Hysaw v. Washburn University of Topeka
1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12197, 1987 WL 47445, 690 F. Supp. 940 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A university athletic scholarship agreement that only promises financial aid does not create a constitutionally protected property interest in the right to participate on the team. Furthermore, reputational harm caused by a state official that hinders future athletic opportunities does not, without the loss of a more tangible interest, constitute a deprivation of a protected liberty interest.
Facts:
- Several black football players at Washburn University (Plaintiffs) received athletic scholarships for the 1986-87 school year, signing agreements that detailed financial aid but did not guarantee a spot on the team or the right to play.
- Early in the 1986 season, the plaintiffs and other black players complained to university administrators, including President John L. Green and Athletic Director Jerry Robertson, about unfulfilled scholarship promises and racial favoritism by the coaching staff.
- Unsatisfied with the university's response to their grievances, the players collectively decided to boycott team practice as a form of protest.
- On August 28, 1986, the plaintiffs did not attend football practice.
- The university administration offered to allow the players to return to the team if they met several conditions, including issuing public apologies, apologizing to the team, and participating in extra practices.
- The plaintiffs refused to comply with the administration's conditions and were subsequently dismissed from the football team.
- Despite their dismissal from the team, all plaintiffs continued to receive the full amount of financial aid specified in their scholarship agreements for the entire 1986-87 school year.
- After their dismissal, Coach Larry Elliott told a coach at another university that two of the plaintiffs were 'lazy' and 'troublemakers,' which resulted in that university deciding not to recruit them.
Procedural Posture:
- Several black football players (Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against Washburn University and several of its administrators (Defendants) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- The plaintiffs' complaint alleged racial discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, deprivation of property, liberty, and free speech rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and breach of contract.
- The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' claims without a trial.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a university athletic scholarship agreement, which only specifies terms of financial aid, create a constitutionally protected property interest in a student-athlete's right to play on the team, thereby requiring due process before dismissal?
Opinions:
Majority - Saffels, District Judge
No. A university athletic scholarship agreement that only promises financial aid does not create a constitutionally protected property interest in playing on the team. The court reasoned that under the standard from Board of Regents v. Roth, a property interest must be a 'legitimate claim of entitlement' derived from an independent source like state law or a contract, not a mere 'unilateral expectation.' Since the plaintiffs' written scholarship agreements only promised financial funds, which they received, they had no contractual entitlement to play football. The court also rejected the plaintiffs' liberty interest claim, finding that reputational damage from Coach Elliott's comments, while potentially grounds for a state law defamation suit, did not rise to a constitutional violation under Paul v. Davis because it was not accompanied by the loss of a more tangible interest. However, the court denied summary judgment on the First Amendment free speech claim, finding a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the players were dismissed for protesting racial mistreatment—a protected activity—rather than for unexcused absences.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the limited scope of a student-athlete's constitutionally protected property interests at a public university. It establishes that unless a contract explicitly guarantees a position or playing time, an athletic scholarship creates a property right only in the financial aid itself. This precedent makes it more difficult for student-athletes to challenge coaching decisions, such as dismissal from a team, using federal due process claims, channeling such disputes toward breach of contract law. The opinion also reinforces the high threshold for liberty interest claims based on reputational harm, distinguishing athletic participation from more fundamental rights like employment.
Unlock the full brief for Hysaw v. Washburn University of Topeka