49–006 

109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 109–393 

NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT 

OF 2006 

MARCH 15, 2006.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, 

submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

DISSENTING VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 1176] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill 

(H.R. 1176) to provide immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating 

to the passage, adoption, or failure to adopt rules of play for athletic competitions and practices, having considered the same, report 

favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill 

do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Purpose and Summary ............................................................................................ 2 

Background and Need for the Legislation ............................................................. 2 

Hearings ................................................................................................................... 5 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 5 

Vote of the Committee ............................................................................................. 6 

Committee Oversight Findings ............................................................................... 6 

New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures ...................................................... 6 

Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .......................................................... 6 

Performance Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 7 

Constitutional Authority Statement ...................................................................... 7 

Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion .......................................................... 7 

Markup Transcript .................................................................................................. 9 

Dissenting Views ..................................................................................................... 21 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
2 

1 42 U.S.C. § 14501 et. seq. 2 N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 2A: 53A–7 to 7.1. 3Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60–3601. 4Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. § 2305.38. 5Wis. Stat. §§ 181.0670. 6Ga. Code Ann. § 51–1–20. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 1176, the ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 

2006,’’ was introduced by Representative Souder on March 8, 2005. 

The legislation is intended to stem the growing threat of lawsuits 

against organizations ranging from youth sport’s baseball Little 

Leagues to high school sports rule-making bodies. The bill exempts 

nonprofit athletic organizations and their officers and employees 

acting in their official capacity from liability for harm caused by a 

negligent act or omission of such organization in the adoption of 

rules of play for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or 

practices. The general protection preempts inconsistent State laws 

but makes exceptions for certain State laws requiring adherence to 

risk management and training procedures, State general 

respondeat superior laws, or State laws waiving liability limits in 

cases brought by any officer of the State or local government. The 

language mirrors provisions of the ‘‘Volunteer Protection Act’’

(VPA).1

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

H.R. 1176 extends the liability protections already provided by 

Congress in the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 to nonprofit athletic rule-making organizations. The extension of these liability 

protections reflects Congress’ recognition that America’s long tradition of volunteerism and generosity has been undermined by costly 

and often frivolous litigation. In recent decades, actual lawsuits 

and fears of liability have increasingly become a deterrent to people 

who might otherwise have given of their time or resources to better 

their community and country. 

HISTORY OF VOLUNTEER LIABILITY PROTECTIONS

The common law of all 50 States allows individuals to collect 

monetary damages in tort for personal injury or property damage 

caused by another person’s negligence or willful conduct. Virtually 

all of these States have recognized the need to encourage good 

works and volunteerism by protecting volunteers and nonprofit organizations from tort liability for accidents that arise in the normal 

course of their dealings. For example, New Jersey provides that 

charities and the volunteers they utilize are immune from liability 

for ordinary negligence.2 In Kansas, a volunteer or nonprofit organization is immune from liability for negligence if the organization 

carries general liability insurance coverage.3 Ohio offers broad immunity for volunteers of charitable organizations.4 Wisconsin State 

law limits the liability of volunteers of non-stock corporations organized under Chapter 181.5 Georgia grants immunity for members, 

directors, officers, and trustees of charities from negligence claims 

asserted by beneficiaries of the charity.6 These States’ efforts reflect a broader national consensus that volunteers and volunteer 

organizations should be protected from legal liability. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
3 

7 Volunteer Liability Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997). 8 H.R. Rep. No. 105–101, at 6 (1997). 9 Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167, supra, 105th Cong. at 

56. 10Pub. L. No. 105–19 (1997). 11 ‘‘Volunteer’’ is defined in the VPA as a person who performs services for a non-profit and who receives no more than $500 per year for such services. 24 U.S.C. § 14505(6). 12 42 U.S.C. §§ 14503(e), 14504. 13 42 U.S.C. §§ 14502(a), 14503(c). 14 42 U.S.C. § 14503(a)(4). 15See, e.g., Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003, the Non Profit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003, and the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act: 

Hearing Before the House Comm. on the Judiciary on H.R. 1787, H.R. 3369, and H.R. 

1084,108th Cong. (2004); State and Local Implementation of Existing Charitable Choice Programs, 107th Cong. 13 (2001); Volunteer Liability Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 

1167 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997); and Health Care Reform 

Issues: Antitrust Medical Malpractice Liability and Volunteer Liability, Hearing on H.R. 911, 

H.R. 2925, H.R. 2938 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995). 16See,e.g., H.R. 911, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 1167, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 7, 107th Cong. 

(2001); H.R. 1787, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 3369, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 1084, 108th Cong. 

(2003); and H.R. 3736, 109th Cong. (2005). 

