Eight Nebraska football players on Thursday filed a lawsuit against the Big Ten Conference in the District Court of Lancaster County, seeking a reversal from the league on its decision to postpone the fall football season.
The lawsuit claims the decision to postpone harms the Husker players' career development opportunities. It goes on to say the postponement “has a direct and significant impact on businesses in Lancaster County and the greater Nebraska area.â€
"It's unfortunate that we're here in front of the (Lancaster County) courthouse, but my clients don't have another remedy besides filing this action here," Mike Flood, an attorney representing the football players, said in a brief news conference. "Courts are set up to find the truth, they operate under rules that are fair and courts are transparent.
"We're hopeful that today, with filing this lawsuit, we'll be able to get the answers on behalf of our clients, the student-athletes at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln."
The Big Ten's response says the lawsuit "has no merit."
The suit claims the Big Ten had a "flawed and ambiguous decision-making process,†that caused "and will continue to cause irreparable harm to the (players), for which they have no adequate remedy at law."
In the suit, the players ask the district court for an injunction that would keep the Big Ten from enforcing its postponement.
"This lawsuit isn't about money or damages," Flood said in a statement. "It's about real-life relief. These student-athletes have followed all the precautions, underwent regular testing and lived according to the guidelines of the world-class experts at (University of Nebraska Medical Center) all for the chance to play football in September.
"On Aug. 11th, six days after announcing the fall football schedule, a decision was made to cancel everything with vague reasoning and no explanation. Our Clients want to know whether there was a vote and the details of any vote, and whether the Big Ten followed its own rules in reaching its decision.
"Sadly, these student-athletes have no other recourse than filing a lawsuit against their conference."
"All along my clients, both the parents and now eight individual University of Nebraska football student-athletes, are interested in knowing how each president and chancellor voted; we're interested in knowing the discussion that was held before that vote took place; the information that the presidents and chancellors considered before they made that vote; and ultimately how each and every one of them voted," Flood said at the news conference.
"We asked for that information a week ago, and we haven't received it yet."
In a statement, the Big Ten said, "The Big Ten Conference Council of Presidents and Chancellors overwhelmingly voted to postpone the fall sports season based on medical concerns and in the best interest of the health and safety of our student-athletes. This was an important decision for our 14 member institutions and the surrounding communities.
"We share the disappointment that some student-athletes and their families are feeling. However, this lawsuit has no merit and we will defend the decision to protect all student-athletes as we navigate through this global pandemic. We are actively considering options to get back to competition and look forward to doing so when it is safe to play."
In Judge Susan Strong's courtroom Thursday afternoon, the Big Ten was given until 5 p.m. Monday to respond to the plaintiffs' request for a five-day discovery period. That request is based on the fact that the first game of the Big Ten season originally would have been played Sept. 3 and, therefore, the need for a fast-moving process is critical.Ìý
The plaintiffs pointed out that they were trying to keep the scope of their discovery requests — the documents and materials they're asking the Big Ten to produce — narrow enough that an expedited time frame shouldn't be a problem.Ìý
"We think the burden on the defendant is slight, and the need for us is great," Omaha attorney Mark C. Laughlin said.
Minneapolis-based attorney Andrew Luger, representing the Big Ten via video conference, said the motion, "is a cart-before-the-horse problem," and that the case is without merit in the first place.Ìý
"You only have a right to discovery, any discovery, if you actually have a recognizable claim," Luger said. "... These are very, very weak claims that are not supported by the law. We're looking forward to making that argument and would do it on an expedited basis."Â
Luger said the Big Ten Conference is not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests and claimed that no precedent exists for having to hand over the type of information for which the players are asking. He also said the Big Ten could prove a formal vote was taken on the decision to postpone the fall season.
The 13-page lawsuit outlines the rationale behind the claim that postponing a season means the players are without the opportunity to market themselves, set themselves up for name, image and likeness revenue — which is not allowed yet but could potentially be beginning in the near future — and damage their ability to enhance “opportunities for professional football prospects.â€
The players listed as plaintiffs in the case are Garrett Snodgrass, Garrett Nelson, Ethan Piper, Noa Pola-Gates, Alante Brown, Brant and Brig Banks and Jackson Hannah. Several of those players' parents have been at the forefront of the Nebraska Football Parents group that has been vocal about wanting an explanation from the league and a reversal of its decision.Ìý
The suit also casts doubt on whether the Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors ever formally voted on the decision to postpone, citing several comments from league administrators. Since most of those comments have been made, UNL Chancellor Ronnie Green has said emphatically that there was a formal vote and that it was not unanimous, though a formal tally has not been publicized.
The suit also claims the Big Ten is in breach of contract. It claims, "The Big Ten has a duty of good faith and fair dealing not to render arbitrary and capricious decisions that are based on flawed and/or incomplete data which negatively impact the (plaintiffs)."
Flood and his co-counsel, Laughlin and Pat Cooper of Fraser Stryker Law Firm in Omaha, did not take any questions at the news conference.