## Facts

- The NCAA adopted “Proposition 16,” setting freshman eligibility for intercollegiate athletics using a formula including standardized test scores (e.g., SAT) and high-school GPA.
- Kelly N. Pryor, an African-American student-athlete with a learning disability, was recruited to play soccer at San Jose State University and signed a National Letter of Intent conditioned on meeting NCAA eligibility rules.
- Pryor did not satisfy Proposition 16’s “full qualifier” requirements; the NCAA classified her as a “partial qualifier,” allowing her to keep her scholarship and practice, but barring competition during her freshman year (with potential eligibility later if academic benchmarks were met).
- Warren E. Spivey, Jr., an African-American student-athlete recruited to play football at the University of Connecticut, signed a similar National Letter of Intent.
- Spivey did not meet Proposition 16’s “full qualifier” requirements; the NCAA denied a waiver sought by his university and denied the appeal, barring him from athletically related financial aid and participation during his freshman year.
- The NCAA had a bylaw giving learning-disabled student-athletes five years to use four years of athletic eligibility, allowing the possibility of recouping an initially lost season.
- Plaintiffs sued the NCAA individually and on behalf of similarly situated student-athletes, alleging intentional race discrimination under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; Pryor also alleged disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA Title III.

## Issues

1. Whether Pryor had Article III standing to pursue disability-discrimination claims based on lost freshman-year competition given NCAA rules potentially allowing recovery of a season of eligibility.
2. Whether the complaint plausibly alleged intentional racial discrimination (as opposed to disparate impact) in the NCAA’s adoption and enforcement of Proposition 16 under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
3. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief on the pleaded allegations.

## Decision

- The court granted the NCAA’s motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary judgment, and dismissed all claims.
- Pryor’s ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims were dismissed for lack of standing because her alleged injury was too speculative in light of NCAA rules that could allow her to regain the lost year of eligibility.
- The Title VI and § 1981 claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim because the allegations were insufficient to show purposeful discrimination in adopting Proposition 16.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing requires a concrete, non-speculative injury in fact; potential future remediation under governing rules may defeat standing when alleged harm is not imminent or certain.
- Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981 require allegations supporting intentional discrimination; disparate impact and knowledge of adverse effects, without facts supporting adoption “because of” those effects, is insufficient.
- A facially neutral eligibility rule does not violate Title VI or § 1981 absent adequately pleaded facts permitting an inference of purposeful racial discrimination.

## Conclusion

The district court dismissed the case in full, holding that Pryor lacked standing to pursue disability-based challenges to her eligibility restrictions and that both plaintiffs’ race-discrimination claims did not sufficiently allege intentional discrimination by the NCAA in adopting Proposition 16.


Pryor v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 153 F. Supp. 2d 710 (E.D. Pa. 2001)