## Facts

- Lamar Dawson played Division I FBS football for the University of Southern California, a member school of the NCAA and the Pac-12 Conference.
- Dawson brought a putative class action seeking minimum wage and overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and California labor law.
- He alleged the NCAA and Pac-12 were his joint employers because they promulgated and enforced extensive rules affecting Division I athletics, including limits on athletic scholarships, restrictions on compensation beyond permitted financial aid, and eligibility and conduct requirements.
- Dawson did not sue USC and did not claim he was an employee of USC.
- The district court dismissed the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and Dawson appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether Division I FBS football players are “employees” of the NCAA and/or the Pac-12 under the FLSA, requiring payment of minimum wage and overtime.
2. Whether, under California labor law, such players are employees (including as joint employees) of the NCAA and/or the Pac-12.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal.
- Under the FLSA’s economic reality test, Dawson failed to plausibly allege an employment relationship with either the NCAA or the Pac-12.
- The court concluded the NCAA and Pac-12 functioned as regulatory bodies that set and enforce rules, not as entities that hire, pay, or directly supervise players as employers.
- Under California law, Dawson also failed to state an employee or joint-employer claim, given California’s statutory treatment of student-athletes and the absence of authority treating the NCAA or a conference as an employer where schools generally are not.

## Legal Principles

- FLSA employee status turns on the “economic reality” of the relationship, including indicia such as an expectation of compensation from the putative employer and the putative employer’s power to hire or fire.
- Rulemaking and eligibility enforcement by an association or conference, without wage-like compensation obligations and employer-type hiring/firing authority, does not establish an FLSA employment relationship.
- The fact that college sports generate substantial revenue does not, standing alone, convert student-athlete participation into employment with the NCAA or a conference.
- Under California law, legislative treatment of student-athletes in the workers’ compensation context, as interpreted by California courts, supports the general conclusion that student-athletes are not employees of their schools; absent supporting authority, the NCAA or a conference cannot be treated as a joint employer on the pleaded facts.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that a Division I FBS football player did not plausibly allege employee status—either under the FLSA or California law—against the NCAA or a conference based on their regulatory control of intercollegiate athletics, and it affirmed dismissal of all wage-and-hour claims.


Dawson v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 932 F.3d 905 (9th Cir. 2019)