For Immediate Release: March 8, 1999

For More Information Contact: TLPJ, 202-797-8600
Opinion
March 11, 1999 Statement
Previous Press Release

Federal Court Finds NCAA Minimum Test Score Requirement Discriminates Against African-Americans

Summary Judgment Granted in Race Discrimination Suit

United States District Court Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter of Philadelphia held today that the minimum test score requirement of the National Collegiate Athletic Association's freshman eligibility rule, Proposition 16, "has an unjustified disparate impact against African-Americans." The court granted the motion for summary judgment filed by Trial Lawyers for Public Justice (TLPJ) in its national race discrimination class action, Cureton v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and barred the NCAA from "continued operation and implementation of Proposition 16," which contains the minimum test score requirement. It also held that the NCAA can be sued under federal anti-discrimination laws, an issue left unresolved by the U.S. Supreme Court just last month.

"This is an enormous victory for African-American student-athletes and all who care about equality," said TLPJ lead counsel André Dennis of Philadelphia's Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP. "The Court has confirmed what we've said all along -- that federal law prohibits the NCAA from discriminating, that the NCAA's minimum test score requirement discriminates against African-American student-athletes, and that equally effective, non-discriminatory alternatives are available."

The NCAA, which governs intercollegiate athletics, requires all potential student-athletes at major schools to achieve a particular score on the Scholastic Assessment Test (SAT) or the American College Test (ACT) -- regardless of their academic records or scholastic achievements. In January 1997, TLPJ filed a race discrimination suit in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia challenging the rule on behalf of two Philadelphia student-athletes who graduated in the top of their high school class. Both were originally recruited for track by numerous Division I schools. Despite their high school academic success, however, the recruiting abruptly changed -- and they were barred from competing as freshmen at Division I schools -- when they did not achieve the required SAT score. Two additional named plaintiffs were later added to the suit.

The national class action lawsuit, Cureton v. NCAA, charged that the NCAA's minimum test score requirement violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and its implementing regulations, which prohibit race discrimination by educational institutions receiving federal funds. The suit sought an injunction prohibiting the NCAA from using a cut-off score requirement and allowing all affected student-athletes to regain their lost year of athletic eligibility. A trial was scheduled to begin in May 1999, but TLPJ moved for summary judgment in October 1998, contending that the NCAA's own documents proved that no trial was needed and that the requirement simply could not be justified.

In a 54-page opinion issued today, Judge Buckwalter agreed. As a preliminary matter, he rejected the NCAA's argument that it cannot be sued under Title VI and other federal anti-discrimination laws because it is not a recipient of federal funds. The U.S. Supreme Court had considered, but declined to rule on, that argument last month in Smith v. NCAA. Noting that the Supreme Court had not had the benefit of reviewing the evidence developed by TLPJ's team of lawyers, Judge Buckwalter held that the NCAA could be sued because it was the "indirect recipient" of millions of dollars paid annually by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to the National Youth Sports Program Fund, which he found was "merely a conduit through which the NCAA makes all of the decisions about ...the use of the federal funds." Judge Buckwalter also held that the NCAA could be sued because the NCAA's "member schools (who themselves receive federal funds) have ceded controlling authority over federally funded programs to the NCAA." He wrote: "While each of the member schools is also undeniably subject to Title VI for a challenge to Proposition 16, the NCAA, in light of the fact that it is the decisionmaking and enforcement entity behind legislation adopted by, and enforced against, its membership, is also subject to Title VI."

"The Court's finding that the NCAA is covered by Title VI is critical to ending all discrimination in intercollegiate athletics," said TLPJ Staff Attorney Adele P. Kimmel, co-counsel in the case. "This effectively means that the NCAA can be held accountable if it discriminates on the basis of race, sex, disability, or other impermissible factors."

Under Title VI and its implementing regulations, the law establishes a three-part test to determine liability. First, the plaintiff must show that the challenged requirement has a racially disproportionate impact. Second, if such a showing is made, the defendant must prove that the requirement is dictated by educational necessity –that it serves a "legitimate educational goal" and that there is a "manifest relationship" between the requirement and that goal. Third, if the defendant meets its burden, the plaintiff can still prevail by showing that another, equally effective alternative requirement would have less of a racial impact.

Judge Buckwalter held that the minimum test score requirement failed all three parts of the test. First, he found that the requirement unquestionably had a disproportionate impact on African-Americans. He noted that the NCAA's own memo to its members stated that "African-American and low income student-athletes have been disproportionately impacted by Proposition 16 standards" and that "the single largest reason for not meeting Proposition 16 standards was failure to meet the minimum standardized test score."

Second, Judge Buckwalter found that, although the NCAA had articulated a "legitimate educational goal" it was trying to serve -- raising student-athlete graduation rates -- Proposition 16 had no "manifest relationship" to that goal. Reviewing the data, he found: "[T]he NCAA has not produced any evidence demonstrating that the cutoff score used in Proposition 16 serves, in a significant way, the goal of raising student-athlete graduation rates. "

Third, Judge Buckwalter held that, even if the NCAA had offered evidence sufficient to shift the inquiry back to plaintiffs, plaintiffs would nevertheless prevail. He said, "Plaintiffs have shown at least three alternative practices resulting in less racial disproportionality while still serving the goals of raising student-athlete graduation rates ... That is all the proof that Plaintiffs need to demonstrate under Title VI."

In addition to Dennis and Kimmel, TLPJ's legal team in Cureton v. NCAA includes Danielle Banks and Elizabeth R. Leong of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, LLP, and J. Richard Cohen, Legal Director of the Southern Poverty Law Center.