Conard v. University of Washington
| Decision Date | 06 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 58719-1,58719-1 |
| Citation | 834 P.2d 17,119 Wn.2d 519 |
| Parties | , 76 Ed. Law Rep. 584 Kevin CONARD and Vincent Fudzie, Petitioners, v. The UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON; Don James and Jane Doe James, husband and wife, and the marital community composed thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Larry J. Landry, Seattle, for petitioners.
Kenneth Eikenberry, Atty. Gen. and Lloyd W. Peterson, Senior Asst. Atty. Gen., Seattle, for respondents.
In February 1983, petitioners Kevin Conard and Vincent Fudzie (plaintiffs) were recruited by the University of Washington (UW) to play football. Both plaintiffs signed national letters of intent and received offers of athletic financial assistance for three consecutive quarters commencing the first day of class of the fall quarter of the 1983 academic year. After signing letters of intent, student athletes who transfer to another university lose 2 years of athletic eligibility. Each offer of financial assistance covered tuition, compulsory fees, room and board, and course-related books, and each had the following provision regarding renewal:
This assistance will be considered for renewal during subsequent periods of attendance as long as you are a student in good standing, maintain normal progress toward graduation and are in compliance with all eligibility requirements of this institution, the Pacific-10, and the NCAA [National Collegiate Athletic Association].
The offers also stated the assistance "may be gradated or terminated only in accordance with the legislation of the NCAA, principal details of which appear on the attached sheet." The following NCAA rules were attached and signed by Conard, Fudzie, and their guardians:
2. Financial aid shall not be revoked or altered during any period for which it has been granted except that the University may revoke aid in whole or in part if the student:
a. is rendered ineligible for intercollegiate competition; or
b. fraudulently misrepresents any information on the application for admission, letter-of-intent or tender; or
c. engages in serious misconduct warranting substantial disciplinary penalty; or
d. voluntarily withdraws from a sport for personal reasons.
Any such gradation or cancellation of aid is permissible only if such action is taken for proper cause by the regular disciplinary or scholarship awards authorities of the institution and the student-athlete has had an opportunity for a hearing. Under (d) above, such gradation or cancellation of aid may not occur prior to the conclusion of the academic term.
. . . . .
4. After completion of the above stated period of this award, upon the recommendation of the Head Coach, the Director of Athletics, and the Faculty Representative, the Committee on Financial Aid will consider granting renewal of the assistance, providing you (1) meet the academic requirements of the National Collegiate Athletic Association, the Pacific-10/Nor Pac Conference and the University, and (2) are a student in good standing in every respect as determined by the rules, regulations and administrative decisions of the University, the Pacific-10/Nor Pac Conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association.
The Department of Intercollegiate Athletics (DIA) makes recommendations regarding the renewal and nonrenewal of athletic scholarships. The DIA policies and procedure manual provides:
If a coach wishes to withdraw a recommendation for financial aid at anytime, justification within the rules of the Conference and the Associations (AIAW/NCAA) must be fully established. Each student-athlete is entitled to due process and if the student-athlete requests an appeal as well as a hearing, one will be provided.
The opportunity for a hearing is also set forth in section 3-4-(g) of the NCAA constitution.
In the latter event [a decision of nonrenewal], the institution also shall inform the student-athlete that if he or she believes the grant has not been renewed for questionable reasons, the student-athlete may request, and shall have the opportunity for, a hearing before the institutional agency making the financial award. The institution shall have established reasonable procedures for the prompt hearing of such a request.
Both plaintiffs allege they understood their scholarships were for 4 or 5 years depending on whether they were asked not to play or "redshirt" their freshman years. Both stated it is "commonly understood" that such scholarships are to last at least 4 years and neither had heard of an athlete whose scholarship had been "revoked". Each stated his understanding was based upon
the offers of aid which I signed, which indicated that as long as I complied with certain criteria as set out in the Offer of Financial Aid and other documentation that my aid would be renewed, and as stated above, the custom of these types of agreements.
Eric S. Godfrey is the Assistant Vice President for Student Affairs, the Director of Financial Aid, and the Chairman of UW's Athletic Financial Aid Committee which hears appeals from athletes whose awards are not renewed. Godfrey stated that "the commitment on the part of the University- , in compliance with the NCAA regulations, is if the student meets these conditions, the aid will be renewed for the next academic period." Both Godfrey and Don James, the head coach of the UW football team, stated that in order for the committee not to renew a student's athletic financial aid there needed to be a finding of serious misconduct.
However, serious misconduct is not defined by any UW, NCAA, or Pac-10 rule or regulation contained in the record. James testified there are no written guidelines as to what constitutes serious misconduct, and it is up to the discretion of the coach and the "financial aid people" on a case-by-case basis to determine whether certain acts constituted serious misconduct. Godfrey stated whether conduct constituted serious misconduct is evaluated generally in light of UW's student conduct code and specifically by the team rules promulgated by James.
