NCAA Seeks to Block Ex-Villanova Wide Receiver's Claim for Wages
The National Collegiate Athletic Association and Villanova University have asked a federal court to dismiss a former college football player's lawsuit alleging that he is owed wages for his time as a scholarship athlete for the school.
October 09, 2018 at 01:21 PM
4 minute read
The National Collegiate Athletic Association and Villanova University have asked a federal court to dismiss a former college football player's lawsuit alleging that he is owed wages for his time as a scholarship athlete for the school.
The NCAA and Villanova on Monday filed a summary judgment motion in Livers v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. The lawsuit, which raises claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act, had been granted a green light in July after U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania determined that plaintiff Lawrence “Poppy” Livers made a plausible argument that scholarship athletes, like work study students, qualify as students under the FLSA.
The latest effort to dismiss the case focuses on the argument that Livers failed to bring the suit within the two-year statute of limitations. Although the statute of limitations can be expanded to three years if a defendant is shown to have acted willfully, attorneys for the NCAA and Villanova contended that, because there is no case law indicating that scholarship students constitute employees under the FLSA, they cannot be found to have willfully violated the law.
“Because there is no authority stating that student-athletes are ipso facto employees of the school for whom they play—indeed the existing authorities draw the opposite conclusion—there exists no law that defendants could have disregarded, either intentionally, or merely recklessly,” Los Angeles-based Constangy Brooks, Smith & Prophete attorney Steven Katz said in the motion he filed for the NCAA and Villanova. “Even if the court were inclined to make new law on this issue, it is impossible for defendants to have willfully violated a new rule before it was ever announced.”
In May, Baylson dismissed much of the first iteration of Livers' suit, which included claims against multiple schools. Baylson had determined that Livers could only bring claims against schools he attended. Baylson further held that, since Livers' last season with Villanova football ended Dec. 13, 2014, and his complaint was filed Sept. 26, 2017, he failed to sue within the statute of limitations.
Still, Baylson said Livers should be afforded “the opportunity to amend his complaint to allege additional facts, if he can, addressing willfulness in order to attempt to overcome the time bar to his claim.”
In July, after Livers renewed his claims against the NCAA and Villanoa, Baylson said the former player had made a plausible argument that scholarship athletes fell within the employee status. The judge further said the defendants had been “aware of this when they chose not to pay them, suggesting reckless disregard of the alleged duty.”
In their motion filed Monday, the defendants contended that 60 years of case law from state courts hold that student athletes are not students, and, in the years since Livers brought his suit, several federal courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, have also found that student athletes are not “ipso facto” employees.
“Even if plaintiff were able to persuade this court that the law should change—and that is an extraordinarily big 'if'—it could not change the conclusion that defendants acted in accord with 'a reasonable interpretation of existing law' in the past, and were accordingly not willful,” the motion said.
Paul L. McDonald of PL McDonald Law in Philadelphia represents Livers and did not respond to a request for comment. Press offices for NCAA and Villanova both did not return a request for comment Tuesday morning.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Jury Awards $15M to Woman Who Slipped on Apartment Building Stairs
4 minute readPlaintiffs Seek Redo of First Trial Over Medical Device Plant's Emissions
4 minute readHigh Court Revives Kleinbard's Bid to Collect $70K in Legal Fees From Lancaster DA
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250