Latest news with #JohnClune
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
House Settlement Faces First Appeal as Title IX Takes Center Stage
As expected, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken's order to grant final approval of the 10-year settlement between the NCAA, power conferences and current and former Division I athletes represented by the House, Carter and Hubbard antitrust litigations has been challenged. A group of objectors—Kacie Breeding, Kate Johnson, Lexi Drumm, Emmie Wannemacher, Savannah Baron, Riley Haas, Emma Appleman and Elizabeth Arnold—filed a notice of appeal with Wilken on Wednesday. The objectors, all current or former Division I athletes, will appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Their attorneys include John Clune and Ashlyn Hare of Hutchinson Black and Cook and Rebecca Peterson-Fisher of Katz Banks Kumin. Advertisement More from In January, the objectors argued in a brief to Wilken that the settlement's damages feature violates Title IX. Over a 10-year period, around $2.8 billion will be paid to qualified Division I athletes who played at some point from 2016 onward. It will compensate them for lost NIL, video game and broadcasting opportunities resulting from past NCAA eligibility rules. The objectors argue that because over 90% of this money is going to be paid to male athletes, it runs afoul of Title IX's requirement of gender equity in educational programs. From an antitrust perspective, more money paid to male athletes reflects market realities. As a whole, football and men's basketball generates more revenue than women's teams, meaning players in those sports are more harmed by NCAA rules that restrained competition. But the objectors insist that Title IX would have prevented 'such disproportionate damages in the first place.' Wilken rejected the Title IX argument for several reasons and in several instances. One reason is that the settlement resolves the antitrust claims raised in the three cases, while potential claims that arise under other areas of law—be they Title IX, state NIL statutes or labor and employment laws—are outside the scope of the case. Stated differently, Wilken can't rule on disagreements related to other areas of law that are outside the scope of the pleadings and that haven't been part of the litigation process—cases are limited to the areas of law and issues raised in the complaints. Advertisement In her recent 76-page-order to approve the settlement, Wilken enunciated additional reasons. She wrote that the objectors 'have cited no authority that Title IX applies to damages award' or that Title IX applies to the distribution of those damages. She also asserted that the settlement does not release potential claims that could be raised under Title IX to challenge the injunctive relief portion of the settlement. That portion will enable participating colleges to directly pay athletes a share of up to 22% of the average power conference athletic media, ticket and sponsorship revenue, with $20.5 million expected as the initial annual cap. Many schools are expected to share more money with male athletes, which could lead to Title IX lawsuits against those schools. Importantly, those would be separate cases and not part of Wilken's decision to approve the settlement. In a statement Wednesday, Hagens Berman, which has represented the class members in the cases, warned an appeal could 'block payments to hundreds of thousands of athletes, delaying payments by a minimum of several months to potentially a year or more.' Further, the statement criticized an appeal 'based on a Title IX issue that Judge Wilken already disposed of correctly, quickly and multiple times.' The objectors will hope that the Ninth Circuit is more receptive to their Title IX argument than Wilken. But there could be a long wait for an answer: Some data suggests that from notice of an appeal to a decision often takes more than two years in the Ninth Circuit. As Hagens Berman statement alludes, if the damages portion is stayed pending appeal, class member athletes who are expecting payment will need to wait a while. Advertisement Best of Sign up for Sportico's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
New York Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- New York Times
Appeal alleges House v. NCAA settlement ‘deliberately ignored' Title IX in back pay plans
Eight female athletes filed an appeal of the House v. NCAA settlement Wednesday in a California federal court, arguing that the landmark agreement violates Title IX. The appeal only addresses the back damages portion of the settlement, not the portion that establishes the system of direct revenue sharing with athletes. Advertisement The watershed settlement, approved late Friday night by federal judge Claudia Wilken, has been years in the making. Last October Wilken granted the settlement preliminary approval, then waded through hundreds of objections filed over the ensuing eight months. Many of those objections were related to Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex-based discrimination in education and requires schools to offer equitable opportunities to women, including in sports. Wilken was unmoved by those objections, repeatedly saying the antitrust case had nothing to do with Title IX. But she did leave the door open for future lawsuits based on Title IX targeting how future payments from schools to athletes will be made. The appeal will not impact revenue sharing — slated to start July 1 for all schools that have opted in — but will pause the back-pay damages portion of the settlement. John Clune, the attorney who represents the eight women filing the appeal, said he also filed an objection during the settlement adjudication process but that nothing came of it. 'We felt like we were standing on the table waving our arms that somebody had to address this issue, but none of the parties involved wanted to address it, and the courts didn't want to address it,' Clune told The Athletic, saying Title IX was 'deliberately ignored.' 'This was the only option.' The NCAA and lawyers for the plaintiffs in House v. NCAA did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The eight women represented in the lawsuit are Kacie Breeding Vanderbilt; Lexi Drumm, Emma Appleman, Emmie Wannemacher, Riley Hass, Savannah Baron and Elizabeth Arnold from the College of Charleston; and Kate Johnson from the University of Virginia. The appeal argues that the $2.8 billion in damages set to be distributed to former athletes who couldn't earn NIL (name, image and likeness) money before 2021 violates Title IX because female athletes will be paid less than football and men's basketball players. Advertisement Clune said the settlement suggests 'schools would have paid male athletes over 90 percent of their revenue over the past six years as though Title IX didn't apply. If Nike wants to do that, that is their choice. If the school, or a conference acting on the school's behalf tries to do that, they are violating the law.' 'They can either pay the athletes proportionately, or they can return all of their federal funds,' he said. 'But they can't do both.' Clune said his clients 'support a settlement of the case, just not an inaccurate one that violates federal law. The calculation of damages is based on an error to the tune of $1.1 billion. Paying out the money as proposed would be a massive error … Congress has expressly rejected efforts to prioritize benefits to football and basketball from Title IX's requirements.' Clune said the Title IX implications for future payouts are still to be determined. In the meantime, the appeal process is a 'slow burn,' with a briefing schedule and oral arguments likely to be set in the next nine to 12 months. 'It wouldn't surprise me if we see lawsuits against schools for those (rev share) payouts at some point,' he said.
