## Facts

- African-American student-athletes brought a putative class action challenging the NCAA’s Division I initial-eligibility rule (“Proposition 16”).
- Proposition 16 conditioned freshman athletic participation and athletically related financial aid on a combination of minimum high school GPA and a minimum SAT/ACT score.
- Each named plaintiff satisfied the GPA requirement but failed to meet the minimum standardized test cutoff and was classified as a non-qualifier.
- As a result, plaintiffs alleged loss of freshman athletic participation, reduced or denied athletic scholarship opportunities, and related educational opportunity harms.
- Plaintiffs alleged the minimum test-score cutoff disproportionately disqualified African-American student-athletes compared to white student-athletes.
- The case came before the district court on cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the NCAA was subject to Title VI and its implementing regulations as a recipient (direct or indirect) of federal financial assistance or as an entity exercising controlling authority over federally funded intercollegiate athletics programs.
2. Whether private plaintiffs could enforce Title VI implementing regulations that prohibit practices with an unjustified disparate racial impact.
3. Whether Proposition 16’s minimum standardized test-score cutoff caused a disparate impact on African-American student-athletes and, if so, whether the NCAA proved educational necessity and the absence of less discriminatory alternatives.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied the NCAA’s motion.
- The court held, as a matter of law, that the NCAA was subject to suit under Title VI.
- The court held the test-score cutoff component of Proposition 16 caused an unjustified disparate impact against African-American student-athletes in violation of Title VI regulations.
- The court enjoined the NCAA from enforcing the test-score component of Proposition 16.

## Legal Principles

- Title VI implementing regulations may prohibit facially neutral practices that have the effect of racial discrimination in federally assisted education programs or activities.
- Private plaintiffs may seek judicial enforcement of Title VI disparate-impact regulations.
- A plaintiff establishes a prima facie disparate-impact violation by showing a policy causes a substantial disproportionate exclusion of a protected racial group from educational opportunities.
- Once disparate impact is shown, the defendant must demonstrate the challenged requirement is necessary to legitimate educational objectives; if less discriminatory alternatives would serve those objectives, the requirement is unlawful under the regulations.
- An organization exercising controlling authority over intercollegiate athletics at federally funded institutions may be treated as within Title VI’s coverage for purposes of regulating the challenged eligibility rule.

## Conclusion

The district court held that the NCAA’s minimum standardized test-score cutoff in Proposition 16 disproportionately excluded African-American student-athletes and was not justified by educational necessity in light of available less discriminatory alternatives, warranting summary judgment for plaintiffs and an injunction against enforcing the cutoff.


Cureton v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 37 F. Supp. 2d 687 (E.D. Pa. 1999)