The North Carolina State Court of Appeals has turned away the appeal of former University of North Carolina football player Michael McAdoo, who sued his former school and the NCAA after he was dismissed from the team two years ago because of his involvement in an academic fraud scandal.
In a unanimous ruling, the panel concluded that McAdoo didn’t have a case because he secured a roster spot in the National Football League as a member of the Baltimore Ravens, and, secondly, because UNC’s decision to dismiss him from the team did not impact McAdoo’s ability to continue his education. The judges also denied his claim that he suffered a financial penalty because he did not have one more college season to improve his draft standing, finding that allegation was “too speculative.”
Noah Huffstetler, McAdoo’s attorney, said he was “disappointed in the decision. The court put considerable emphasis on the fact that our client was able to make an NFL team, but we think the issues that we raised in this case are important, not only to our client, but to other men and women who find themselves in similar situations.”
The controversy began in November 2010 when the NCAA declared McAdoo and six teammates permanently ineligible because of academic violations and an alleged receipt of benefits from a prospective agent, pursuant to Bylaws 12.3.1.2 (Benefits from Prospective Agents), 16.02.3 and 16.11.12 (Nonpermissible Extra Benefit).
In the summer of 2011, McAdoo sued, alleging that his punishment was grossly disproportionate to the facts. Specifically, he alleged that during a 2010 vacation to Washington D.C. with two teammates, he stayed in an $89.00 per night hotel room that was, unbeknownst to him, paid for by Todd Stewart, a prospective agent under NCAA Bylaws. McAdoo also went to a nightclub without paying the $10.00 cover charge, believing that his teammate had paid for him. A UNC investigation later revealed that either Stewart or another friend had made it possible for McAdoo to enter without paying. McAdoo claimed that he had no knowledge that a prospective agent had given him such benefits, totaling $99.00, and further, that permanent ineligibility is a grossly disproportionate punishment in comparison to the violation.
McAdoo’s complaint further alleged that he did not know that his long-time student tutor recently graduated from UNC and was no longer a student employee when she provided him with approximately one hour of tutoring valued at $11.00. McAdoo did not pay for her tutoring and the NCAA found that this was an “improper extra tutoring benefit.” The tutor allegedly provided McAdoo with spelling and grammar corrections as well as eight citations on his works-cited page. The UNC Honor Court declared this impermissible assistance from a tutor, a violation that placed him on academic probation during the 2010 football season.
“It was later discovered that passages of the paper, attached as an exhibit to the complaint, had been directly lifted from other sources, making McAdoo’s arguments substantially less credible,” attorney Timothy Liam Epstein of SmithAmundsen wrote in Sports Litigation Alert two years ago. “The NCAA’s attorney suggested that this possible plagiarism would be further exposed later in the case. McAdoo’s explanation is that he had no knowledge that the tutor was no longer a student or could not be his tutor (even though he was assigned a new tutor), and that he had no reason to believe that the assistance was improper, as she had been providing him with similar assistance since the start of his college career.”
Epstein continued: “McAdoo claimed breach of express contract against UNC for reporting violations that had not been confirmed by the Honor Court. Additionally, he claimed breach of fiduciary duty against UNC and the Chancellor for failure to adequately and appropriately investigate the alleged violations. McAdoo further alleged, as a third-party beneficiary, breach of contract against the NCAA and UNC for UNC’s reporting of a violation of Bylaw 10.1-(b) despite its awareness that McAdoo did not knowingly accept his tutor’s assistance and for the NCAA’s declaration of permanent ineligibility in spite of these facts.
“The fourth claim alleged negligence against the NCAA for breaching its duty to use reasonable care and to not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner. McAdoo also brought two claims for gross negligence against the NCAA for: 1) willfully and wantonly making its eligibility decision without a good faith basis to find that McAdoo received impermissible assistance on several assignments; and 2) for refusing to change its decision even after receiving the Honor Court’s findings from McAdoo’s counsel in June 2011. Further, the complaint alleged libel and tortious interference with contract against the NCAA.”
The defendants successfully moved to dismiss the complaint, leading to the appeal. Donald M. Remy, NCAA executive vice president and general counsel, issued the following statement:
“We are pleased with the appellate court’s decision to uphold the dismissal of this case. As we have stated previously, academic integrity is critically important to intercollegiate athletics and something that is expected from all student-athletes.”
Michael Mcadoo v. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill et al.; Ct. App. N.C.; NO. COA12-256, 2013 N.C. App. LEXIS 70; 1/15/13