Congress recognized this national consensus and held hearings 

examining this subject in 1997.7 Those hearings showed that in addition to causing potential volunteers to stay at home or refrain 

from certain needed activities, liability and the fear of liability for 

volunteer activities had very real financial impacts, including dramatically rising costs for liability insurance premiums for volunteer 

organizations. These increased premiums have practical consequences: the Executive Director of the Girl Scout Council of 

Washington, D.C. stated that ‘‘locally we must sell 87,000 boxes of 

. . . Girl Scout cookies each year to pay for [our] liability insurance.’’ 8 Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Jones, Managing Director of the 

Washington, D.C. office of Habitat for Humanity, testified that 

‘‘[t]here are Habitat affiliate boards for whom the largest single administrative cost is the perceived necessity of purchasing liability 

insurance to protect board members. These are moneys which otherwise would be used to build more houses [for] more persons in 

need.’’ 9

These concerns prompted Congress to pass the Volunteer Protection Act (VPA), which was signed into law by President Clinton on 

June 18, 1997.10 The VPA protects ‘‘volunteers’’ 11 for incidents that 

arise in the scope of their work, but it does not provide liability 

protection for willful, reckless, or criminal conduct or gross negligence. The Act limits punitive damages and non-economic damages for those individuals found liable.12 However, the VPA does 

not protect nonprofit organizations and government entities themselves from liability for negligence of their volunteers unless State 

law provides ‘‘charitable immunity’’ for such organizations.13

Hence, under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, volunteer organizations and entities are still generally vicariously liable for the negligence of their employees and volunteers. Also, volunteers that operate motor vehicles, vessels, or aircraft are not protected by the VPA.14

The passage of the VPA has not ended the problem of liability 

and its associated costs for volunteers and the non-profit organizations that support them. Hence, the Committee has held hearings 15 in recent years about various aspects of this problem and 

has advanced several pieces of legislation 16 designed to limit liability for volunteers and volunteer, non-profit, or charitable organizations. For example, in the 107th Congress, the House-passed 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
4 

17 H.R. 7, 107th Cong. § 401 (2001). 18 150 Cong. Rec. H7097 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004). 19 151 Cong. Rec. H11289 (daily ed. Dec. 8, 2005), Pub. L. No. 109–177. 20 150 Cong. Rec. H7098 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004). 21 151 Cong. Rec. H7887 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2005). 22Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003, the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003, and the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act: Hearing Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 12 (2004) (testimony of Robert F. Kanaby, Executive Director of the National Federation of High School Associations). 23 Id. 24 Id. 25 Id. at 22. 

version of the ‘‘Charitable Choice Act of 2001,’’ H.R. 7, contained 

provisions limiting liability for persons or entities who donated 

equipment to charitable organizations.17 In the 108th Congress, the 

House overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1787, the ‘‘Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003,’’ which extends certain 

liability protections to those who donate equipment to volunteer 

fire stations, by a vote of 397–3.18 The provisions of that Act are 

now included as Section 125 of the USA PATRIOT Improvement 

and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was signed into law on 

March 9, 2006.19 On the same day, the House also overwhelmingly 

passed H.R. 1084, the ‘‘Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection 

Act,’’ by a vote of 385–12.20

Most recently, the House passed the ‘‘Katrina Volunteer Protection Act of 2005,’’ H.R. 3736, by voice vote on September 14, 

2005.21 This bill extends liability protections to any person or entity that voluntarily rendered aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, 

provided that the harm was not caused by willful, wanton, reckless, 

or criminal conduct. 

THE NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006

H.R. 1176, the ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 

2006,’’ is intended to stem the growing threat of lawsuits against 

sports rulemaking bodies. Rulemaking bodies play a critical role in 

facilitating all levels and all types of sports. Nonprofit rulemaking 

bodies use the expertise of experienced volunteers to set forth rules 

for athletic competitions and practices that attempt to preserve 

sports traditions and minimize risks to participants. However, this 

rulemaking function is a predictive endeavor without the benefit of 

perfect foresight, and sports involve inherent risks.22 Thus, when 

the inevitable accidents do occur, nonprofit rulemaking bodies are 

often sued along with the local school district, coach, and referee 

because such organizations are presumed to have ‘‘deep pockets.’’

This growing trend of lawsuits has led to a dramatic increase in 

the insurance premiums for many rulemaking associations. For example, the National High School Federation, which develops rules 

for 17 different sports, saw a 300 percent increase for insurance 

premiums over just 3 years.23 This increase means that insurance 

premiums now make up over 10 percent of the Federation’s annual 

budget.24

If this trend continues, these rulemaking authorities may be 

driven out of existence and amateur sports would suffer. Typical 

bodily injury cases cost over $25,000 in legal fees—even when the 

case is ultimately dismissed.25 As a result, organizations are unable to find a provider of insurance willing to offer them coverage 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
5 

26 Id. at 24–25. 27 150 Cong. Rec. H7096 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004). 

because of their exposure to millions of potential litigants (high 

school athletes).26

H.R. 1176 addresses this insurance reality by mirroring the Volunteer Protection Act and exempting nonprofit athletic organizations from liability only for harm caused by an act or omission of 

such organization in the adoption of rules of play (and not in any 

other context) for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or 

practices. This legislation does provide a blanket grant of immunity; rather nonprofit athletic rulemaking organizations could still 

be held liable for any grossly negligent or reckless, willful, or criminal acts or omissions in the formulation of these rules of play. The 

athletic organizations covered are defined by both their IRS nonprofit status and those with a primary function of setting rules for 

competitions. Also covered are employees of such organizations acting in the scope of their official duties. The liability protections 

have limiting exceptions to ensure the organization meets any certification or licensing requirements, and that the harm was not 

caused by willful or criminal misconduct or gross negligence on the 

part of the organization. The general protection preempts inconsistent State laws but makes exceptions for certain State laws requiring adherence to risk management and training procedures, 

State general respondeat superior laws, or State laws waiving liability limits in cases brought by an officer of the State or local 

government. 

The predecessor bill to H.R. 1176, H.R. 3369, received majority 

support (217–176) in the House of Representatives in the 108th 

Congress.27 Because the bill was brought up on suspension of the 

rules and failed to achieve the requisite two-thirds support, it did 

not pass. However, a new provision, subsection 4(d), has been 

added to the bill to address the concerns of some Members that the 

liability protections be clearly directed at personal injury claims. 

H.R. 1176 is supported by, among others, the National Federation of State High School Associations; the National Collegiate Athletic Association; the National Council of Youth Sports; the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States (AAU); Little League 

Baseball; Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc.; USA Baseball; USA 

Softball; and the Women’s Sports Foundation. 

HEARINGS

The full Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on H.R. 

1176 in the 109th Congress. However, the full Committee on the 

Judiciary held a hearing on a nearly identical bill, H.R. 3369, in 

the 108th Congress, at which testimony was received from Mr. 

Robert Kanaby, Executive Director of the National Federation of 

State High School Associations, and Professor Andrew F. Popper, 

of the American University and Washington College of Law. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On March 2, 2006, the Committee met in open session and ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1176 by voice vote, a quorum 

being present. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
6 

VOTE OF THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there were no 

recorded votes during the Committee consideration of H.R. 1176. 

COMMITTEE OVERSIGHT FINDINGS

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the findings 

and recommendations of the Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report. 

NEW BUDGET AUTHORITY AND TAX EXPENDITURES

Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax expenditures. 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST ESTIMATE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the 

House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with respect to 

the bill, H.R. 1176, the following estimate and comparison prepared 

by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 

402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974: 

U.S. CONGRESS, 

CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, 

Washington, DC, March 10, 2006. 

Hon. F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1176, the ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006.’’

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gregory Waring (for 

Federal costs), who can be reached at 226–2860, and Melissa 

Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 

225–3220. 

Sincerely, 

DOUGLAS HOLTZ-EAKIN. 

Enclosure 

cc: Honorable John Conyers, Jr. 

Ranking Member 

H.R. 1176—Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006. 

H.R. 1176 would provide immunity to nonprofit athletic organizations such as Little League and school sports programs from liability in certain civil suits alleging harm from an act or omission of 

such an organization in the adoption of rules for athletic competitions or practices. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
7 

CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would result in 

no significant costs to the Federal Government. Enacting H.R. 1176 

would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

H.R. 1176 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined in 

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates 

that the resulting costs, if any, would not be significant and would 

be well below the threshold for intergovernmental mandates established in that act ($64 million in 2006, adjusted annually for inflation). This bill contains no new private-sector mandates as defined 

in UMRA. 

H.R. 1176 contains an intergovernmental mandate because it 

would preempt certain state liability laws. Specifically, the bill 

would exempt nonprofit athletic organizations from liability under 

state tort laws for certain injuries that may occur during practice 

or competitions. CBO estimates that the costs, if any, would not be 

significant and would be well below the threshold established in 

UMRA. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Gregory Waring (for 

Federal costs), who can be reached at 226–2860, and Melissa 

Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 

225–3220. This estimate was approved by Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. 

PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of Rule XIII 

of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.1176, will provide limited liability protection for nonprofit athletic organizations 

and their officers operating within the scope of their official capacity. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY STATEMENT

Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House 

of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for this legislation in art. I, § 8 of the Constitution. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION

The following discussion describes the bill as reported by the 

Committee. 

Section 1. Short Title 

Section 1 provides that H.R. 1176 may be cited as the ‘‘Nonprofit 

Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006.’’

Section 2. Findings 

Section 2 sets forth eight Congressional findings regarding the 

role amateur athletics plays in the overall health and well-being of 

America’s youth. The findings also note that rules and rule-making 

bodies are essential for the development of amateur athletics, and 

that these rules and rule-making bodies have become the focus of 

a large number of lawsuits. 

