The Trial Lawyers for Public Justice allege that an NCAA discriminates against minorities by requiring a minimum score of 820 on the SAT to participate in college athletics as a freshman. This is the Jan. 13, 1996 class action complaint.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF
PENNSYLVANIA


TAI KWAN CURETON and LEATRICE SHAW, each individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

NATIONAL COLLEGIATE ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

CIVIL ACTION

NO. 97-


COMPLAINT

Preliminary Statement

1. This is a class action lawsuit charging the National Collegiate
Athletic Association ("NCAA"), which governs intercollegiate
athletics, with discriminating against African-American
student-athletes in the adoption, implementation and/or enforcement of
the minimum test score component of its initial eligibility rules. To
compete as freshmen and receive athletic scholarships at Division I
colleges and universities ("Division I Schools"), the NCAA requires
student-athletes to obtain a minimum score on the Scholastic
Assessment Test ("SAT") or the American College Test ("ACT") and a
minimum grade-point average ("GPA") in a core curriculum of high
school courses. The NCAA's current initial eligibility rules are known
as Proposition 16. This lawsuit charges that the NCAA's minimum test
score requirement in Proposition 16 violates Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d ("Title VI"), and
administrative implementing regulations promulgated thereunder,
because the requirement has an unjustifiable disparate impact on
African-American student-athletes. Proposition 16 sets even higher
cut-off scores on the SAT and ACT than the prior rules, known as
Proposition 48, and will result in even greater discrimination against
African-American student-athletes. As a result of the NCAA's
discriminatory test score requirement in Proposition 16,
African-American student-athletes have been, and will continue to be,
disproportionately denied: the opportunity to compete in
intercollegiate athletics during their freshman year at Division I
Schools; admission to Division I Schools; athletic scholarships by
Division I Schools (or provided with less athletically-related
financial aid); and/or recruiting opportunities by Division I Schools
(or provided with fewer recruiting opportunities). This lawsuit seeks
injunctive relief to stop the NCAA from applying and enforcing its
discriminatory test score requirement and to allow the injured
African-American student-athletes to regain the opportunities and
benefits they have lost.


Jurisdiction and Venue

2. This is a civil action for injunctive and declaratory relief
brought pursuant to Title VI and certain implementing regulations
promulgated thereunder. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon
this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Secs. 1331, 1343 and 2201, et seq.

3. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391 (b) and (c). The
Defendant can be found in this District, has agents in this District,
and does business in this District. A substantial part of the events
giving rise to Plaintiffs' claims also occurred in this District. In
addition, Defendants' membership and activities subject it to personal
jurisdiction and venue in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.


Plaintiffs

4. Plaintiff Tai Kwan Cureton ("Cureton") is a citizen of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania whose permanent residence is 1907 West
Cayuga Street, Philadelphia, PA 19140. He is an African-American who
graduated from Simon Gratz High School in June of 1996 and ranked 27th
in a class of 305. He earned academic honors and athletic honors in
his sport, track. Cureton exceeded the NCAA's minimum GPA requirement
in the core curriculum courses he took at Simon Gratz High School. He
took the SAT, but did not attain the minimum score required by
Proposition 16. Cureton was recruited by several Division I Schools
prior to obtaining his non-qualifying SAT score. Because of
Proposition 16, he was recruited less by Division I Schools and/or not
admitted to or offered athletic financial aid by any Division I
Schools. Cureton is now a freshman at Wheaton College, a Division III
school, where he is competing on the track team. Because of
Proposition 16, Cureton has lost the opportunity to compete as a
freshman in intercollegiate athletics at a Division I School.

5. Plaintiff Leatrice Shaw ("Shaw") is a citizen of the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and permanently resides at 1931 Cobden Road, Laverock,
PA 19038. She is an African-American who graduated from Simon Gratz
High School in June of 1996 and ranked 5th in a class of 305. She was
a member of the National Honor Society, and earned academic honors and
athletic honors in her sport, track. She took the SAT, but did not
attain the minimum score required by Proposition 16. Shaw was
recruited by many Division I Schools while she was in high school.
However, because of Proposition 16's test score requirement, she was
offered athletic financial aid by only one Division I School, the
University of Miami, which she now attends, but is not permitted to
compete on the track team during her freshman year. Because of the
minimum test score requirement of Proposition 16, Shaw has lost year
of eligibility to compete in intercollegiate athletics.


Defendant

6. Defendant, the NCAA, is an unincorporated, voluntary association of
more than 1,000 members, including most of the public and private
universities and four-year colleges that conduct major athletic
programs in the United States. The NCAA's members include Division I
Schools in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, such as Temple
University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Villanova University.
The NCAA transacts business in this District through Division I
Schools and other colleges and universities. Such business includes
the application and enforcement of Proposition 16, the promotion,
supervision and sanctioning of intercollegiate athletic events, the
collection of assessments from colleges and universities, and the
execution of contracts. The NCAA's main office is located at 6201
College Boulevard, Overland Park, Kansas 66211.