The team rules are outlined by James for the players at the beginning of every season and represent broad guidelines governing general conduct, conduct in the dressing room, conduct at practice, and conduct dealing with the press, procedures regarding injuries, and a prohibition on gambling. The rules begin with the following statement:
The following general rules are for your benefit. Since it is impossible to cover every point or eventuality in a statement of team policy such as this, you are expected to conduct yourself at all times in a manner that will reflect credit upon you, your teammates, the football program, and the University of Washington.
In the fall 1983, plaintiffs matriculated at UW and joined the football team playing on the fifth string. There were a series of incidents involving the plaintiffs, individually and together, between that time and December 1985 when James removed them from the team and told them he would not recommend the renewal of their scholarships. The fact that the incidents, themselves, took place is not disputed, although particular aspects of the events are in dispute.
First, in November 1983, UW police notified James that Conard had been arrested for using a stolen student food credit card. James alleges that neither player denied using the card, and Fudzie states that he knew about it. James alleges he warned both players that "subsequent actions by them might result in ... a loss of their athletic scholarships." No formal disciplinary proceedings were brought by UW.
Next, in 1984 there were several incidents involving plaintiffs. In one incident UW police informed James that Fudzie had punched out some windows in a residence hall. Fudzie admitted the damage and paid restitution. On a separate occasion, it was reported that Fudzie entered a student's room and assaulted a student. In another incident, Fudzie and Conard were reported to have entered a student's room and threatened the student with bodily harm. James alleges he counseled both players as to these incidents and again warned them that if such behavior continued, they could lose their scholarships.
Also in 1984, plaintiffs attempted to extort money from a female student by blackmailing her with photographs taken while she was engaged in sexual acts with another student. As a result of the incident, plaintiffs spent a weekend in jail on charges of extortion, but no further action was taken. James again counseled the players and warned them that unless they stayed out of trouble he would not recommend the renewal of their scholarships.
In 1985, James counseled Conard for his lack of respect for and unacceptable behavior towards service and equipment personnel. Conard was also counseled for his failure to report an injury to the trainers pursuant to the team rules. Both conversations resulted in a further warning to Conard as to the probability of the nonrenewal of his scholarship.
Finally, in December 1985, the UW football team traveled to Anaheim, California to participate in the Freedom Bowl. On the morning of December 22, plaintiffs did not report for practice with the rest of the team. Plaintiffs were later found to have spent the night in jail at the Santa Ana Police Department as the result of an altercation at a restaurant the previous evening. The police report conflicts with the account of the events given by plaintiffs. The police report states that plaintiffs were asked to leave and then escorted out of the restaurant by police for violating theestablishment's dress code; while leaving, they challenged the police officers to a fight; and when the police attempted to arrest plaintiffs after they left the restaurant and were driving away, they resisted arrest. Fudzie stated that the restaurant had a policy of racial exclusion, that the officers assaulted Fudzie and Conard, who are African...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston Cnty.
...property interests include all benefits to which there is a ' "legitimate claim of entitlement".' " Id. (quoting Conard v. Univ. of Wash, 119 Wn.2d 519, 529, 834 P.2d 17 (1992) (quoting Bd. of Regents of State Colls. v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed. 2d 548 (1972) ) ). It ......
-
Hue v. Farmboy Spray Co., Inc.
...merchantability. Ex. 3E, at 18. 20 We cannot presume to make an argument a party fails to make. See, e.g., Conard v. University of Washington, 119 Wash.2d 519, 537, 834 P.2d 17 (1992) (declined to decide inadequately briefed constitutional issue), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 827, 114 S.Ct. 91, 1......
-
Durland v. San Juan Cnty.
...Protected property interests include all benefits to which there is a “ ‘legitimate claim of entitlement’.” Conard v. Univ. of Wash., 119 Wash.2d 519, 529, 834 P.2d 17 (1992) (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. 2701 ). In Roth, the Supreme Court explained,To have a property interest in......
-
Schlosser v. Bethel Sch. Dist.
...claim of entitlement where it places substantive procedural restrictions on a decision maker's discretion. Conard v. Univ. of Wash., 119 Wash.2d 519, 529–30, 834 P.2d 17 (1992); Crescent Convalescent Ctr., 87 Wash.App. at 358, 942 P.2d 981. Substantive procedural restrictions are those rest......
-
Which Constitution? Eleven Years of Gunwall in Washington State
...50. See Foley v. Department of Fisheries, 119 Wash. 2d 783, 837 P.2d 14 (1992). 51. See Conrad v. University of Wash., 119 Wash. 2d 519, 834 P.2d 17 (1992); Bedford v. Sugarman, 112 Wash. 2d 500, 772 P.2d 486 (1989). 52. See Harris v. Department of Labor and Indus., 120 Wash. 2d 461, 843 P.......