Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association case brief
summary
865 P.2d 633 (1994)
DISCUSSION
On review, the court reversed the decision to uphold the permanent injunction against defendant athletic association and directed entry of a final judgment for defendant, determining that defendant's drug testing program did not violate plaintiff student athletes' state constitutional right to privacy. The court found that although defendant, a private organization, was properly subject to a claim for invasion of privacy, defendant was not required to justify its drug testing program through proof of a "compelling state interest" and the absence of any alternative means of accomplishing that interest. The court noted that plaintiffs had no right to participate in intercollegiate athletic competition and that plaintiffs' reasonable expectation of privacy had been diminished by the notice and consent elements of defendant's testing program. The court concluded that defendant's decision to enforce a ban on the use of drugs by means of drug testing as its information-gathering procedure had been reasonably calculated to further its legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of intercollegiate athletic competition and in protecting plaintiffs' health and safety.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the permanent injunction against defendant athletic association and remanded the case for entry of judgment for defendant on plaintiff student athletes' state constitutional invasion of privacy claims. Defendant had not violated plaintiffs' privacy rights through its use of a drug testing program that was reasonably calculated to further defendant's legitimate interest in safeguarding intercollegiate athletic competition.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
865 P.2d 633 (1994)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant athletic association sought
review of a judgment from the Court of Appeals (California), which
affirmed the superior court's decision to grant a permanent
injunction precluding defendant from enforcing its drug testing
program against plaintiff student athletes and other athletes
attending intervenor university on the ground that defendant failed
to establish a "compelling state interest" in support of
its program.DISCUSSION
On review, the court reversed the decision to uphold the permanent injunction against defendant athletic association and directed entry of a final judgment for defendant, determining that defendant's drug testing program did not violate plaintiff student athletes' state constitutional right to privacy. The court found that although defendant, a private organization, was properly subject to a claim for invasion of privacy, defendant was not required to justify its drug testing program through proof of a "compelling state interest" and the absence of any alternative means of accomplishing that interest. The court noted that plaintiffs had no right to participate in intercollegiate athletic competition and that plaintiffs' reasonable expectation of privacy had been diminished by the notice and consent elements of defendant's testing program. The court concluded that defendant's decision to enforce a ban on the use of drugs by means of drug testing as its information-gathering procedure had been reasonably calculated to further its legitimate interest in maintaining the integrity of intercollegiate athletic competition and in protecting plaintiffs' health and safety.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the permanent injunction against defendant athletic association and remanded the case for entry of judgment for defendant on plaintiff student athletes' state constitutional invasion of privacy claims. Defendant had not violated plaintiffs' privacy rights through its use of a drug testing program that was reasonably calculated to further defendant's legitimate interest in safeguarding intercollegiate athletic competition.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment