Opinion ID: 3011677
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) is an unincorporated voluntary association of more that one thousand members, a majority of which are public and private four-year colleges and universities that conduct varsity intercollegiate athletic programs. The NCAA member colleges are divided into Divisions. This suit deals with an NCAA bylaw called Proposition 16, which af fects initial eligibility only in Division I.1 Proposition 16, codified at NCAA Bylaw 14.3, has two components which operate on a sliding scale: a minimum high school grade point average (GPA) in thirteen required cor e courses and a minimum standardized test score on the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) or the ACT Assessment. Plaintiffs are African-American student-athletes who exceeded the NCAA minimum GPA requir ement for freshman year athletic participation but failed to achieve the minimum required score on the SA T as required by Proposition 16. They allege that, because of Pr oposition 16, they lost the opportunity to compete in Division I varsity intercollegiate athletics during their fr eshman year, were denied admission to Division I schools, were denied athletic scholarships, and/or were denied recruiting opportunities by Division I schools. Because the factual and procedural history of this case bears directly on our decision, we recite it in some detail. Plaintiffs began this action on January 8, 1997, alleging that the minimum standardized test scor e component of Proposition 16 violated Title VI r egulations because it had an unjustified disparate impact on African-American student-athletes. As plaintiffs' counsel stated in a declaration filed with the District Court, counsel chose to pursue a disparate impact challenge to Proposition 16, rather than an intentional discrimination claim, because a _________________________________________________________________ 1. Division I is comprised generally of the lar ger universities and colleges with the greater availability of athletic scholarship monies. 3 disparate impact claim had a less demanding standard of proof. On February 5, 1997, the NCAA moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint, contending, inter alia, that (1) there was no private right of action for unintentional discrimination under Title VI; (2) the NCAA was not a program or activity subject to T itle VI; and (3) the NCAA did not receive the federal funding necessary to subject it to Title VI. Plaintiffs responded to the NCAA's motion to dismiss and moved for partial summary judgment on the gr ounds that, as a matter of law, the NCAA was a covered pr ogram or activity subject to a Title VI action and was a recipient of federal financial assistance for purposes of T itle VI. The NCAA contends, and the District Court found, that as part of their opposition to the motion, plaintiffs demonstrated knowledge of several of the facts that plaintif fs would later allege were evidence of intentional discrimination. Specifically, plaintiffs referr ed to criticism from the administrator of the SAT and from the NCAA's own studies which warned that the NCAA's use of standar dized test scores for freshman eligibility would have a disparate impact on African-American student-athletes. Despite the existence of this evidence, however, plaintif fs did not suggest that it demonstrated intentional discrimination. To the contrary, the District Court found that plaintif fs praised the NCAA's motives in adopting initial eligibility standards as laudable. On October 9, 1997, the District Court denied the NCAA's motion to dismiss while granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. The court determined that there was a private right of action under Title VI for disparate impact2 and held that the NCAA is a program or activity within the meaning of Title VI. However, the court left open the question of whether the NCAA receives federal funds as a result of its relationship with the National Youth Sports Program (NYSP). _________________________________________________________________ 2. The Supreme Court has recently held that there is no private right of action to enforce disparate impact regulations promulgated under Title