Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, CLASS ACTIONS—E.D. Cal.: Class certified against NCAA for potential Sherman Act violations due to volunteer coaches, (Mar 17, 2025)

By Seth Abrams, J.D., M.A.

The court also denied the NCAA’s motion to exclude plaintiffs’ damages expert.

The federal district court in Sacramento, California denied the NCAA’s motion to exclude expert evidence and granted a motion for certification of a class of volunteer coaches at Division I schools. The court found that plaintiffs’ expert report from Dr. Orley Ashenfelter was sufficiently reliable at this stage. The NCAA’s additional arguments go to the weight of the evidence and were not a basis for exclusion. The court also found that class certification was warranted under Rule 23(a) and 23(b). Under 23(a), it concluded that numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy were all met. Under 23(b), it found that common issues predominate, and a class action was the superior method for adjudicating the issues (Ray v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 1:23-cv-00425 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 11, 2025)).

Background. NCAA bylaws limit the number of coaches that Division I schools—those with the largest budgets and most athletic scholarships—can hire in each sport. Prior to 2023, Division I programs, with few exceptions, were permitted to hire a certain number of “unrestricted coaches”—with no limits on compensation—plus one or two “volunteer coaches.” The bylaw at issue in this matter, NCAA Bylaw 11.01.06 (“Volunteer Coach Bylaw”), defined a volunteer coach as “any coach who does not receive compensation or renumeration from the school’s athletics department.” In July 2023, the NCAA repealed the Volunteer Coach Bylaw, and the number of unrestricted coaches was increased, typically by the number of volunteer coaches that had been allowed under the prior rule. Plaintiffs brought this putative class action against the NCAA alleging that the Volunteer Coach Bylaw violated section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Daubertmotion to exclude. The NCAA sought to exclude the expert report of Dr. Ashenfelter pursuant to Daubert. Dr. Ashenfelter, an emeritus professor of economics at Princeton, formulated “a statistical model to estimate the damages suffered by members of the proposed class.” He relied upon wage data from hundreds of NCAA Division I schools, focusing on those expanding the coaching staff upon repeal of the Volunteer Coach Bylaw. The model uses this data to estimate the “but-for” compensation class members would have received.

The court found that it was undisputed that Dr. Ashenfelter had experience and qualifications in the field of labor economics and based his analysis on a review of reliable documentation. It also found that the regression analysis used was a well-established method for calculating class-wide antitrust impact. These factors “indicate that his evidence is sufficiently reliable at this stage.” The NCAA raised several additional factors absent from his analysis, such as calculations that “did not incorporate experience level as a variable” and did not address potential selection bias in the sample. The court found that these factors went to the weight of the evidence and not its admissibility. Accordingly, it denied the NCAA’s motion to exclude Dr. Ashenfelter’s expert report.

Class certification. The proposed class consists of “all persons who, from March 17, 2019, to June 30, 2023, worked for an NCAA Division I sports program other than baseball in the position of ‘volunteer coach,’ as designated by NCAA Bylaws.” Starting first with the requirements of Rule 23(a), the court found that numerosity was met as plaintiffs have presented evidence that the putative class numbers in the thousands. As to commonality, it concluded that the question as to whether the Volunteer Coach Bylaw violated antitrust law is common to the entire class. Typicality was met as “each class representative—like each class member—worked as a volunteer coach at an NCAA Division I school, was subject to the NCAA’s Volunteer Coach Bylaw precluding them from receiving compensation, and alleges antitrust injury under the Sherman Act.” The court found adequacy of representation as there were no conflicts precluding class certification and the claims have been pursued vigorously.

Under 23(b), the court found that it was “undisputed that there are common questions concerning the existence of an antitrust violation.” The NCAA did not establish that “individualized inquiries into damages would predominate over the common issues.” As to superiority, the court found that it was “unlikely” that individual damages would be high enough to make individual litigation efficient. Class-wide adjudication will lower costs and promote efficiency. As a result, the superiority requirement was satisfied, and the court certified the class.

The Case is No. 1:23-cv-00425.

Judge: Shubb, W.

Attorneys: Abou Amara (Gustafson Gluek PLLC) for Shannon Ray. Carolyn Luedtke (Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP) for National Collegiate Athletic Association.

Companies: National Collegiate Athletic Association

Cases: ClassActions EvidenceDiscovery CaliforniaNews