Section 3. Definitions 

Section 3 sets forth the operative definitions for the Act. Those 

definitions are identical to those found in the Volunteer Protection 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
8 

Act, 14 U.S.C. § 14505, with one addition: the term ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Organization.’’ That term is defined as nonprofit organization 

(as that term is defined in Section 401(c)(3) of the Tax Code) that 

has as one of its primary functions the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions and practices. The term 

includes the employees, agents, and volunteers of such organization, provided such individuals are acting within the scope of their 

duties with the nonprofit athletic organization. 

Section 4. Limitation on Liability for Nonprofit Athletic Organizations 

Section 4 creates ordinary negligence liability protection for nonprofit athletic organizations for lawsuits arising out of their rulemaking function in setting the rules for athletic competitions. This 

protection does not apply when harm was caused by gross negligence or willful, criminal, or reckless misconduct by the organization. These protections are identical to those contained within the 

Volunteer Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. § 14503, and only protect 

against negligent actions and decisions of a nonprofit athletic organization related to enacting a ‘‘rule of play,’’ as opposed to a rule 

related to hiring or eligibility. This protection does not apply when 

certain State law requirements are in effect and such requirements 

have not been met. 

Subsection 4(a) provides that a nonprofit athletic organization 

shall not be liable for harm caused by an act or omission of such 

an organization in the adoption of rules of play for sanctioned or 

approved athletic competitions or practices if it was acting within 

the scope of its duties at the time of the adoption of the rules; it 

met the applicable State licensing, certification or authorization requirements; and the harm was not caused by willful or criminal 

misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct on the part of 

the nonprofit athletic organization. Nothing in this subsection 

would preclude a suit against a coach or referee, or the organization that hired such coach or referee, for claims of molestation or 

sexual battery. 

Subsection 4(b) provides that nothing in the act shall be construed to affect a lawsuit brought by a covered nonprofit athletic 

organization against any employee, agent, or volunteer of the organization. This section does not preclude a lawsuit by an employee, 

agent, or volunteer against the nonprofit athletic organization, provided that the suit is not related to the adoption of rules of play 

as provided in subsection 4(a). 

Subsection 4(c) provides that if the laws of a State limit the liability of a nonprofit athletic organization subject to the following 

conditions, those conditions must still be met by the organization 

to enjoy protection: (1) a State law that requires such organization 

to adhere to risk management procedures; (2) a State (respondeat 

superior) law that makes such an organization liable for the acts 

or omissions of its employees, agents, and volunteers to the same 

extent any employer is liable for acts or omissions of its employees; 

or (3) a State law that makes a limitation on liability inapplicable 

if the civil action was brought by an officer of a State or local government pursuant to State or local law. 

Subsection 4(d) provides that this Act shall not apply to any 

claims arising out of Federal, State, or local antitrust, labor, enviVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 Mar 16, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6601 E:\HR\OC\HR393.XXX HR393

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
9 

ronmental, defamation, tortious interference of contract law, or 

civil rights law, or any other Federal, State, or local law providing 

protection from discrimination. 

Section 5. Preemption 

Section 5 provides that this Act preempts the laws of any State 

to the extent such laws are inconsistent with the Act, but shall not 

preempt any State law that affords additional protection from liability relating to the rulemaking activities of nonprofit athletic organizations. 

Section 6. Effective Date 

Section 6 provides that the Act shall take effect on the date of 

enactment and will apply to any claim for harm caused by a nonprofit athletic organization that is filed on or after the effective 

date, but only if the harm that is the subject of the claim occurred 

on or after the effective date. 

MARKUP TRANSCRIPT

BUSINESS MEETING 

THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2005 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

[Intervening business.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Pursuant to notice, I now call up the 

bill H.R. 1176, the ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection 

Act,’’ for purposes of markup and move its favorable recommendation to the House. 

Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and open 

for amendment at any point. 

[The bill, H.R. 1176, follows:] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
10 

1

I

109TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1176

To provide immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits arising

from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the passage, adoption,

or failure to adopt rules of play for athletic competitions and practices.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 8, 2005

Mr. SOUDER (for himself and Mr. CANTOR) introduced the following bill;

which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To provide immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations in

lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the passage, adoption, or failure to adopt rules

of play for athletic competitions and practices.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Or5 ganization Protection Act of 2005’’.

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

7 Congress makes the following findings:

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAB
11 

2

•HR 1176 IH

1 (1) Amateur Sports and education-based ath2 letics are an important part of our culture. Sports

3 provide a tremendous opportunity for the youth of

4 America to learn the skills of leadership, teamwork,

5 and discipline. Studies have shown that participation

6 in these activities is directly connected to academic

7 achievement and overall social development.

8 (2) Amateur athletics are integral to the good

9 health and overall well-being of American society.

