Subscribe to School Law Newsletter
Close Window

Court Rules In Athlete Hazing Case

When does a team-building activity, designed to increase camaraderie, cross the line into impermissible hazing?  The court in the case of Cameron v. Univ.  of Toledo, 2016-Ohio-8142, addressed this very issue in a highly instructive case for school officials.

The case involved a freshman football player who was participating in voluntary conditioning for the University of Toledo. At the end of one session, the offensive lineman stayed to participate in “The O-Line Challenge” or “Freshman Olympics,” which consisted of a series of games “designed to be fun, comical, and silly in the sense that the rather large offensive linemen would compete in games that in many ways resembled children’s play activities.” Cameron at ¶ 2. “The games included such things as a dance competition, wheelbarrow race, bear crawl, worm crawl, the gauntlet, kick a bag, tackle a bag, and a goal post crossbar dunk.” Cameron at ¶ 2. “It is during plaintiff’s attempt to dunk a football over the goal post crossbar that he received his injuries” as “[h]e decided to get a running start and step onto another player’s back and then leap for the crossbar.” Cameron at ¶ 3. “He succeeded in catching the crossbar but slipped off, falling backward to the ground, hitting his head.” Cameron at ¶ 3. Plaintiff filed suit alleging, among other things, a hazing claim based on Ohio’s anti-hazing statute.

In order to state a hazing claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he was coerced into participating; (2) in an act of initiation; (3) which posed a substantial risk of physical harm; and (4) the school or official had knowledge of the occurrence of hazing. Very few cases have interpreted Ohio’s anti-hazing statute so the court’s decision is particularly illuminating for school officials as the court examined each of the elements in plaintiff’s hazing claim. To view another hazing case that McGown & Markling sucessfully handled, please click here to access the case studies portion of our website

  1. Coercion – The court found that “[t]here is no evidence of [force or] a threat of any kind made towards plaintiff or any other player prior to or during the ‘Olympic’” as to coerce the plaintiff’s participation because the conditioning drills and “Olympics” were voluntary and no player “could cite any specific repercussions for missing” either. Cameron at ¶ 19.
  1. Initiation – “The court [found] that the ‘Olympic’ [was] not [an] act[] of initiation as plaintiff was already a member of the team. He was already exercising and practicing with the offensive line and there is no evidence that his participation in the ‘Olympics’ had any effect whatsoever on his status as a team member or offensive lineman.” Cameron at ¶ 36.
  1. Substantial Risk of Harm – The court found that “[i]t is clear that most of the activities performed during the ‘Olympics’ posed little to no threat of harm to the participants. Certainly, the wheelbarrow race, dance competition, bear crawl, and worm crawl are not dangerous activities. In fact, they likely posed a lesser risk of harm to plaintiff than full-contact practice or game scenarios.” Cameron at ¶ 42.
  1. Knowledge of Alleged Hazing – The court acknowledged that the staff was aware that the athletes were participating in the “Olympics.” However, “[i]n the court’s view the games in the ‘Olympics’ [* * *] were [not hazing and were] nothing more than aspects of team-building activities” and were “intended to produce nothing more than successful, close-knit collegiate sports teams.” Cameron at ¶ 41.

The anti-hazing statute also provides an affirmative defense where the school is “actively enforcing a policy against hazing.” In specifically finding that the affirmative defense applied in this case, the court noted that the university had an anti-hazing policy in effect; students could face discipline for violating the policy; the student-athlete handbook, which the athletes signed, prohibited hazing; the university sent an email to the entire student body warning about hazing; the athletic director instructed the students about the code of conduct; and the university conducted thorough investigations into allegations of hazing, which sometimes resulted in disciplinary measures.

Based on these active steps, the court found that the university actively enforced its hazing policy and, therefore, had an affirmative defense to the hazing claim. School officials are strongly advised to regularly review, revise, advertise, and enforce their anti-hazing policies in order to access this defense. For assistance with your anti-hazing policy, please contact one of our McGown & Markling attorneys.

To read this case, please click here.

Authors: Matthew John Markling and Patrick Vrobel

Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.