Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Opinion Preview

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

Experience a New Era in Legal Research with Free Access to Lexis+

  • Case Opinion

Dawson v. NCAA

Dawson v. NCAA

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

Decided and Filed April 25, 2017

Case No. 16-cv-05487-RS

Opinion

 [*402]  ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Lamar Dawson, a former college football player for the University of  [*403]  Southern California (“USC”), brings this putative class action [**2]  lawsuit against the National Collegiate Athletic Association (“NCAA”) and the PAC-12 Conference (“PAC-12”) for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the California Labor Code. Defendants move to dismiss on the grounds that student athletes are not covered under either statute and Dawson lacks standing to sue. Defendants rely heavily on the Seventh Circuit's opinion in Berger v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 843 F.3d 285 (7th Cir. 2016), which held, as a matter of law, that former student athletes of NCAA Division I schools are not “employees” under the FLSA. While the Berger decision, as out of circuit authority, is not binding and the parties dispute its applicability, its reasoning is persuasive and defendants' motion will be granted.

II. BACKGROUND1

From 2011 to 2015, Dawson played football for the University of Southern California, a Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) member of the PAC-12. He alleges that, in that capacity, he was denied full pay for all hours worked, including overtime pay, and was frequently permitted to work without receiving required minimum wage payments. He further alleges that the rules governing student athletes who play football for the NCAA and PAC-12 member schools are set in the first instance by the NCAA, and [**3]  then adopted by PAC-12. On this basis, he claims that NCAA and PAC-12 are joint employers of student athletes who [***491]  play Division I FBS football on behalf of member schools. He brings claims against the NCAA and PAC-12 for violations of the FLSA and the California Labor Code, as well as derivative claims under California's Private Attorneys General Act (“PAGA”) and Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). He brings suit on behalf of a “FLSA Class,” which appears to include any Division I FBS football player in the United States, and a “California Class,” which appears to include student athletes in football programs at NCAA member schools in California, as well as several California sub-classes based on specific Labor Code violations.2

III. LEGAL STANDARD

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

250 F. Supp. 3d 401 *; 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64082 **; 82 Cal. Comp. Cases 489 ***

LAMAR DAWSON, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, et al., Defendants.

Subsequent History: Affirmed by Dawson v. NCAA, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 23920 (9th Cir. Cal., Aug. 12, 2019)

Disposition: Proceeding on defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint, motion granted, complaint dismissed without leave to amend.

CORE TERMS

football, employees, athletes, student athlete, schools, courts, employment relationship, allegations, players, sports, cases, motion to dismiss, programs

Civil Procedure, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Justiciability, Standing, Burdens of Proof, Injury in Fact, Labor & Employment Law, Wage & Hour Laws, Scope & Definitions, Definition of Employees, Definition of Employers, Definition of Employ, Workers' Compensation & SSDI, Coverage, Employment Status, Employees