10 Nonprofit organizations put forward their best ef11 forts to enact rules that are in the best interests of

12 young people. Injuries will occur as a result of the

13 inherent risks involved in sports. These risks, how14 ever, should not work to the detriment of the greater

15 good served by amateur athletics.

16 (3) Young people who participate in school

17 sports and other amateur competition have lower

18 levels of obesity.

19 (4) Young people who participate in sports tend

20 to be fitter adults, and suffer fewer health problems

21 as they age.

22 (5) Playing rules in amateur sports are nec23 essary to provide the opportunity for young people

24 to participate in age- and skill level-appropriate com25 petition.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAC
12 

3

•HR 1176 IH

1 (6) Sport involves intense physical activity. It

2 also involves a certain element of danger. Rule mak3 ing is anticipatory, and hence a difficult balancing

4 act. Rules committee members face a constant

5 struggle to balance the tradeoffs of limiting risk and

6 preserving the key elements and sound traditions of

7 the sport. Rules makers must draw unambiguous

8 lines; they do not have the luxury of self-protective

9 vagueness. Given the large number of participants

10 and the risks inherent in sport, injuries cannot be

11 avoided. By deciding to partake in competition, ath12 letes assume such risks. Allowing lawsuits based

13 merely on the good faith development of the rules is

14 wrong and unfair.

15 (7) Rules makers have been the target of an in16 creasing number of lawsuits claiming negligence due

17 to the adoption, or failure to adopt, particular rules

18 for amateur sports.

19 (8) Repeatedly defending claims will have a det20 rimental impact on the ability of rules makers to

21 continue to provide these services, and will discour22 age the best and brightest coaches, officials, and ad23 ministrators from serving on rules committees. Addi24 tionally, some children may lose the opportunity to

25 participate in organized sports if higher insurance

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAD
13 

4

•HR 1176 IH

1 premiums compel amateur athletic organizations to

2 raise fees.

3 SEC. 3. DEFINITIONS.

4 In this Act:

5 (1) ECONOMIC LOSS.—The term ‘‘economic

6 loss’’ means any pecuniary loss resulting from harm

7 (including the loss of earnings or other benefits re8 lated to employment, medical expense loss, replace9 ment services loss, loss due to death, burial costs,

10 and loss of business or employment opportunities) to

11 the extent recovery for such loss is allowed under ap12 plicable State law.

13 (2) HARM.—The term ‘‘harm’’ includes phys14 ical, nonphysical, economic, and noneconomic losses.

15 (3) NONECONOMIC LOSS.—The term ‘‘non16 economic loss’’ means any loss resulting from phys17 ical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience,

18 physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement,

19 loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and compan20 ionship, loss of consortium (other than loss of do21 mestic service), hedonic damages, injury to reputa22 tion, and all other nonpecuniary losses of any kind

23 or nature.

24 (4) NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION.—The term

25 ‘‘nonprofit organization’’ means—

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAE
14 

5

•HR 1176 IH

1 (A) any organization which is described in

2 section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code

3 of 1986 and exempt from tax under section

4 501(a) of such Code; or

5 (B) any not-for-profit organization which

6 is organized and conducted for public benefit

7 and operated primarily for charitable, civic,

8 educational, religious, welfare, or health pur9 poses.

10 (5) NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZATION.—

11 The term ‘‘nonprofit athletic organization’’ means a

12 nonprofit organization that has as one of its primary

13 functions the adoption of rules for sanctioned or ap14 proved athletic competitions and practices. The term

15 includes the employees, agents, and volunteers of

16 such organization, provided such individuals are act17 ing within the scope of their duties with the non18 profit athletic organization.

19 (6) STATE.—The term ‘‘State’’ includes the

20 District of Columbia, and any commonwealth, terri21 tory, or possession of the United States.

22 SEC. 4. LIMITATION ON LIABILITY FOR NONPROFIT ATH23 LETIC ORGANIZATIONS.

24 (a) LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR NONPROFIT ATH25 LETIC ORGANIZATIONS.—Except as provided in subhsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAF
15 

6

•HR 1176 IH

1 sections (b) and (c), a nonprofit athletic organization shall

2 not be liable for harm caused by an act or omission of

3 the nonprofit athletic organization in the adoption of rules

4 of play for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions

5 or practices if—

6 (1) the nonprofit athletic organization was act7 ing within the scope of the organization’s duties at

8 the time of the adoption of the rules at issue;

9 (2) the nonprofit athletic organization was, if

10 required, properly licensed, certified, or authorized

11 by the appropriate authorities for the competition or

12 practice in the State in which the harm occurred or

13 where the competition or practice was undertaken;

14 and

15 (3) the harm was not caused by willful or crimi16 nal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless mis17 conduct on the part of the nonprofit athletic organi18 zation.