Class Action Allegations

7. The named Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and
pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, for injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all
present and future African-American student-athletes who have been, or
will be, denied opportunities and/or benefits at Division I Schools as
a result of the NCAA's adoption, implementation and enforcement of the
minimum test score component of Proposition 16.

8. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. Moreover, joinder of all members is impracticable
because members of the class who may suffer future injury are not
capable of being identified at this time.

9. There are questions of law or fact common to the class that
predominate over any questions that affect only individual class
members, including without limitation:

a. Whether the adoption, implementation and/or enforcement of the
NCAA's minimum test score requirement under Proposition 16 is having
an unjustifiable disparate impact on African-American
student-athletes;

b. Whether the disparate impact from the NCAA's Proposition 16
constitutes discrimination in violation of Title VI and certain
administrative implementing regulations promulgated under that
statute; and

c. Whether, as a result of the minimum test score component of
Proposition 16, African-American student-athletes have been, and will
continue to be, disproportionately denied: the opportunity to compete
in intercollegiate athletics at Division I Schools during their
freshman year; admission to Division I Schools; athletic scholarships
by Division I Schools (or provided less athletically-related financial
aid); and/or recruiting opportunities by Division I Schools (or
provided with fewer recruiting opportunities).

10. The claims of the named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of
the class. The types of discrimination and injuries that the
Plaintiffs have suffered as a result of the NCAA's application and
enforcement of the minimum test score component of Proposition 16 are
typical of the discrimination and injuries which have been, are being,
or in the future will be suffered by members of the class.

11. The named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action
vigorously in order to secure the remedies for all the class members.
Counsel for the Plaintiffs are experienced in federal civil rights and
class action litigation.

12. The NCAA has acted or refused to act on grounds generally
applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate injunctive and
declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole.


Statutory and Regulatory Framework

13. Title VI provides in pertinent part:

No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the
benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d.

14. Applicable administrative implementing regulations interpreting
the requirements of Title VI have been promulgated by the United
States Department of Health and Human Services, 45 C.F.R. Sec. 80.1,
et seq., and the United States Department of Education, 34 C.F.R. Sec.
100.1, et seq.

15. Both sets of implementing regulations provide in pertinent part:

a recipient, in determining the types of services, financial aid, or
other benefits, or facilities which will be provided under any such
program, or the class of individuals to whom, or the situations in
which, such services, financial aid, other benefits, or facilities
will be provided under any such program, or the class of individuals
to be afforded an opportunity to participate in any such program, may
not, directly or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize
criteria or methods of administration which have the effect of
subjecting individuals to discrimination because of their race, color,
or national origin, or have the effect of defeating or substantially
impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the program as respect
individuals of a particular race, color, or national origin.

45 C.F.R. Sec. 80.3(b)(2); 34 C.F.R. Sec. 100.3(b)(2).

16. Defendant, the NCAA, is a program or activity under Title VI and
its implementing regulations. Upon information and belief, the NCAA
has received, and continues to receive, federal financial assistance
from the Department of Education and the Department of Health and
Human Services. Upon information and belief, Plaintiffs aver that the
NCAA received approximately $15 million from the Department of Health
and Human Services in 1996, pursuant to the Community Services Block
Grant Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9901, et seq., as well as millions of
dollars in previous years. Upon information and belief, plaintiffs
aver that the NCAA also receives federal financial assistance from the
Department of Education through its member colleges and universities.

17. Plaintiffs further aver that the NCAA is a recipient under
applicable administrative regulations implementing Title VI and that
it is subject to the prohibitions of Title VI and the administrative
implementing regulations promulgated thereunder by the Department of
Health and Human Services and the Department of Education.


Operative Facts

18. From 1973 to July 31, 1986, the NCAA's academic requirement for
incoming student-athletes was that they graduate from high school with
an overall 2.0 GPA or better. There was no restriction on the high
school courses that would be counted toward calculating a
student-athlete's GPA, nor was there any minimum test score
requirement.

19. At the NCAA's 1983 Annual Convention, the NCAA adopted new initial
eligibility rules to govern the academic standards that incoming
student-athletes would have to meet in order to compete as freshmen.
Those rules, known as Proposition 48, became effective on August 1,
1986. Under Proposition 48, a freshman was not eligible to participate
in Division I intercollegiate athletics unless he/she had scored a
combined 700 on the SAT, or a 15 composite score on the ACT, and had
earned at least a 2.0 GPA in a core curriculum of 11 high school
courses.

