By Phillip Movaghar
It is often said no good deed goes unpunished. Some may say that case couldn’t be more true than for Juan Griles (“Petitioner”), the coach of the Eastside High School men’s basketball team in the Paterson School District in New Jersey, after the Commissioner of Education (“Commissioner”) upheld the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (“NJSIAA”) determination that Petitioner violated the NJSIAA’s “Recruitment Rule.” Griles v. N.J. State Interscholastic Ath. Ass’n, No. A-2227-17T1, 2020 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 966 (“Griles”) (Super. Ct. App. Div. May 21, 2020).
The NJSIAA is an independent voluntary association comprised of various boards of education of local school districts who have elected to join the association to facilitate in the coordination and regulation of athletic programs in conjunction with other local schools. (Id. at 1). Eastside High School is a member of the NJSIAA and as a result of its findings, Petitioner was suspended from coaching for two years, fined $1000, and was required to undergo additional training. (Id.). Petitioner then appealed the Commissioner’s final decision to the Superior Court of New Jersey. (Id.).
In February 2017, media reports surfaced that Petitioner was the temporary guardian of five or more basketball players from Puerto Rico and Nigeria, each of whom were seventeen or eighteen years old. (Id. at 3). Four of the teenagers who were living with Petitioner were enrolled at Eastside High School since September of the previous year. (Id.). In response to the media reports, The Paterson School District retained the (then-retired) Honorable John E Wallace, Jr., to “conduct an investigation into the boys’ basketball program and to make appropriate recommendations pertaining to policy, procedure and personnel actions.” (Id. at 4). Justice Wallace then completed the investigation and issued a report detailing his findings (“the Report”). (Id.).
The Report, undisputed by Petitioner, confirmed that Petitioner did in fact once have five student athletes living at his condominium. (Id.). However, it was also revealed that: (i) petitioner was the godfather and “surrogate godfather” to two of the student athletes; (ii) petitioner took in two of the other student athletes at the request of a friend he knew from basketball camps; and (iii) petitioner allowed the fifth student athlete to move in at the request of “a former friend from when [Petitioner] played professional basketball.” (Id.).
Ultimately, Justice Wallace’s Report found no evidence that Petitioner’s motive for housing the students “was other than humanitarian.” (Id. at 4/5). The report also found “no evidence that Petitioner obtained custody of any of the five students for any personal gain, financial or otherwise offered inducement to students, or recruited the students for an athletic advantage.” (Id. at 5). And while the Report concluded Petitioner had committed other NJSIAA rules and regulations, it did not conclude Petitioner violated the NJSIAA’s Recruiting Rule. (Id.).
Following the report’s release, the NJSIAA Controversies Committee scheduled a hearing to which they informed Petitioner’s counsel of the hearing “regarding potential violations of NJSIAA’s rules regarding transfer, eligibility, and recruiting by the Eastside Paterson basketball program one week before it was to take place. (Id.). The hearing was called to specifically address the Report detailing the investigation of the 2016-2017 Eastside Paterson’s Boys Basketball Team. (Id.). The notice letter also informed Petitioner’s counsel, inter alia, of Petitioner’s right to appear, have counsel present, and submit any relevant documentation as the letter also noted that the Controversies Committee was authorized to impose penalties, suspend personnel (including coaches), and fine the member school and its personnel. (Id. at 5/6). Despite being notified of the hearing, Petitioner “did not respond to the notice [of the hearing], did not request an adjournment, and did not participate in the hearing.” (Id. at 6).
Based on the Report and other evidence presented at the hearing, the Controversies Committee determined that petitioner had in fact, violated the NJSIAA’s Recruitment Rule, among various violations. (Id.). The Committee noted upon publication of the media reports, Petitioner had five students living with him, and at least four of the five student athletes actually played in games for Eastside. (Id.). Other violations concerning the five students included the falsification of one of their transcripts. (Id.). Petitioner then unsuccessfully appealed to the Commissioner after the Commissioner affirmed the penalties imposed by the NJSIAA’s Controversies Committee which were unanimously affirmed by the NJSIAA Executive Committee. (Id.).