19 (b) RESPONSIBILITY OF EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, AND

20 VOLUNTEERS TO NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZA21 TIONS.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to af22 fect any civil action brought by any nonprofit athletic or23 ganization against any employee, agent, or volunteer of

24 such organization.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAG
16 

7

•HR 1176 IH

1 (c) EXCEPTIONS TO NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANI2 ZATION LIABILITY PROTECTION.—If the laws of a State

3 limit nonprofit athletic organization liability subject to one

4 or more of the following conditions, such conditions shall

5 not be construed as inconsistent with this section:

6 (1) A State law that requires a nonprofit ath7 letic organization to adhere to risk management pro8 cedures, including mandatory training of its employ9 ees, agents, or volunteers.

10 (2) A State law that makes the nonprofit ath11 letic organization liable for the acts or omissions of

12 its employees, agents, and volunteers to the same ex13 tent as an employer is liable for the acts or omis14 sions of its employees.

15 (3) A State law that makes a limitation of li16 ability inapplicable if the civil action was brought by

17 an officer of a State or local government pursuant

18 to State or local law.

19 (d) NONAPPLICABILITY TO CERTAIN CLAIMS.—The

20 limitation on liability provided by subsection (a) does not

21 apply to an action or claim arising out of a Federal, State,

22 or local antitrust, labor, environmental, defamation,

23 tortious interference of contract law, or civil rights law,

24 or any other Federal, State, or local law providing protec25 tion from discrimination.

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAH
17 

8

•HR 1176 IH

1 SEC. 5. PREEMPTION.

2 This Act preempts the laws of any State to the extent

3 that such laws are inconsistent with this Act, except that

4 this Act shall not preempt any State law that provides

5 additional protection from liability relating to the rule6 making activities of nonprofit athletic organizations.

7 SEC. 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—This Act shall take effect on the

9 date of enactment of this Act.

10 (b) APPLICATION.—This Act applies to any claim for

11 harm caused by an act or omission of a nonprofit athletic

12 organization that is filed on or after the effective date of

13 this Act but only if the harm that is the subject of the

14 claim or the conduct that caused the harm occurred on

15 or after such effective date.

Æ

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARINGI1176.AAI
18 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The Chair recognizes himself briefly 

to explain the bill. 

This bill, like the previous bill, is narrowly tailored to address 

the liability exposure for problems with nonprofit sports rulemaking bodies such as the National Federation of State High 

School Athletic Associations. These rulemaking bodies use the expertise of experienced volunteers to set forth rules for athletic competitions and practices that preserve sports traditions and minimize risks to participants. 

Because these organizations are not covered by the Volunteer 

Protection Act, lawsuits have dramatically increased insurance premiums for many rulemaking associations. The Federation of National High Schools saw a 300-percent increase in the premiums 

over 3 years. What this bill does is it provides nonprofit athletic 

rulemaking organizations with limited liability protections. I believe that this is a good bill. I ask unanimous consent to include 

a letter of support from the National Federation of State High 

School Athletic Associations and yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. The gentleman from Michigan. 

Mr. CONYERS. My reservations against this bill is because, as it’s 

drafted, the broad immunity that 1176, this bill’s number, extends 

to nonprofit athletic organizations, reaches far beyond the potential 

for frivolous lawsuits. It exempts a nonprofit athletic organization 

from liability for harm caused by an act or omission in the adoption 

of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices. So, in effect, this legislation will effectively bar those who 

have non-frivolous lawsuits from having their day in court. Such 

lawsuits that call attention to public safety hazards are needed to 

protect our Nation’s children. 

In addition, this measure would also protect the right of a nonprofit athletic organization to sue others. If this legislation is designed to suppress unnecessary litigation altogether, how are an organization’s grievances are legitimate but individual complaints are 

not? Written to suppress only the outlets available to individual 

citizens, this legislation is overreaching and unfair. To me, it’s hypocritical to suggest that these organizations be allowed to have 

their day in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes 

and others to hold them accountable. 

So these are a couple of the serious problems that seem to me 

require us to send this bill back to Subcommittee. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Ms. LOFGREN. I would just like to concur with the reservations 

expressed by the gentleman and note that if an organization promulgated rules requiring adult supervision at a game but failed to 

provide for background checks or the kind of efforts you need to 

prevent children from being the victims of sexual predators, they 

would be exempt from that negligence. This has become a very big 

issue in the San Francisco Bay Area, and recently we’ve had two 

soccer coaches that have molested girls on their girls’ soccer team, 

and it is important. 

I mean, I support athletics and I support these nonprofit organizations, but they have to take due diligence to make sure that their 

young charges are protected from sexual predators. And it is a 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
19 

huge mistake to exempt them from that liability if they don’t take 

those prudent steps. And I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, the gentlelady from California has emphasized the point that causes my reservation. This legislation does 

not differentiate between frivolous lawsuits and meritorious lawsuits, and thereby it fails in a very large and serious way. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include my full statement in the record and return the balance of my time. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. And, without objection, so ordered. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JOHN CONYERS, JR., A REPRESENTATIVE

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, AND RANKING MEMBER, COMMITTEE

ON THE JUDICIARY

Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation. As drafted, H.R. 1176 provides immunity 

for nonprofit athletic organization from lawsuits in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices. This legislation would virtually eliminate any valid claims from being brought forth. 

