NCAA v. Renee M. Smith (02/23/1999)

By: Daniel Rubin, Medill News Service

Questions presented

Whether the National Collegiate Athletic should be covered under Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972. Title IX says that ""no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal assistance."" At issue is whether the NCAA receives funding from the federal government either directly or indirectly because member schools that receive federal funds pay dues to the organization.

Brief

At five foot-eight inches, Renee Smith was used to going up against much bigger opponents during volleyball matches.

For two seasons, Smith played setter and middle blocker in Division I collegiate athletics at St. Bonaventure University in western New York. ""IÔm not real tall, but I never had much trouble playing against taller people,"" said Smith.

But now Smith is preparing to do battle with a much larger opponent - the National Collegiate Athletic Association. Instead of playing for merely a win, Smiths battle with the NCAA could result in a fundamental shift in how the organization deals with issues regarding sex discrimination in college sports and other activities.

All she wanted to do was play the game. And during the 1991-1992 and 1992-1993 volleyball seasons, Smith did just that for the St. Bonaventure Bonnies.

Smith graduated from St. Bonaventure in two and a half years, after using up only two of her five years of eligibility that NCAA allows collegiate students.

In January of 1994, Smith enrolled for graduate work at Hofstra University and attempted to play volleyball. Under NCAA rules, however, graduate student-athletes are permitted to play varsity athletics only if they play for the school where they obtained their undergraduate degree.

Hofstra and Smith applied for a waiver to the rules but the NCAA denied their request. A year later, the NCAA again denied Smiths request for a waiver as she attempted to play for the University of Pittsburgh, where Smith was working on her law degree.

Smith filed suit pro se in federal court in August 1996 claiming that the waiver denials violated the Sherman Acts antitrust provisions. She attempted to amend her complaint to allege that the denials violated Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 that forbids discrimination based on sex in educational institutions. Smith argued that the NCAA unfairly discriminates against women in the granting of waivers.

""Basically, what I was arguing was that the NCAA should be subject to Title IX,"" said Smith. Title IX provides that ""no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal assistance.""

According to Smith, the NCAA should be considered to ""receive federal funds."" Smith argued in her claim that member schools assign authority over to NCAA to run their sports programs. Since some of these member schools receive federal funds for intercollegiate athletics, the NCAA could be deemed to receive federal funds.

Carter Phillips, Smiths attorney, also said that the NCAA receives funds directly from the federal government through a program called the National Youths Sports Program Fund, which is a program of the Department of Health and Human Services. ""Basically, its a sham,"" said Phillips. ""There is no separate entity at all.""

Officials at the NCAA said the National Youths Sports Program was a completely separate identity that provides sports programs for disadvantaged youths. ""[Phillips] accusation is completely inaccurate,"" said Wally Renfro, a spokesman for the organization. ""It is recognized as a separate organization.""

The district court dismissed Smiths antitrust claim and denied her motion to amend her complaint, ruling that it was filed after the case had already been dismissed.

A unanimous 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Smith who argued the case herself before the appellate panel. It held against her on the antitrust claim, but found that the NCAA could possibly be considered to receive federal assistance. The appeals court did not reach the merits of the Title IX issue, but found that the trial court had abused its discretion in now allowing Smith to amend her complaint.

The U.S. Supreme Court granted the NCAAs petition for certiorari on Sept. 29, 1998. At issue is whether the NCAA receives funding from the federal government either directly or indirectly because member schools that receive federal funds pay dues to the organization.

""Any association whose members use dollars receive federal funds,"" said NCAA spokesman Renfro. ""That would mean that every association could be considered in that [governmental] standing. It is a very ridiculous argument.""

On Feb. 23, 1999, the Court reversed, unanimously holding that the NCAA cannot be held liable under the sex discrimination provisions of Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972, which bans discrimination by an institution receiving federal funds, even though the NCAA receives about $900,000 a year from its member institutions. The opinion written byJustice Ruth Bader Ginsburg made the distinction ""that entities receiving federal assistance, whether directly or indirectly through an intermediary, are recipients within the meaning of Title IX. But entities that simply benefit economically from federal assistance received by others are not.""