Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Votes to Unionize — Could Impact Brown Players’ Federal Lawsuit

Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Votes to Unionize — Could Impact Brown Players’ Federal Lawsuit

Players on the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team on Tuesday became the first college athletes to vote to join a union.

Dartmouth team members voted 13-2 in favor of the union, according to the National Labor Relations Board, which oversees union representation votes for private employers.

This season, Dartmouth men's basketball currently stands in last place in the Ivy League with a 1-12 conference record with one game remaining. 

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

The move by Dartmouth players could have implications for a federal lawsuit filed in 2023 — involving Brown University basketball players. 

As GoLocal previously reported, the two lead plaintiffs in that lawsuit are Tamenang Choh, a star on the Brown men’s basketball team who graduated in 2022, and Grace Kirk, a Brown women’s team member and presently a Brown student.

The lawsuit alleges that the eight Ivy League universities have been price fixing, as it relates to financial aid packages as none of the elite schools offer athletic scholarships.

 

Implications for Brown Players’ Lawsuit 

Choh and Kirk in their lawsuit filed a “notice of additional authority” on February 14 regarding the recent Dartmouth development. 

Specifically, through their legal counsel, they argued it is germane to their case — and defendants’ efforts to have it dismissed. 

According to their court filing: 

Plaintiffs respectfully submit this Notice of Recent Authority, relevant to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 153), that [was] issued since the briefing on this motion was completed on June 29, 2023. 

On February 5, 2024, the National Labor Relations Board’s (NLRB) Regional Director for Region 1, Laura Sacks, issued a written decision finding that Dartmouth’s men’s basketball players are employees and granting them the ability to organize under the National Labor Relations Act. 

This decision is relevant to the issue of the mode of analysis the Court should apply in analyzing the Ivy Agreement at issue in this case (supporting Plaintiffs’ argument for the application of the “per se” standard) and the sufficiency of Plaintiffs’ allegations under the relevant analysis. 

In the lawsuit — which is still pending — Choh and Kirk alleged the following:

“The suit alleges that Defendants -- the Ivy League schools' -- price-fixing agreement is per se illegal. It is a naked restraint of trade among horizontal competitors. The Ivy League Agreement has direct anticompetitive effects, raising the net price of education that Ivy League Athletes pay and suppressing compensation for the athletic services they provide to the University Defendants. Absent the Ivy League Agreement, these schools would determine unilaterally, and in competition with each other, how many athletic scholarships to provide, by sport, and in what amounts, and how much to compensate (either directly or through reimbursement of tuition, room, and board, or both) for athletic services,” according to the suit. 

And, the suit specifically outlines that the Ivy League is subject to anti-trust laws.

“The Ivy League Agreement is governed by the antitrust laws. The University Defendants operate as commercial enterprises, with each employing over 100 individuals in its athletic department or in positions relating to inter-collegiate athletic competition. The Council, the governing body of the Ivy League, coordinates the common rules, procedures, and initiatives among the University Defendants, including by setting the rules they must follow as part of the Ivy League athletic conference. The Council thus creates and enforces the rules the University Defendants agree to follow under the Ivy League Agreement,” states the suit.