[House Report 109-393]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 109-393
======================================================================
NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
_______
March 15, 2006.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Sensenbrenner, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1176]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1176) to provide immunity for nonprofit athletic
organizations in lawsuits arising from claims of ordinary
negligence relating to the passage, adoption, or failure to
adopt rules of play for athletic competitions and practices,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon without
amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 5
Committee Consideration.......................................... 5
Vote of the Committee............................................ 6
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 6
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 6
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 6
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 7
Constitutional Authority Statement............................... 7
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion....................... 7
Markup Transcript................................................ 9
Dissenting Views................................................. 21
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1176, the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection
Act of 2006,'' was introduced by Representative Souder on March
8, 2005. The legislation is intended to stem the growing threat
of lawsuits against organizations ranging from youth sport's
baseball Little Leagues to high school sports rule-making
bodies. The bill exempts nonprofit athletic organizations and
their officers and employees acting in their official capacity
from liability for harm caused by a negligent act or omission
of such organization in the adoption of rules of play for
sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices. The
general protection preempts inconsistent State laws but makes
exceptions for certain State laws requiring adherence to risk
management and training procedures, State general respondeat
superior laws, or State laws waiving liability limits in cases
brought by any officer of the State or local government. The
language mirrors provisions of the ``Volunteer Protection Act''
(VPA).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14501 et. seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Need for the Legislation
H.R. 1176 extends the liability protections already
provided by Congress in the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997 to
nonprofit athletic rule-making organizations. The extension of
these liability protections reflects Congress' recognition that
America's long tradition of volunteerism and generosity has
been undermined by costly and often frivolous litigation. In
recent decades, actual lawsuits and fears of liability have
increasingly become a deterrent to people who might otherwise
have given of their time or resources to better their community
and country.
HISTORY OF VOLUNTEER LIABILITY PROTECTIONS
The common law of all 50 States allows individuals to
collect monetary damages in tort for personal injury or
property damage caused by another person's negligence or
willful conduct. Virtually all of these States have recognized
the need to encourage good works and volunteerism by protecting
volunteers and nonprofit organizations from tort liability for
accidents that arise in the normal course of their dealings.
For example, New Jersey provides that charities and the
volunteers they utilize are immune from liability for ordinary
negligence.\2\ In Kansas, a volunteer or nonprofit organization
is immune from liability for negligence if the organization
carries general liability insurance coverage.\3\ Ohio offers
broad immunity for volunteers of charitable organizations.\4\
Wisconsin State law limits the liability of volunteers of non-
stock corporations organized under Chapter 181.\5\ Georgia
grants immunity for members, directors, officers, and trustees
of charities from negligence claims asserted by beneficiaries
of the charity.\6\ These States' efforts reflect a broader
national consensus that volunteers and volunteer organizations
should be protected from legal liability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. Sec. 2A: 53A-7 to 7.1.
\3\ Kan. Stat. Ann. Sec. 60-3601.
\4\ Ohio. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 2305.38.
\5\ Wis. Stat. Sec. Sec. 181.0670.
\6\ Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 51-1-20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress recognized this national consensus and held
hearings examining this subject in 1997.\7\ Those hearings
showed that in addition to causing potential volunteers to stay
at home or refrain from certain needed activities, liability
and the fear of liability for volunteer activities had very
real financial impacts, including dramatically rising costs for
liability insurance premiums for volunteer organizations. These
increased premiums have practical consequences: the Executive
Director of the Girl Scout Council of Washington, D.C. stated
that ``locally we must sell 87,000 boxes of . . . Girl Scout
cookies each year to pay for [our] liability insurance.'' \8\
Furthermore, Dr. Thomas Jones, Managing Director of the
Washington, D.C. office of Habitat for Humanity, testified that
``[t]here are Habitat affiliate boards for whom the largest
single administrative cost is the perceived necessity of
purchasing liability insurance to protect board members. These
are moneys which otherwise would be used to build more houses
[for] more persons in need.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Volunteer Liability Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R.
1167 Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997).
\8\ H.R. Rep. No. 105-101, at 6 (1997).
\9\ Volunteer Liability Legislation: Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R.
