Pryor v. Ncaa - 288 F.3d 548 (3d Cir. 2002)

Rule:

To prove intentional discrimination by a facially neutral policy, a plaintiff must show that the relevant decisionmaker (e.g., a state legislature) adopted the policy at issue "because of," not merely "in spite of," its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. A mere awareness of the consequences of an otherwise neutral policy will not suffice. Once a plaintiff establishes a discriminatory purpose based on race, the decisionmaker must come forward and try to show that the policy or rule at issue survives strict scrutiny, i.e., that it had a compelling interest in using a race-based classification and this classification is narrowly tailored to achieve that compelling interest. These principles of strict scrutiny apply not only to legislation that contains explicit racial distinctions, but also to those rare statutes that, although race neutral, are, on their face, unexplainable on grounds other than race. Racial classifications, well intentioned or not, must survive the burdensome strict scrutiny analysis because absent searching judicial inquiry there is simply no way of determining what classifications are "benign" or "remedial" and what classifications are in fact motivated by illegitimate notions of racial inferiority or simple racial politics.

Facts:

Defendant voluntary collegiate athletic association adopted a policy that raised academic standards for student athletes in their freshmen year. The policy improved graduation rates among black student athletes, but the complaint under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.S. § 2000d et seq., 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 12101 et seq., and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.S. § 701 et seq.  alleged that the policy's real goal was to "screen out" more black student athletes from ever receiving athletic scholarships in the first place. The district court dismissed the complaint. The student athletes appealed. 

Issue:

Did the district court properly dismiss the student athletes’ complaint? 

Answer:

No, but only with respect to the Title VI and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 allegations.

Conclusion:

The court held that the Title VI and 42 U.S.C.S. § 1981 allegations were sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The association had considered race as one of its reasons for adopting the policy and the complaint alleged that the association purposefully discriminated against black student athletes because it knew the policy would prevent more black athletes from ever receiving athletic scholarship aid. The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act claims were properly dismissed since the student athlete lack standing simply because the condition of not meeting academic standards was not satisfied, if that condition was an alleged product of purposeful discrimination