Specifically, the legislation does not differentiate between meritorious lawsuits 

and frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 1176 prohibits civil litigation of any grievance arising 

under the rules promulgated by a nonprofit sporting organization. As drafted, the 

broad immunity H.R. 1176 extends to nonprofit athletic organizations reaches far 

beyond the potential for ‘‘frivolous’’ lawsuits in the federal judicial system. It exempts a nonprofit athletic organization from liability for harm caused by an act or 

omission in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions 

or practices if: (1) the organization was acting within the scope of its duties; (2) the 

organization was properly licensed, certified, or authorized for the competition or 

practice; and (3) the harm was not caused by the organization’s willful or criminal 

misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct. So while lawsuits filed by parents because their child was not put on a team may rightly be dismissed, cases with 

legal merit, such as a rule which endangers the life of a child, would also be dismissed. In effect, this legislation will effectively bar them from their day in court. 

Such lawsuits call attention to public safety hazards are needed to protect our nation’s children. 

Additionally, H.R. 1176 also protects the right of a nonprofit athletic organization 

to sue others. If this legislation is designed to suppress unnecessary litigation altogether, how are an organization’s grievances are legitimate but individual complaints are not? Written to suppress only the outlets available to individual citizens, 

this legislation is simply overreaching and unfair. It is the height of hypocrisy to 

suggest that these organizations be allowed to have their day in court while limiting 

the ability of individual athletes and others to hold them accountable. 

There are serious problems with this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose 

H.R. 1176. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Also without objection, all Members 

may include opening statements in the record at this point. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAXINE WATERS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this legislation, H.R. 1176, the ‘‘Nonprofit 

Athletic Organization Protection Act.’’ This bill provides immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to 

the passage or adoption of rules for athletic competitions and practices. As a member of the House Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues have reservations 

about the broad sweep of immunity that this bill will give to certain organizations 

and eliminate valid discrimination claims. 

H.R. 1176 would provide immunity for any act or omission of a nonprofit athletic 

organization and its employees in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved 

athletic competitions or practices. This broad sweep of immunity would virtually 

eliminate valid discrimination claims such as those found in the following cases: 

In Cureton v. NCAA, a class of African-American student-athletes challenged the 

National Collegiate Athletic Association’s rule requiring all potential student-athletes to achieve a minimum score on the SAT or the ACT. Early on, the Educational 

Testing Services (ETS), which designed the SAT, criticized the NCAA’s then-proVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 Mar 16, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6621 E:\HR\OC\HR393.XXX HR393

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
20 

posed use of a fixed cut-off score and warned such a rule would have a disproportionate impact on African-American students. It did in fact have such an impact, 

but the NCAA did not change its rule. Only when this class brought a civil action 

did the NCAA change its rule so that student athletes could be eligible for Division 

I schools on the basis of their grades, not just their test scores. 

In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Americans 

with Disabilities Act requires the PGA Tour to allow professional golfer Casey Martin , who suffers from a circulatory disorder making it painful to walk long distances, to ride in a golf cart between shots at Tour events. The nonprofit PGA had 

ruled that walking the course is an integral part of golf, and Martin would gain an 

unfair advantage using the cart. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court decided that 

the PGA could not deny Martin equal access to its tours on the basis of his disability. 

Moreover, in Michigan High School Athletic Association v. Communities for Equity, a federal district court ruled that the state’s high school athletic association 

practice of scheduling its female teams during nontraditional seasons discriminated 

against female athletes. The court found that scheduling the girls’ sports, but not 

boys’ sports, during nontraditional seasons resulted in limited opportunities for athletic scholarships and collegiate recruitment, limited opportunities to play in club 

or Olympic development programs, and missed opportunities for awards and recognition. 

H.R. 1176 allows nonprofit athletic organizations to sue, but not be sued. It is the 

height of hypocrisy to suggest that these organizations be allowed to have their day 

in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes and others to hold them accountable. 

There is no need for Congress to preempt state law. If states want to protect certain state athletic organizations, they can do so right not without any action by Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1176 doesn’t just preempt state law. It preempts state 

law that gives more protections to athletes and leaves in places states that give additional liability protections to nonprofit athletic organizations. 

I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it really does, catering to special 

interests. Please join me in voting against HR 1176. Thank you. 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. Are there amendments? Are there 

amendments? 

[No response.] 

Chairman SENSENBRENNER. If there are no amendments, a reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the motion to report the bill H.R. 1176 favorably. All those in favor will say aye? 

Opposed, no? 