1167, supra, 105th Cong. at 56.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These concerns prompted Congress to pass the Volunteer
Protection Act (VPA), which was signed into law by President
Clinton on June 18, 1997.\10\ The VPA protects ``volunteers''
\11\ for incidents that arise in the scope of their work, but
it does not provide liability protection for willful, reckless,
or criminal conduct or gross negligence. The Act limits
punitive damages and non-economic damages for those individuals
found liable.\12\ However, the VPA does not protect nonprofit
organizations and government entities themselves from liability
for negligence of their volunteers unless State law provides
``charitable immunity'' for such organizations.\13\ Hence,
under the common law doctrine of respondeat superior, volunteer
organizations and entities are still generally vicariously
liable for the negligence of their employees and volunteers.
Also, volunteers that operate motor vehicles, vessels, or
aircraft are not protected by the VPA.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Pub. L. No. 105-19 (1997).
\11\ ``Volunteer'' is defined in the VPA as a person who performs
services for a non-profit and who receives no more than $500 per year
for such services. 24 U.S.C. Sec. 14505(6).
\12\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 14503(e), 14504.
\13\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 14502(a), 14503(c).
\14\ 42 U.S.C. Sec. 14503(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The passage of the VPA has not ended the problem of
liability and its associated costs for volunteers and the non-
profit organizations that support them. Hence, the Committee
has held hearings \15\ in recent years about various aspects of
this problem and has advanced several pieces of legislation
\16\ designed to limit liability for volunteers and volunteer,
non-profit, or charitable organizations. For example, in the
107th Congress, the House-passed version of the ``Charitable
Choice Act of 2001,'' H.R. 7, contained provisions limiting
liability for persons or entities who donated equipment to
charitable organizations.\17\ In the 108th Congress, the House
overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1787, the ``Good Samaritan Volunteer
Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003,'' which extends certain
liability protections to those who donate equipment to
volunteer fire stations, by a vote of 397-3.\18\ The provisions
of that Act are now included as Section 125 of the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005, which was signed
into law on March 9, 2006.\19\ On the same day, the House also
overwhelmingly passed H.R. 1084, the ``Volunteer Pilot
Organization Protection Act,'' by a vote of 385-12.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ See, e.g., Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act
of 2003, the Non Profit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003,
and the Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act: Hearing Before the
House Comm. on the Judiciary on H.R. 1787, H.R. 3369, and H.R.
1084,108th Cong. (2004); State and Local Implementation of Existing
Charitable Choice Programs, 107th Cong. 13 (2001); Volunteer Liability
Legislation, Hearing on H.R. 911 and H.R. 1167 Before the House
Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong. (1997); and Health Care Reform
Issues: Antitrust Medical Malpractice Liability and Volunteer
Liability, Hearing on H.R. 911, H.R. 2925, H.R. 2938 Before the House
Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong. (1995).
\16\ See,e.g., H.R. 911, 105th Cong. (1997); H.R. 1167, 105th Cong.
(1997); H.R. 7, 107th Cong. (2001); H.R. 1787, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R.
3369, 108th Cong. (2003); H.R. 1084, 108th Cong. (2003); and H.R. 3736,
109th Cong. (2005).
\17\ H.R. 7, 107th Cong. Sec. 401 (2001).
\18\ 150 Cong. Rec. H7097 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004).
\19\ 151 Cong. Rec. H11289 (daily ed. Dec. 8, 2005), Pub. L. No.
109-177.
\20\ 150 Cong. Rec. H7098 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most recently, the House passed the ``Katrina Volunteer
Protection Act of 2005,'' H.R. 3736, by voice vote on September
14, 2005.\21\ This bill extends liability protections to any
person or entity that voluntarily rendered aid in the wake of
Hurricane Katrina, provided that the harm was not caused by
willful, wanton, reckless, or criminal conduct.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 151 Cong. Rec. H7887 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE NONPROFIT ATHLETIC ORGANIZATION PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
H.R. 1176, the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection
Act of 2006,'' is intended to stem the growing threat of
lawsuits against sports rulemaking bodies. Rulemaking bodies
play a critical role in facilitating all levels and all types
of sports. Nonprofit rulemaking bodies use the expertise of
experienced volunteers to set forth rules for athletic
competitions and practices that attempt to preserve sports
traditions and minimize risks to participants. However, this
rulemaking function is a predictive endeavor without the
benefit of perfect foresight, and sports involve inherent
risks.\22\ Thus, when the inevitable accidents do occur,
nonprofit rulemaking bodies are often sued along with the local
school district, coach, and referee because such organizations
are presumed to have ``deep pockets.'' This growing trend of
lawsuits has led to a dramatic increase in the insurance
premiums for many rulemaking associations. For example, the
National High School Federation, which develops rules for 17
different sports, saw a 300 percent increase for insurance
premiums over just 3 years.\23\ This increase means that
insurance premiums now make up over 10 percent of the
Federation's annual budget.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Good Samaritan Volunteer Firefighter Assistance Act of 2003,
the Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2003, and the
Volunteer Pilot Organization Protection Act: Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 12 (2004) (testimony of Robert F.
