Former USC Football Player Sues NCAA and PAC-12 for Unpaid Wages

Former USC linebacker Lamar Dawson has filed a class action suit against the NCAA and PAC-12 for unpaid wages. It's a new spin on recent lawsuits on behalf of former and current college athletes who claim they are employees and not merely student athletes. Dawson, who played from 2011-2015, does not go with an anti-trust argument like we saw in the O'Bannon suit. Instead he alleges that the NCAA's and PAC-12's own bylaws violate state and federal wage laws specifically because student athletes fit under the statutory definition of an employee, and are not subject to any exemption.

The suit argues that the NCAA and PAC-12 operate as any other business in the state, and both organizations "have regulated and controlled and continue to regulate and control the employment of student athletes engaged in playing football at the universities and colleges who are participating members of said Defendants." Dawson argues that the NCAA and PAC-12 "regulate and control" his employment—playing and practicing football, in his case—such that he has "work[ed] in excess of eight (8) hours per day and in excess of forty (40) hours per week" and he has not been paid "overtime compensation as required by the FLSA and California's wage and hour laws."

The suit quotes the NCAA's own bylaws to show that they expressly run afoul of both the Fair Labor Standards Act and California Labor Code:

NCAA Bylaw 15 sets forth "Financial Aid" rules, many of which impose restrictions on the amount and nature of, and method by which, payments of any kind may be provided to student athletes. NCAA Bylaw 15.1 provides that a student athlete may receive remuneration on the basis of athletics ability, but such grant-in-aid remuneration is strictly limited to "the value of his or her cost of attendance." Under NCAA Bylaw 15.02.5, a full grantin-aid "consists of tuition and fees, room and board, books, and other expenses related to attendance at the institution up to the cost of attendance." An athlete may receive payments beyond this amount only if such additional pay is unrelated to athletic ability; however, even those amounts are strictly limited. NCAA Bylaw 15.1 states that, "[a] student athlete shall not be eligible to participate in intercollegiate athletics if he or she receives financial aid that exceeds the value of the cost of attendance." 41. Defendant NCAA also expressly states that the above-described financial aid remunerations, which are awarded on the basis of athletic ability, are not to be considered payments for athletics skills to be performed by the student athlete that he or she may provide in rendering athletic services when playing on a participating member's sports team. As provided by the express terms of NCAA Bylaw 12.01.04: "A grant-in-aid administered by an educational institution is not considered to be pay or the promise of pay for athletics skill, provided it does not exceed the financial aid limitations set by the Association's members.". Otherwise any payment to the student athlete for athletic services is prohibited.

Since these measures contradict the state and federal regulations that govern minimum payments to employees, and since student athletes are actually employees—there is a very satisfying section in the suit that lays to waste the fiction of The Student Athlete, you should read it—Dawson and the class are entitled to back pay. Here's the nut graf:

In sum, despite promulgating extensive rules and regulations covering the conditions under which student athletes provide services, such as the days, hours, and conditions of practice and games, nowhere in any of its rules and regulations does Defendant NCAA purport to acknowledge or otherwise permit its participating members to comply with the requirements of state and federal wage and hour laws for the payment of services rendered or to be rendered by students athletes in, among other things, playing football on behalf of a participating member. Indeed, any such wage compensation to a student athlete appears to be expressly prohibited by the rules and regulations of the NCAA.

The NCAA has a characteristically horseshit response, that cites the student's "passion" as a distinction from regular employment:

"We are currently evaluating the claim, but strongly disagree with the notion that college students participating in athletics are employees," NCAA chief legal officer Donald Remy said in an email statement. "Our experience is that these college students, like their non-athlete colleagues, are very focused on their academic endeavors. Moreover, they have a passion for their sport and a commitment to their teammates that can't be equated to punching a time clock."

Here is the whole suit:

USC Suit