In making its final decision, the Commissioner noted the following: (i) it is undisputed that Petitioner had several students living in his home who eventually became members of the basketball team he coached; (ii) many of the students at issue had no connection to Paterson other than through mutual contacts in the basketball world and their sole purpose in moving to Paterson was to enroll at Eastside High School; (iii) none of the students who joined the basketball team for the 2016-2017 school year had their transfer forms completed until after the media reports about their respective living situations surfaced; and (iv) the “ban on Athletic Recruitment does not require a showing that a player received an athletic advantage or that they provided an actual athletic advantage to the basketball team, but simply that the players enrolled in Paterson School District for an athletic reason.” (Id. at 7).
Court Analysis
The Superior Court of New Jersey requires that it affirm an agency’s decision unless it is “arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable, or unsupported by substantial credible evidence in the record.” See In Re Stallworth, 208 N.J. 182, 194 26 A.3d 1059 (2011). The NJSIAA bylaws prohibit “athletic recruitment” pursuant to Art. V, § 4 of the NJSIAA Bylaws which stipulates, in part, that “athletic recruitment” is defined as any effort to proselytize, pressure, urge, or entice a student to enroll in or transfer to a school for athletic purposes . . . Athletic recruitment includes, but is not limited to: offering athletic scholarships, free tuition or other monetary assistance directly or indirectly through some affiliated body or individual, to induce a student to attend the school for athletic reasons.” (Griles at 2/3)
Petitioner argued that on appeal the Committee disregarded the Report that they themselves requested when it “reached a conclusion contrary to that of Justice Wallace.” (Griles at 7). However, the Court found the scope of the Justice’s [investigation] to be broader than solely determining whether Petitioner violated the Recruitment Rule. (Id.). It reasoned that a review of the record does convey whether the Justice was specifically tasked with determining if Petitioner violated the Recruitment Rule by making “any effort to proselytize, pressure, urge, or entice a student to enroll or transfer to a school for athletic purposes.” (Id. at 7/8). Further, it reasoned the facts upon which the Justice based his decision were subject to contrary interpretations and inferences. (Id. at 8). This is of crucial significance, as both the Commissioner and the Controversies Committee noted, their inquiry was required to address whether Petitioner “engaged any effort to proselytize, pressure, urge, or entice a student to enroll or transfer to a school for athletic purposes, not whether petitioner was attempting to gain an athletic advantage.” (Id.).
Contrary to the argument’s set forth by Petitioner, the decisions of the Controversies Committee and the Commissioner are supported by ample evidence on the record. (Id. at 9). In making its determination, the Court considered Petitioner’s decision to not appear before the Controversies Committee to persuade them of his innocence in addition to the Commissioner’s conclusion that “providing housing for students who became members of [Petitioner’s] basketball team clearly meets the definition of recruitment.” (Id.). Case law pertaining to this matter stipulates “the right of a voluntary association to interpret and administer its own rules and regulations is as sacred as the right to make them. . .” James v. Camden Cty. Council No. 10 of N.J. Civil Serv. Asso., 188 N.J. Super. 251, 457 A.2d 63 (Super. Ct. 1982); see also Frazier v. Bd. of Review, Dep’t of Labor, 439 N.J. Super. 130, 106 A.3d 1252 (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2015) (“An appellate court “defer[s] to agency’s interpretation of its own regulations unless plainly reasonable”). As such, the Court found that neither the Committee nor the Commissioner rendered a decision that was arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable. (Griles at 9).
Lastly, Petitioner claimed he was denied due process as he was only given two days’ notice of the Controversies Disputes Committee hearing and was not provided with evidence that would be used against him. (Id. at 9). However, as the Court noted, Petitioner did not object to the notice when he received it, he did not request a postponement, or even appear at the Controversies Disputes Committee hearing. (Id. at 9/10). Given such circumstances, the Court found Petitioner’s argument to lack sufficient merit to warrant any further discussion (Id. at 10).
Accordingly, given the reasons above, the Court affirmed the Commissioner’s ruling. (Id.). In doing so, one can’t help but wonder if Petitioner will think twice before lending a helping hand in the future, as his seemingly good deed cost him two years on the coaching bench — affirming the age-old adage – no good deed goes unpunished.
Phillip Movaghar is in his final semester at Southwestern Law School where he is a Fellow at the Donald E. Biederman Entertainment and Media Law Institute.