Kanaby, Executive Director of the National Federation of High School
Associations).
\23\ Id.
\24\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If this trend continues, these rulemaking authorities may
be driven out of existence and amateur sports would suffer.
Typical bodily injury cases cost over $25,000 in legal fees--
even when the case is ultimately dismissed.\25\ As a result,
organizations are unable to find a provider of insurance
willing to offer them coverage because of their exposure to
millions of potential litigants (high school athletes).\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Id. at 22.
\26\ Id. at 24-25.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1176 addresses this insurance reality by mirroring the
Volunteer Protection Act and exempting nonprofit athletic
organizations from liability only for harm caused by an act or
omission of such organization in the adoption of rules of play
(and not in any other context) for sanctioned or approved
athletic competitions or practices. This legislation does
provide a blanket grant of immunity; rather nonprofit athletic
rulemaking organizations could still be held liable for any
grossly negligent or reckless, willful, or criminal acts or
omissions in the formulation of these rules of play. The
athletic organizations covered are defined by both their IRS
nonprofit status and those with a primary function of setting
rules for competitions. Also covered are employees of such
organizations acting in the scope of their official duties. The
liability protections have limiting exceptions to ensure the
organization meets any certification or licensing requirements,
and that the harm was not caused by willful or criminal
misconduct or gross negligence on the part of the organization.
The general protection preempts inconsistent State laws but
makes exceptions for certain State laws requiring adherence to
risk management and training procedures, State general
respondeat superior laws, or State laws waiving liability
limits in cases brought by an officer of the State or local
government.
The predecessor bill to H.R. 1176, H.R. 3369, received
majority support (217-176) in the House of Representatives in
the 108th Congress.\27\ Because the bill was brought up on
suspension of the rules and failed to achieve the requisite
two-thirds support, it did not pass. However, a new provision,
subsection 4(d), has been added to the bill to address the
concerns of some Members that the liability protections be
clearly directed at personal injury claims.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ 150 Cong. Rec. H7096 (daily ed. Sept. 14, 2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 1176 is supported by, among others, the National
Federation of State High School Associations; the National
Collegiate Athletic Association; the National Council of Youth
Sports; the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States (AAU);
Little League Baseball; Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc.; USA
Baseball; USA Softball; and the Women's Sports Foundation.
Hearings
The full Committee on the Judiciary held no hearings on
H.R. 1176 in the 109th Congress. However, the full Committee on
the Judiciary held a hearing on a nearly identical bill, H.R.
3369, in the 108th Congress, at which testimony was received
from Mr. Robert Kanaby, Executive Director of the National
Federation of State High School Associations, and Professor
Andrew F. Popper, of the American University and Washington
College of Law.
Committee Consideration
On March 2, 2006, the Committee met in open session and
ordered favorably reported the bill H.R. 1176 by voice vote, a
quorum being present.
Vote of the Committee
In compliance with clause 3(b) of Rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee notes that there
were no recorded votes during the Committee consideration of
H.R. 1176.
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of Rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of Rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 1176, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, March 10, 2006.
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1176, the
``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Gregory
Waring (for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and
Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be
reached at 225-3220.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1176--Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006.
H.R. 1176 would provide immunity to nonprofit athletic
organizations such as Little League and school sports programs
from liability in certain civil suits alleging harm from an act
or omission of such an organization in the adoption of rules
for athletic competitions or practices.
CBO estimates that implementing the legislation would
result in no significant costs to the Federal Government.
Enacting H.R. 1176 would not affect direct spending or
revenues.
