A New York state judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by a former University of North Carolina football player, who sued the school and the NCAA for gross negligence after they ruled that he was permanently ineligible because of academic misconduct
In so ruling, the court found that plaintiff Michael McAdoo’s decision to enter the NFL supplemental draft and sign with the Baltimore Ravens rendered his claim of gross negligence moot.
The impetus for the lawsuit was the NCAA’s decision in November 2010 to declare 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).
Last summer, 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 last summer. “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, subsequently, moved to dismiss the complaint. A hearing was held in October, during which the plaintiff presented testimony from an agent that McAdoo would be making more money had he been allowed to the complete his senior season.
The NCAA and UNC countered that McAdoo’s decision to enter the NFL supplemental draft and ultimately sign with the Ravens negated his claims that losing his college eligibility would affect his professional prospects. Awarding such damages based on the theory that McAdoo would improve his draft position was “speculative,” according to the defendants.
They also took the position that the court shouldn’t intervene in the internal affairs of an organization with a voluntary membership.
The court agreed with the defendants on both points.
Bernard Burk, a UNC law school professor, told the media that he was not surprised by the ruling.
“Mr. McAdoo did seem to be asserting some rights that don’t exist,” Burk said. “Even if there were some legal right to play football here, it’s very hard to see how he’s worse off today given what’s actually happened.”
He added that the plaintiff’s prospects on appeal are poor.
“His claims are just not very attractive legally. And leaving the legal issues aside, they’re just not very attractive practically or emotionally either,” he said. “For heaven’s sake, the guy has a contract to play with the Baltimore Ravens. He’s living the dream.”
McAdoo was represented by attorney Noah H. Huffstetler III.
Paul Sun, a Raleigh-based attorney, served as local counsel for the NCAA.
