Post by theswan on Feb 4, 2024 13:41:28 GMT -5
www.sportico.com/law/analysis/2024/lane-kiffin-lawsuit-dismissed-1234765283/amp/
In dismissing Ole Miss defensive tackle DeSanto Rollins’ lawsuit against Ole Miss and head coach Lane Kiffin over alleged anti-discrimination and disabilities laws violations, a federal judge Wednesday reaffirmed the extensive and longstanding power of college football coaches over their players.
It’s the kind of ruling we could have seen in 1984 or 2004—but perhaps won’t in the coming years.
Mills identified several legal problems with Rollins’ lawsuit.
As a public university, Ole Miss (and by extension its employee, Kiffin) are entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. States, including its public universities, are often partially or fully immune from lawsuits, meaning the court is deprived of jurisdiction to consider claims. Mills found no viable grounds for Mills to overcome immunity for purposes of his ADA claim. The judge noted Rollins “concedes” the “only thing” keeping him from returning is obtaining a medical release, which he apparently hasn’t obtained.
Mills also found Rollins’ equal protection argument without merit. He wrote Rollins argues “Kiffin treated him differently than white and female athletes,” including because Kiffin allegedly allowed white players “to take a break and come back to the team,” but failed to plead Kiffin had discriminatory intent—a required element.
Mills also seemed to doubt the underlying theory, noting that since Rollins “was able to return to the team at any time by submitting a medical release,” he faced the “same treatment” as the white players. The judge also rejected a comparison of Rollins to women athletes at Ole Miss since “Kiffin was not involved” in their sports.
Mills further found the lawsuit problematic since (in his view) it equated Kiffin’s problematic handling of the situation with unlawful conduct. The judge explained that even when intentional, “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppression, or other trivialities” do not rise to a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rollins v. Kiffin comes at a time when the legal relationship between college sports and its athletes face potentially tectonic changes via litigation and NLRB charges. So long as college athletes lack the recognition of employees, their rights to challenge their schools and coaches are very limited.
But in a world where college athletes are employees and unionized, a union representative could advocate for a player in Rollins’ situation. Coaches in that world might treat players differently, too.
In dismissing Ole Miss defensive tackle DeSanto Rollins’ lawsuit against Ole Miss and head coach Lane Kiffin over alleged anti-discrimination and disabilities laws violations, a federal judge Wednesday reaffirmed the extensive and longstanding power of college football coaches over their players.
It’s the kind of ruling we could have seen in 1984 or 2004—but perhaps won’t in the coming years.
Mills identified several legal problems with Rollins’ lawsuit.
As a public university, Ole Miss (and by extension its employee, Kiffin) are entitled to sovereign immunity under the 11th Amendment. States, including its public universities, are often partially or fully immune from lawsuits, meaning the court is deprived of jurisdiction to consider claims. Mills found no viable grounds for Mills to overcome immunity for purposes of his ADA claim. The judge noted Rollins “concedes” the “only thing” keeping him from returning is obtaining a medical release, which he apparently hasn’t obtained.
Mills also found Rollins’ equal protection argument without merit. He wrote Rollins argues “Kiffin treated him differently than white and female athletes,” including because Kiffin allegedly allowed white players “to take a break and come back to the team,” but failed to plead Kiffin had discriminatory intent—a required element.
Mills also seemed to doubt the underlying theory, noting that since Rollins “was able to return to the team at any time by submitting a medical release,” he faced the “same treatment” as the white players. The judge also rejected a comparison of Rollins to women athletes at Ole Miss since “Kiffin was not involved” in their sports.
Mills further found the lawsuit problematic since (in his view) it equated Kiffin’s problematic handling of the situation with unlawful conduct. The judge explained that even when intentional, “mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppression, or other trivialities” do not rise to a finding of intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Rollins v. Kiffin comes at a time when the legal relationship between college sports and its athletes face potentially tectonic changes via litigation and NLRB charges. So long as college athletes lack the recognition of employees, their rights to challenge their schools and coaches are very limited.
But in a world where college athletes are employees and unionized, a union representative could advocate for a player in Rollins’ situation. Coaches in that world might treat players differently, too.