Princeton University (Case No. 3:22-cv-05069, D. N.J. 15/5/23)).

    The case was initially dismissed because the complaint did not mention any specific religion or set of beliefs. The court gave the plaintiff the opportunity to refile and correct that omission. The plaintiff’s amended complaint contained allegations that “my body is my temple” and “decries… any and all abuse against life.” In dismissing the case, the judge concluded that the plaintiff’s beliefs appear to be a collection of general moral commandments. The court found that the plaintiff’s personal moral code and beliefs do not constitute a comprehensive system of beliefs that could be called a religion.

    Appeals Court Reverses Dismissal of Former UMass Soccer Coach’s Age Discrimination Case

    A Massachusetts state appeals court reversed the dismissal of a former women’s soccer coach’s age discrimination complaint (Matz v. University of Massachusetts–Amherst (Mass App Ct No. 22-P-1162, 12/7/23)). The coach, who was 51 years old, filed the claim alleging that his termination was because the university wanted to hire a younger coach and that the stated reasons for his termination were a pretext.

    In dismissing the case, the university claimed the coach was terminated because of “an undisputed poor record” and “student criticism of his coaching abilities.” The appellate court recognized that the coach’s performance review concluded that he needed improvement and that there were student criticisms of his coaching abilities. Nonetheless, the appellate court held that the record contains “numerous positive reviews, inconsistent with the [2015 season] criticisms,” from which a jury could find he was terminated because of his age. The appellate court concluded that the plaintiff raised a claim by a member of a protected class, who was performing his job sufficiently, and his allegations could raise reasonable speculation about discrimination.

    California Jury Awards Nurse $41.5 million in Damages in Retaliatory Discharge, Whistleblower Case

    A neonatal intensive care nurse who was fired after 30 years of service to her employer was awarded a California jury verdict of $41.5 million in compensatory and punitive damages as a result of her discharge, which she claimed was in retaliation for raising safety issues. The California state court jury awarded the plaintiff $1.3 million in lost wages, $1.2 million in future lost wages, $1.5 million in past mental suffering, $7.5 million in future mental suffering, $15 million in punitive damages against the hospital, and $15 million in punitive damages against the Kaiser Foundation.

    According to the hospital, the plaintiff was fired after she was found reclining in the neonatal unit, talking on her personal phone with her feet resting on an isolette that had a neonatal infant inside. The plaintiff claimed that the stated reason for discharge was a pretext and that the real reason for her discharge was that she reported a supervisor who refused to report that the father of a patient was present in the hospital with a knife, creating an unsafe situation in the hospital (Gatchalian v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals et. al. (Case No.  21STCV15300 Ca. Sup Ct. L.A. Cty. Jury Verdict 12/16/23)).



    Source link

  • NLRB Region Files Complaint Against the NCAA, Pac-12 and the University of Southern California – CUPA-HR

    NLRB Region Files Complaint Against the NCAA, Pac-12 and the University of Southern California – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | December 21, 2022

    On December 15, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)’s Region 31 announced it will pursue a complaint against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the Pac-12 Conference and the University of Southern California (USC) for violating the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) by misclassifying student-athletes as non-employees, unless the matter is settled. On February 8, the National College Players Association filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) charge with the region alleging that USC; the University of California, Los Angeles; the Pac-12 Conference; and the NCAA are “joint employers” who violated the NLRA by “repeatedly misclassifying employees as ‘student-athlete’ non-employees.”

    Region 31 is part of the NLRB’s Office of General Counsel, which is responsible for receiving charges from employees, unions or employers that allege violations of the NLRA. The region decides whether to issue a complaint on charges it receives. If the region does not issue a complaint, the matter is generally closed. If the region decides to file a complaint, however, the case is litigated before an administrative law judge.

    Region 31’s complaint is the latest development regarding the employment status of student-athletes. The National College Players Association’s February 8 charge followed NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo’s memorandum issued last September in which she argues that student-athletes are employees under the NLRA and are therefore afforded all statutory protections as prescribed under the law.

    The region’s decision in response to the February ULP charge means the NCAA, Pac-12 Conference and USC can either settle or litigate the case. A final ruling could take years to come to fruition, however, as both parties in the case could appeal the decisions made by the administrative law judge to the five-member NLRB. The NLRB’s decision can be appealed to federal appellate courts  and from there all the way up to the Supreme Court.

    The news of the region’s complaint follows the announcement earlier in the day that Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker would be the NCAA’s next president in March after his last term in office expires in January. Baker, a Republican, is known for his work to build bipartisan consensus on policy in Massachusetts, which the NCAA may recognize as a strength as they continue to engage Congress on other issues related to student-athlete compensation. It is unclear what, if any, impact this will have on the ULP charges.

    CUPA-HR will continue to keep members apprised of this case and others involving student-athlete employment classification that may emerge in the future.



    Source link