NCAA, North Carolina seek dismissal of lawsuit over academic scandal

Steve Berkowitz | USA TODAY Sports

The NCAA and the University of North Carolina on Monday asked a federal judge in North Carolina to dismiss a lawsuit connected to the academic scandal involving Tar Heels athletes.

In late January, lawyers representing two former UNC athletes sued in North Carolina state court. They alleged breach of contract against UNC for a failure to provide "academically sound classes with legitimate educational instruction."

The suit, which seeks to become a class action, also accused the NCAA of negligence because: "Although the NCAA's rules prohibit academic fraud, the NCAA knew of dozens of instances of academic fraud in its member schools' athletic programs over the last century, and it nevertheless refused to implement adequate monitoring systems to detect and prevent these occurrences at its member institutions."

In late February, the NCAA had the case removed to federal court under a variety of procedural grounds.

On Monday, the NCAA said the case should be thrown out, in part, because it did not owe the plaintiffs a duty to prevent academic fraud at UNC.

The NCAA argued that even though "it supplies and enforces rules and guidelines for various aspects of intercollegiate athletics," it is not "subject to liability for the independent actions of its member institutions."

In addition to claiming that the case is barred by the 11th Amendment, which limits suits against state governments in state courts, the university said the case was brought after expiration of the state's three-year limit for the filing of a breach-of-contract claim.

The suit was filed on behalf of behalf of women's basketball player Rashanda McCants and football player Devon Ramsay by lawyers from Hausfeld LLP, the same firm that is pursuing the Ed O'Bannon antitrust case against the NCAA concerning the use of college athletes' names, images and likenesses.

On Wednesday, the Hausfeld firm issued a statement in which it acerbically juxtaposed a position on education that the NCAA took in the O'Bannon case with its position in Monday's filing.

In the O'Bannon case, the NCAA contended that the prospect of allowing athletes increased compensation for the use of their names, images and likenesses would jeopardize the integration of education and athletics — and that the need to preserve this integration justifies the association's limits on what athletes can receive while playing sports.

"This startling inconsistency is unfortunately all too symptomatic of the NCAA's shifting rhetoric and faltering commitment to its college athletes," Hausfeld said in the statement. "NCAA President Mark Emmert has repeatedly proposed that '[w]hat we live for is the education of our athletes,' but the NCAA's record tells a far different story. On the eve of the Final Four, we call on the NCAA and its member schools to commit, finally, to safeguarding a meaningful education for all college athletes, particularly those in revenue sports in Division I that present soaring time demands and a host of priorities outside of the academic sphere."

McCants attended UNC from 2005 to 2009. Ramsay attended the school from 2007 to 2012, but allegedly participated in an irregular class in 2007.

The plaintiffs argued in their complaint that the time limit for filing the suit should not apply because of UNC's "fraudulent concealment of material facts regarding the academically unsound nature" of various classes.

In Monday's filing, lawyers for the university responded:

"Plaintiffs offer no explanation for how or why they were unaware of what transpired in the three … courses they took between themselves while students at the University. Nobody is better positioned to know these facts than Plaintiffs, yet their Complaint offers no explanation for their lack of knowledge — within the limitations period — of whether the … classes they took required class attendance and included faculty involvement. Indeed, Plaintiffs unquestionably would have been aware at the time they took the courses that they were enrolled 'paper classes' that they were not required to attend, required little to no work, were not taught by a faculty member, and involved no interaction with a faculty member."

The NCAA acknowledged that the type of alleged academic fraud that is the subject of the suit "is without question a serious concern for all students."

But it also argued that that plaintiffs were attempting to hold the association accountable for "conduct the NCAA did not and could not control."

" … The NCAA did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education student-athletes received at member institutions or to protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of those institutions or their employees," the association wrote.

It added that "it was no secret that the NCAA did not review the substance of college courses."

In addition, the NCAA argued that what the plaintiffs are seeking through the suit — the formation of an independent commission to oversee academic integrity in NCAA schools' athletics programs — is "overbroad."

"Plaintiffs seek relief that would extended to all NCAA member institutions, but their allegations are tied solely to events at UNC ... Plaintiffs effectively ask the Court not to remedy the particular harms they allege, but to dictate broad policy changes to the NCAA. That is not the proper function of injunctive relief, nor even more broadly of the court system."