A district judge from the Southern District of Texas has granted the United States Olympic Committee’s emergency motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction a claim brought by Taekwondo athlete, who had asked the court to intervene in a “field of play” decision at the U.S. Olympic Trials earlier this year.
Nia Abdallah, the 2004 Olympic silver medalist in her sport, had argued that she was judged unfairly in her two matches against fellow competitor Diana Lopez.
She then sued, asking the court to either declare her the winner of the second match or order a third match to determine who would be the U.S. Olympic team member in the bantamweight/featherweight division.
At issue, noted the court, is whether it has the authority to address only how the USOC enforces its rules or also how its officials make decisions on the field of play.
The plaintiff argued for the latter.
“To date, no federal court has reviewed the specifics of an Olympic sports match,” wrote the court. ”Certainly, ‘there can be few less suitable bodies than the federal courts for determining the eligibility, or the procedures for determining the eligibility, of athletes to participate in the Olympic Games.’ Michels, 741 F.2d at 159 (7th Cir. 1984) (Posner, J., concurring). Abdallah argues that this court has jurisdiction to review USAT’s and USOC’s breach of its own rules. She bases her assertion on Slaney v. International Amateur Athletic Federation, which recognized that ‘courts can still play a role in ensuring that the [USOC] follows its rules for determining eligibility.’ Slaney, 244 F.3d at 595. This language, however, is preceded by the court’s opinion that ‘there is no dispute that the USOC has exclusive jurisdiction when it comes to eligibility determinations.’ Id. In making the former observation, the Slaney court relies on Harding v. US Figure Skating Association. The Harding court explained that ‘[i]ntervention is appropriate only in the most extraordinary circumstances, where the association has clearly breached its own rules, that breach will imminently result in serious and irreparable harm to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff has exhausted all internal remedies.’ Harding v. US Figure Skating Ass’n, 851 F. Supp. 1476, 1479 (D. Or. 1994).
“But, Abdallah does not allege that either USAT or USOC breached its own rules. Rather, Abdallah’s concern is that internal dispute resolution will fail because her complaints are based on ‘field of play decisions.’ Specifically, USAT’s ‘Field of Play Decisions’ rule mandates that ‘the final decision of a referee during a competition regarding a field of play decision (a matter set forth in the rules of the competition to be within the discretion of the referee) shall not be reviewable through, or the subject of, [internal] complaint procedures unless the decision is: (i) outside the authority of the referee to make, or (ii) the product of fraud, corruption, partiality, or other misconduct of the referee.’ Hence, Abdallah’s complaint is based on her assumption that the USOC will refuse to review the referee’s actions pursuant to the ‘Field of Play Decisions’ rule. Therefore, this court is without subject matter jurisdiction over this matter because it is one over which the USOC has exclusive jurisdiction.”
Nia Abdallah v. United States Association of Taekwondo et al; S.D. Tex.; No. H-07-2880; Tex LEXIS 68179; 9/14/07
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) Warren M Fitzgerald, Jr, LEAD ATTORNEY, Attorney at Law, Houston, TX. (for defendant) John Kiley Edwards, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jackson Walker, Houston, TX.
