Information contained on this site is for informational or amusement purposes only. Nothing written is intended to be
legal advice or legal counsel. All original work is protected by applicable copyright laws. Thank you.
The story highlights the potential legal exposure for schools that don’t have pregnancy policies for athletes. One story is that of Tara Brady, a student at Sacred Heart University in Connecticut, who sued her former basketball coach for discrimination, claiming that she was told to “go home . . . because her pregnancy would be a ‘distraction’ to the team.” As Rainey’s article reports: “According to the lawsuit, Ms. Brady had requested a ‘medical redshirt,’ a status like that given to injured athletes, to allow her an additional year of eligibility. But she claimed that her coach never redshirted her, and that the university revoked her scholarship.” The University settled with Ms. Brady for an unspecified sum. This type of claim is likely the most common schools without pregnancy policies would face – but the article hints at what could be an even more disastrous result for a university (from a damages perspective): pregnant athletes who are unaware of the effect their status will have on their scholarships who as a result hide their pregnancies (and fail to seek prenatal care), or seek abortions.
Elizabeth Sorenson, Faculty Athletics Representative (FAR) at Wright State University in Dayton, has proposed the NCAA develop a pregnancy policy. Professor Sorenson hosted an on-line discussion on the issue yesterday, which can be found here. In a nutshell the WSU policy calls on athletes to notify their coaches of pregnancy status, to refrain from withdrawing from their sport, and establishes a support group to counsel a pregnant athlete and oversee continued participation (I’ve e-mailed Professor Sorenson for a copy of the policy and will update this post once I’ve had a chance to look at it). The NCAA has not acted on her proposal, according to the Chronicle.
Such a policy seems like a good short term legal strategy to avoid potential liabilities. In the long run, however, might adopting a “maternity-leave”-like policy for pregnant college athletes start to make it difficult to argue that the “economic realities” of college athletics are not those of an employer-employee relationship? As a result, might college athletes be able to demand the right to unionize, and / or get paid? Of course, that might be a good thing, as Greg argues here.
-- Posted by Geoffrey Rapp @ 5/26/2006 11:41:00 AM --
Comments (3) --
Post a Comment
3 Comments:
I don’t support “pregnancy policies” that dictate strict prohibitions on pregnant athletes. Besides the fact that it is demeaning to take the choice of when to withdraw from a sport away from the athlete, there isn’t medical science to back it up. Old wives’ tales that you need to "take it easy" during pregnancy are being discounted. New studies show that by maintaining your exercise regime you will have a healthier pregnancy and easier child birth. Women used to be told to keep their heart rate below 140, but now doctors are recognizing that this has to be an individual decision. I am 16 weeks pregnant and the goalie for my university’s club lacrosse team. I plan on playing as long as I fit in my protective pads.
I don't think that pregnant athletes should be able to retain their scholarships. What kind of message is it sending out? That you can do whatever you want and there are never any consequences for your actions? That it's okay to be promiscuous because you know that you can keep your scholarship and collect welfare and not be there for the baby who happens to be your responsibility because you're too busy taking classes and competing in sports?
View Michael McCann's LinkedIn Profile