20. In 1989, the NCAA barred Division I Schools from granting athletic
scholarships or need-based financial aid to student-athletes who did
not satisfy both the minimum GPA in the core curriculum of high school
courses and the minimum test score requirement set forth in
Proposition 48.

21. Approximately one year later, in 1990, the NCAA permitted freshman
student-athletes who met one of the two academic requirements of
Proposition 48 to receive need-based financial aid that was not
athletically-related. Those student-athletes were deemed "partial
qualifiers" under the NCAA's rules.

22. At the NCAA's 1992 Annual Convention, the NCAA further increased
its academic requirements for freshmen student-athletes when it
adopted Proposition 16. As originally adopted, Proposition 16 was to
become effective on August 1, 1995, and required student-athletes with
a GPA of 2.0 in 13 core high school courses to score at least 900 on
the SAT or 21 on the ACT; for each 10-point drop in the SAT score, a
corresponding increase of 0.025 in the student-athlete's GPA was
required, so that a student-athlete with a GPA of 2.5 or better would
qualify if he/she scored at least a 700 on the SAT or a 17 on the ACT.
The minimum qualifying test scores under Proposition 16 are 700 on the
SAT and 17 on the ACT. The increase in the core course requirement
from 11 to 13 became effective on August 1, 1995. However, the sliding
scale of test scores and high school GPAs did not become effective
until August 1, 1996.

23. Effective on August 1, 1996, Proposition 16 also redefined the
requirements for being a partial qualifier according to a sliding
scale of test scores and high school GPAs in the 13 core courses.
Under Proposition 16, partial qualifiers are not permitted to compete
during their freshman year and are restricted to three seasons of
athletic competition. They may, however, receive institutional
financial aid, including athletic scholarships, during their freshman
year, and may practice with the athletic team at the Division I
School's home facility.

24. The Educational Testing Service ("ETS"), which designed the SAT,
"recentered" the test beginning with the April 1, 1995 SAT. As a
consequence, the NCAA changed the sliding scale of minimum SAT scores
and high school GPAs under Proposition 16. For SATs taken after June
1, 1995, Proposition 16 requires student-athletes with a 2.0 GPA to
score at least a 1,010 on the SAT; for each 10-point drop in the SAT
score, a corresponding increase of 0.025 in the student-athlete's GPA
is required, so that a student-athlete with a GPA of 2.5 or better
would qualify if he/she scored at least an 820 on the SAT. Under
Proposition 16, the minimum qualifying SAT score on the "recentered"
test is 820.

25. The minimum ACT scores required under Proposition 16 have also
changed since its adoption. Instead of using the "composite" score,
the NCAA now uses the sum total or "SUMACT" of all four parts of the
ACT. The minimum ACT score required for ACTs taken since the summer of
1995 are as follows: 86 for student-athletes with a 2.0 GPA; 66 for
student-athletes with at least a 2.5 GPA; and between 66 and 86 for
student-athletes with GPAs between 2.0 and 2.5, according to a sliding
scale. Any score below a 66 on the ACT is a "non-qualifying" score
under the NCAA's rules.

26. Under Proposition 16, even a student-athlete with a 4.0 GPA in the
core courses who graduated first in his/her high school class would
lose a year of athletic eligibility if he/she failed to obtain the
minimum test score required.

27. Prior to the NCAA's implementation of Proposition 48,
African-American student-athletes at Division I Schools graduated at a
higher rate than African-American students in the general student body
at Division I Schools. Similarly, prior to the NCAA's implementation
of Proposition 48, Division I student-athletes as a group graduated at
a higher rate than the genera] student body. The NCAA was aware of
these facts while Proposition 48 was in effect, and prior to adopting,
implementing, and enforcing Proposition 16.

28. The weight given to the standardized college admissions tests and
the selection of the particular fixed cut-off scores required under
Proposition 48 and Proposition 16 were determined, implemented, and
enforced by the NCAA without proper validation studies and with
disregard for the unjustifiable disparate impact that the minimum test
score requirement would have on African-American student-athletes. In
1983, prior to the implementation of Proposition 48, the president of
ETS warned the NCAA that its then-proposed use of a fixed cut-off
score on the SAT would have a disproportionate impact on
African-American student-athletes and might undermine the overall
effectiveness of the effort to raise academic standards for athletes.

29. After implementing Proposition 48, the NCAA commissioned its own
research studies on the effects of Proposition 48. As ETS warned,
Proposition 48 had a discriminatory effect on African-American
student-athletes. The NCAA's reports show that 47% of the
African-American student-athletes who entered college prior to the
implementation of Proposition 48, and graduated from college, would
have been deemed ineligible to compete and receive scholarships during
their freshman year because of the minimum test score requirement.
Only 8% of the graduating white athletes from that same freshman class
would have been deemed ineligible based on their test scores.

