By Jonathan Wynne
On May 28, 2020, Brown University announced the transition of 11 varsity sports teams to club status. An internal program called the Excellence Initiative to Reshape Athletics at Brown had been commissioned to improve the University’s competitiveness and improve the student-athlete experience at Brown. The men’s and women’s varsity squash teams found themselves relegated to club status, and that decision triggered a lawsuit by student-athletes, which examined the impact of promises made during the recruiting process.
Certain participants on the formerly varsity squash teams at Brown had been recruited in high school and received a recruitment offer from the Brown squash coach between 2016 and 2019. As was the norm and rule throughout the Ivy League, students who accepted recruiting offers to Brown removed themselves from consideration for other schools.
The recruitment process involved ongoing conversations with the head squash coach through the Plaintiffs’ junior and senior years of high school, culminating with an explicit recruiting offer. Offer language included use of terms such as “four years” and “varsity.” On the strength of these letters, recruited students informed other universities of their decision, applied for Early Decision to Brown, and ultimately packed their bags for Rhode Island.
Some of the other Plaintiffs did not receive recruiting spots, but did receive offers from the head squash coach to support their application for admission to Brown. If accepted, these student-athletes were assured a roster spot on the respective squash teams.
The Plaintiffs sued under theories of breach of contract, promissory estoppel (legal theory that a promise under certain conditions is enforceable by law), fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary relationship. The Court took up the matter of the Plaintiffs seeking a preliminary injunction to halt the transition to club status.
Preliminary Injunction Standard
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, finding there was little likelihood of success on the merits.
Law school textbooks and Courts across the country agree that the preliminary injunction, in theory and in practice, is extraordinary and drastic. A successful preliminary injunction results in the Court ordering a party to stop doing something entirely until the case can be resolved. The impact is a Court order before due process has run its course, and sometimes long before.
In making its determination, a Court first considers the likelihood that a plaintiff will succeed on the merits of the claim. Three additional factors follow, however the party must first demonstrate a strong likelihood of success. Speculation and guesswork do not enjoy a seat at the table, and the high hurdle is necessary because of the potential impact and its interplay with due process.
If the party makes it this far, the Court would then analyze the potential for plaintiff’s irreparable harm, the balance of hardships between the parties, and the impact of a court’s ruling to the public interest. However, if the party cannot clear the first hurdle, the remaining factors become matters of “idle curiosity.”
Contract Breach and Estoppel Claims Bounced Out
The Plaintiffs’ breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims survived motions to dismiss and remain active. However, both claims failed the preliminary injunctive relief test when the Court concluded the Plaintiffs would probably not succeed on the merits.
Plaintiffs alleged a breach of contract, insofar as they committed to Brown on the promise of four years of squash and enrolled based on Brown’s ongoing representations concerning the varsity team.
The Court found that the coaches at Brown had made no such promises. The Court observed that the coaches merely made a commitment to help tip the admissions’ scale in each Plaintiff’s favor to get them in the door. The evidence in fact showed that Brown made good on this promise. Recruiting discussions that used terms such as “varsity” or “four years” were found to be aspirational at best, not rising to enforceable contract terms.
Plaintiffs likewise adequately plead promissory estoppel, claiming that they reasonably relied on a clear and unambiguous promise of varsity squash to their detriment, by signing on with Brown and foregoing spots at other schools.
However adequate the pleadings may have been, the Court found the claim would likely not succeed. Plaintiffs could point to no evidence of a clear and unambiguous promise of four years of varsity squash. As with the breach of contract claim, the coaches and University at best had agreed to provide support in the admissions process. They in essence offered a ticket to ride but did not guarantee the destination.
Fraudulent and Negligent Misrepresentation & Fiduciary Breach
Plaintiffs argued misrepresentation stemming from the recruiting process. The argued that Brown was secretly reassessing the very varsity programs it actively recruited for since 2018. Plaintiffs argued that if the school had disclosed that it was considering terminating the varsity squash teams, incoming recruits might have looked elsewhere and current students might have transferred.
The actual timeline of events contradicted Plaintiffs’ arguments. The recruiting offers in question occurred between 2016 and 2019. Plaintiffs in fact alleged that Brown did not make its decision until after January of 2020 and could not pin Brown down to events taking place in 2018.
The Court quickly dispatched with Plaintiffs’ fiduciary claims as wholly insufficient. As a fiduciary, Brown would have been obliged to disclose material facts, which may have given Plaintiffs’ case some traction. However, the claim lacked sufficient reliance, prior relationships, business capacities, and the readiness of one party to follow the other’s guidance on complicated transactions. A mere allegation of trust and reliance on Brown’s statements would not win this match.
Jonathan Wynne is a Civil Litigator with Lee, Myers & O’Connell in Boston, MA and an aspiring NFL Contract Advisor.