The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the motion to 

report favorably is agreed to. 

Without objection, the staff is directed to make any technical and 

conforming changes, and all Members may be given 2 days, as provided by the House rules, in which to submit additional, dissenting, 

supplemental, or minority views. 

And last, but not least, the next item on the agenda is the adoption of H.R. 2955, the ‘‘Intellectual Property Jurisdiction Clarification Act of 2005.’’ The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Smith, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Courts, the 

Internet, and Intellectual Property, for a motion. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Courts, the 

Internet, and Intellectual Property reports favorably the bill H.R. 

2955 and moves its favorable recommendation to the full House. 

[Intervening business.] 

The business noticed on today’s schedule having been concluded, 

without objection, the Committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
(21) 

DISSENTING VIEWS

We strongly oppose H.R. 1176, the ‘‘Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2005,’’ which would extend immunity to nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the passage or adoption of rules for athletic competitions and practices. While proponents maintain this 

legislation was designed to protect nonprofit athletic organizations 

from unnecessary litigation relating to physical safety regulations, 

its effects would all but eliminate any valid claims brought against 

such organizations, including civil rights claims. 

H.R. 1176 is problematic for several reasons. First, under H.R. 

1176, valid cases would be affected as well as frivolous claims. Second, this legislation is overly broad. It would go beyond the ‘‘physical harm’’ claims the sponsors state are intended to be encompassed by the legislation and would affect legitimate claims and 

matters that arises from nonprofit athletic organizations’ rules for 

practices and competitions. Third, this legislation provides one-way 

immunity—the nonprofit athlete organization would receive immunity yet retain its right to sue. 

A. THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN

MERITORIOUS LAWSUITS AND FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS. 

The broad immunity that is extended to nonprofit athletic organizations reaches far beyond the potential for ‘‘frivolous’’ lawsuits. 

H.R. 1176 prohibits civil litigation of any grievance arising under 

the rules promulgated by a nonprofit sporting organization. Specifically, H.R. 1176 exempts a nonprofit athletic organization from liability for harm caused by an act or omission in the adoption of 

rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices 

if: (1) the organization was acting within the scope of its duties; (2) 

the organization was properly licensed, certified, or authorized for 

the competition or practice; and (3) the harm was not caused by the 

organization’s willful or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or 

reckless misconduct. 

So while a lawsuit filed by parents because their child was not 

put on a team may rightly be dismissed (and would be dismissed 

under current law without the benefit of this legislation), cases 

with legal merit, such as a case challenging a rule that endangers 

the life of a child, would also be dismissed. In effect, this legislation 

will bar young athletes and their families from having their day in 

court for an entire range of legal actions—frivolous as well as nonfrivolous. H.R. 1176 would dramatically obstruct valid, meritorious 

claims that call attention to public safety hazards, discriminatory 

practices, and are needed to protect our nation’s children. 

Proponents of the legislation claim that it is designed to narrowly 

limit a nonprofit athletic organizations’ immunity in ‘‘physical 

harm’’ claims. However, the effect of the bill is vast and far reachVerDate Aug 31 2005 23:55 Mar 16, 2006 Jkt 049006 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR393.XXX HR393

hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING
22 

1 H.R. 1176, sec. 3(b). 

ing. This legislation would inadvertently protect individuals who 

could potentially harm children. During the Judiciary Committee 

markup, Representative Lofgren remarked that if a poor hiring 

rule was in place that did not screen out pedophiles, parents would 

be barred from suing the athletic association regarding that rule. 

While the sponsors claim their true intent was to eliminate physical harm claims, the legislation, as drafted, eliminates any and all 

civil actions relating to practices and procedures of a non-profit 

athletic organization. 

B. H.R. 1176 PROVIDES ONE WAY IMMUNITY. 

Significantly, while immunizing nonprofit athletic organizations 

from civil claims, H.R. 1176 protects the right of a nonprofit athletic organization to sue others.1 If this legislation is designed to 

suppress unnecessary litigation altogether, it fails to describe how 

an organization’s grievances are legitimate but individual complaints are not. Written to suppress the only outlets available to 

athletes and their families, this legislation is overreaching. It is unfair to provide that these organizations be allowed to have their 

day in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes and 

others to hold them accountable. 

CONCLUSION

As we have in the past, we are willing to work with the Majority 

to develop reasonable legislation that protects non-profit groups 

from unnecessary litigation while insuring that meritorious claims 

are protected. H.R. 1176 however, does not meet this test. Instead 

of protecting good faith and reasonable actions by non-profit athletic associations designed to protect athletes from physical harm, 

the bill massively overreaches and limits legitimate actions. 

JOHN CONYERS, JR. 

BOBBY SCOTT. MAXINE WATERS. 

BILL DELAHUNT. 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. 

HOWARD L. BERMAN. 

MELVIN L. WATT. 

Æ 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with HEARING