30. Based on the results of a study performed by the Department of
Education in 1995, the fixed cut-off required under Proposition 16
will result in an even greater disproportionate impact on
African-American student-athletes. Notwithstanding the compelling data
from its own research studies, let alone the data from other outside
studies, the NCAA now requires even higher minimum test scores under
Proposition 16.


CAUSE OF ACTION

Disparate Impact Claim Under Title VI and the Administrative
Implementing Regulations Promulgated Thereunder

31. The allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1-30 above are
incorporated herein by reference, as if fully set forth here.

32. The named Plaintiffs and class members have satisfied, and will in
the future satisfy, the minimum GPA core course component of
Proposition 16. They do not, and will not, satisfy the minimum test
score component of Proposition 16.

33. The NCAA's minimum test score requirement under Proposition 16
has, and will continue to have, an unjustifiable disparate impact on
African-American student-athletes in violation of administrative
regulations promulgated under, and implementing the nondiscrimination
requirements of, Title VI. Specifically, the NCAA has violated the
regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human
Services, 45 C.F.R. Sec. 80.1, et seq. and the Department of
Education, 34 C.F.R. Sec. 100.1, et seq.

34. As a result of this unjustifiable disparate impact, the named
Plaintiffs and class members have been, and will continue to be,
denied the opportunity to compete in intercollegiate athletics at
Division I Schools during their freshman year; admission to Division I
Schools; athletic scholarships by Division I Schools (or provided with
less athletically-related financial aid); and/or recruiting
opportunities by Division I Schools (or provided with fewer recruiting
opportunities).

35. There is a strong likelihood that the named Plaintiffs and class
members will succeed on the merits of their claim; they have no
adequate remedy at law; and they have suffered and will continue to
suffer, irreparable harm if injunctive and declaratory relief is not
granted.

Requested Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court:

a. certify this action as a class action for declaratory and
injunctive relief on behalf of all present and future African-American
student-athletes who have been, or will be, denied opportunities
and/or benefits involving athletic eligibility at Division I Schools
as a result of the NCAA's adoption, implementation and/or enforcement
of the minimum test score component of Proposition 16;

b. enter a declaratory judgment, declaring that the NCAA's adoption,
implementation and/or enforcement of the minimum test score component
of Proposition 16 has had an unjustifiable discriminatory effect on
African-American student-athletes, in violation of administrative
regulations promulgated by the Department of Health and Human Services
and the Department of Education to implement the nondiscrimination
requirements of Title VI;

c. pending trial on the merits, issue a preliminary injunction
ordering Defendant, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to
cease and desist its unlawful action; to rescind the minimum test
score component of Proposition 16; to notify all Division I Schools
that any student-athlete who satisfies the minimum GPA/core course
requirement of Proposition 16 is immediately eligible under the NCAA
rules to participate in freshman intercollegiate athletics; and, with
respect to those student-athletes who have lost a year of freshman
eligibility at Division I Schools due to Proposition 16's minimum test
score requirement, to afford such student-athletes a fourth year of
eligibility under the NCAA rules, upon such student-athletes' request;

d. after a trial on the merits, issue a final and permanent injunction
ordering Defendant, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, to
cease and desist its unlawful action; to rescind the minimum test
score component of Proposition 16; to notify all Division I Schools
that any student-athlete who satisfies the minimum GPA/core course
requirement of Proposition 16 is immediately eligible under the NCAA
rules to participate in freshman intercollegiate athletics; and, with
respect to those student-athletes who have lost a year of freshman
eligibility at Division I Schools due to Proposition 16's minimum test
score requirement, to afford such student-athletes a fourth year of
eligibility under the NCAA rules, upon such student-athletes' request;

e. award Plaintiffs their costs, including reasonable attorneys' fees;
and

f. award such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary
and appropriate.

Plaintiffs, By their attorneys, TRIAL LAWYERS FOR PUBLIC JUSTICE, P.C.
and its cooperating counsel,

/s/ Andre L. Dennis Danielle Banks STRADLEY, RONON, STEVENS & YOUNG,
LLP 2600 One Commerce Square Philadelphia, PA 19103-7098 (215)
564-8000

David I. Schoen 110 West 96th Street Suite 1-B New York, NY 10025
(212) 665-4817

Adele P. Kimmel Trial Lawyers for Public Justice, P.C. 1717
Massachusetts Avenue, N.W. Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 (202)
797-8600

J. Richard Cohen Southern Poverty Law Center 400 Washington Avenue
Montgomery, AL 36104 (334) 264-0286