2010 Annual Survey: Recent Developments in Sports Law
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Marquette Sports Law Review Volume 21 Article 9 Issue 2 Spring 2010 Annual Survey: Recent Developments in Sports Law Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw Part of the Entertainment and Sports Law Commons Repository Citation 2010 Annual Survey: Recent Developments in Sports Law, 21 Marq. Sports L. Rev. 667 (2011) Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/sportslaw/vol21/iss2/9 This Survey is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SURVEY (DO NOT DELETE) 5/27/2011 12:00 PM 2010 ANNUAL SURVEY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN SPORTS LAW INTRODUCTION This survey focuses on sports-related cases that were adjudicated between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010. This survey does not include every sports-related case that was decided in 2010. Instead, the purpose of this survey is to provide summaries of the more interesting cases: those with the most compelling facts, issues, and rulings. As a whole, this survey aims to provide the reader with a solid understanding of the complex development of the sports-related legal issues that continue to arise from year-to-year. To assist the reader, this survey is divided into sections, which are listed in alphabetical order, based on the particular area of law implicated by the primary issue in each case. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW Administrative law governs the actions, such as rulemaking and regulatory enforcement, of the administrative agencies of local, state, and federal governments. Although sports law rarely invokes issues of administrative law, the cases below show that these two distinct areas of law can and have had an impact on one another. Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs.1 In Lincoln Hockey, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the Columbia Department of Employment Services’ (DOES) properly granted James Huscroft’s workers’ compensation benefits because his employment was localized in the District of Columbia, even though he was injured while playing for the Washington Capitals’ minor-league affiliate at the time of his injury. James Huscroft, a former player for the National Hockey League’s (NHL) Washington Capitals, was injured while playing in a regular-season game in Canada for the Capitals minor-league affiliate. Huscroft filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits under the District of Columbia Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), and DOES granted Huscroft temporary partial disability benefits. The Capitals appealed, arguing that DOES erred in both 1. 997 A.2d 713 (D.C. 2010). SURVEY (DO NOT DELETE) 5/27/2011 12:00 PM 668 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 21:2 finding that Huscroft’s claim came within the jurisdiction of the WCA and in not limiting Huscroft’s award according to the work life expectancy of a NHL player. The court first explained that the WCA only covers a claim if, at the time of the injury, the employment was “localized principally in the District of Columbia.” Even though he mostly played for the Capitals’ minor-league affiliate in Portland, the court found that under the Hughes test, Huscroft’s employment was localized principally in the District of Columbia because he was hired to help achieve the business objective of winning games for the Capitals who are principally located in the District. The court’s finding that the Capitals, and not the minor league team, controlled all aspects of Huscroft’s employment also led to their decision that the WCA had jurisdiction over his claim. Lastly, the court ruled that DOES did not have to limit Huscroft’s award according to the work life expectancy of a NHL player because Huscroft had been awarded temporary partial disability benefits and the work life expectancy limitation only applies to professional athletes who are awarded permanent partial disability benefits. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a method used to resolve disputes between parties in an effort to avoid judicial actions. The most typical forms of ADR used are arbitration and mediation. In fact, most professional sports leagues require arbitration for certain types of disputes. Additionally, organizations such as the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS), which is discussed in a separate section in the Survey, are specifically designed to address the issues associated with ADR. The following decisions display some of those issues. Beckom v. United States Bobsled & Skeleton Fed’n, Inc.2 Beckom and three other athletes brought this claim alleging that United States Bobsled and Skeleton Federation (USBSF) violated fundamental rules of fairness and due process when deciding which athletes would participate in the Vancouver games. In June of 2009, USBSF promulgated a new process by which it would select its push bobsled team members for the 2010 Olympics. The procedure outlined twelve criteria, some qualitative, some quantitative, to be used for selecting team members. The criteria were published and were available to all members trying out for the team. One of the criteria involved testing how 2. AAA 77 190 E 00105 10 (Feb. 10, 2010) (Mitten, Matthew J., Arb.). SURVEY (DO NOT DELETE) 5/27/2011 12:00 PM 2011] ANNUAL SURVEY 669 quickly the individual could push the bobsled to top speed from a standing start. This “ice push testing” is best done with a real bobsled on ice, but due to a scheduling conflict, USBSF was forced to administer the tests on dry ground with a wheeled bobsled. None of the athletes were forced to undergo the test at this time, and all four of the claimants finished in the top six of this particular test. All athletes were given subsequent opportunities to take the ice push test at the America’s Cup in October of 2009. None of the four claimants were selected to the nine-man push bobsled team for the 2010 Olympics. The arbitrator ruled that the USBSF had enacted fair and reasonable criteria for selection of athletes. There was no evidence of bad faith or conflicts of interest. The claimants failed to show that if their ice push tests had been done on ice instead of dry ground that they would have been selected to the Olympic team. In fact, testimony from two members of the team selection committee stated that there was no substantial difference in the minds of the selection committee between the on-ice and dry ground push tests. Additionally, they stated the ice push test was only one of twelve criteria used in selecting team members and even a substantial gain in that area would not have increased the likelihood of any of the claimants being chosen for the team. The arbitrator ruled in favor of USBSF stating that it is not the position of an arbitrator to determine the best procedure for selecting the team but, rather, to simply ensure that the USBSF had properly and fairly applied the established procedure using the twelve criteria. Franklin County Bd. of Educ. v. Crabtree3 In Crabtree, the Court of Appeals of Tennessee held that a high school basketball coach relieved of her coaching duties did not have a right to an arbitration hearing regarding the school’s decision not to rehire her because the arbitration right did not extend to public school coaches in Tennessee. Lisa Crabtree was a teacher and a coach of the girls’ basketball team from 2001 through the end of the 2004-05 basketball season. After the season, Crabtree was relieved of her coaching duties and her duties as a physical education teacher by the Director of School; however, she remained an English teacher. Next, Crabtree filed a grievance request with the Franklin County Board of Education (the Board), arguing that her coaching duties should be reinstated pursuant to the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Crabtree was then notified by the Director of School that coaching assignments were expressly excluded from the terms of the CBA, and he did 3. 2010 Tenn. App. LEXIS 423 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 1, 2010). SURVEY (DO NOT DELETE) 5/27/2011 12:00 PM 670 MARQUETTE SPORTS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 21:2 not forward Ms. Crabtree’s grievance to the Board. Crabtree contacted the Tennessee Education Association (TEA) and the Franklin County Education Association (FCEA) regarding her situation, and FCEA informed the Director of School that, if he did not forward Crabtree’s grievance to the Board, FCEA would pursue an arbitration hearing. Before the arbitration hearing, the Board filed a declaratory judgment action in the Circuit Court of Franklin County, seeking a declaration that “the decision not to rehire Ms. Crabtree as the coach of the girls’ basketball team was not a matter subject to arbitration under the CBA . .” The Circuit Court held that the decision not to rehire Crabtree was not subject to arbitration under the CBA and ordered judgment in favor of the Board. Crabtree appealed to the Court of Appeals of Tennessee. Relying on precedent, the court ruled that the coaching assignments of teachers in Tennessee public schools are not subject to the collective bargaining procedures provided by the Education Professional Negotiations Act (EPNA) and, therefore, Crabtree did not have a right to an arbitration hearing. Gunther v. United States Speedskating4 Gunther brought this claim against U.S. Speedskating after she failed to be selected to the Vancouver Olympic team despite winning the U.S. Championship. The arbitrator ruled that the proper procedure had been followed when deciding the members of the team. U.S. Speedskating announced the composition of the 2010 Olympic team following the December 2009 U.S. Speedskating Championships (Championship).