H.R. 1176 contains an intergovernmental mandate as defined
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), but CBO estimates
that the resulting costs, if any, would not be significant and
would be well below the threshold for intergovernmental
mandates established in that act ($64 million in 2006, adjusted
annually for inflation). This bill contains no new private-
sector mandates as defined in UMRA.
H.R. 1176 contains an intergovernmental mandate because it
would preempt certain state liability laws. Specifically, the
bill would exempt nonprofit athletic organizations from
liability under state tort laws for certain injuries that may
occur during practice or competitions. CBO estimates that the
costs, if any, would not be significant and would be well below
the threshold established in UMRA.
The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Gregory Waring
(for Federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and
Melissa Merrell (for the state and local impact), who can be
reached at 225-3220. This estimate was approved by Peter H.
Fontaine, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
Rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
H.R.1176, will provide limited liability protection for
nonprofit athletic organizations and their officers operating
within the scope of their official capacity.
Constitutional Authority Statement
Pursuant to clause 3(d)(1) of Rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for
this legislation in art. I, Sec. 8 of the Constitution.
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Section 1. Short Title
Section 1 provides that H.R. 1176 may be cited as the
``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act of 2006.''
Section 2. Findings
Section 2 sets forth eight Congressional findings regarding
the role amateur athletics plays in the overall health and
well-being of America's youth. The findings also note that
rules and rule-making bodies are essential for the development
of amateur athletics, and that these rules and rule-making
bodies have become the focus of a large number of lawsuits.
Section 3. Definitions
Section 3 sets forth the operative definitions for the Act.
Those definitions are identical to those found in the Volunteer
Protection Act, 14 U.S.C. Sec. 14505, with one addition: the
term ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization.'' That term is defined
as nonprofit organization (as that term is defined in Section
401(c)(3) of the Tax Code) that has as one of its primary
functions the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved
athletic competitions and practices. The term includes the
employees, agents, and volunteers of such organization,
provided such individuals are acting within the scope of their
duties with the nonprofit athletic organization.
Section 4. Limitation on Liability for Nonprofit Athletic Organizations
Section 4 creates ordinary negligence liability protection
for nonprofit athletic organizations for lawsuits arising out
of their rulemaking function in setting the rules for athletic
competitions. This protection does not apply when harm was
caused by gross negligence or willful, criminal, or reckless
misconduct by the organization. These protections are identical
to those contained within the Volunteer Protection Act, 42
U.S.C. Sec. 14503, and only protect against negligent actions
and decisions of a nonprofit athletic organization related to
enacting a ``rule of play,'' as opposed to a rule related to
hiring or eligibility. This protection does not apply when
certain State law requirements are in effect and such
requirements have not been met.
Subsection 4(a) provides that a nonprofit athletic
organization shall not be liable for harm caused by an act or
omission of such an organization in the adoption of rules of
play for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or
practices if it was acting within the scope of its duties at
the time of the adoption of the rules; it met the applicable
State licensing, certification or authorization requirements;
and the harm was not caused by willful or criminal misconduct,
gross negligence, or reckless misconduct on the part of the
nonprofit athletic organization. Nothing in this subsection
would preclude a suit against a coach or referee, or the
organization that hired such coach or referee, for claims of
molestation or sexual battery.
Subsection 4(b) provides that nothing in the act shall be
construed to affect a lawsuit brought by a covered nonprofit
athletic organization against any employee, agent, or volunteer
of the organization. This section does not preclude a lawsuit
by an employee, agent, or volunteer against the nonprofit
athletic organization, provided that the suit is not related to
the adoption of rules of play as provided in subsection 4(a).
Subsection 4(c) provides that if the laws of a State limit
the liability of a nonprofit athletic organization subject to
the following conditions, those conditions must still be met by
the organization to enjoy protection: (1) a State law that
requires such organization to adhere to risk management
procedures; (2) a State (respondeat superior) law that makes
such an organization liable for the acts or omissions of its
employees, agents, and volunteers to the same extent any
employer is liable for acts or omissions of its employees; or
(3) a State law that makes a limitation on liability
inapplicable if the civil action was brought by an officer of a
State or local government pursuant to State or local law.
Subsection 4(d) provides that this Act shall not apply to
any claims arising out of Federal, State, or local antitrust,
labor, environmental, defamation, tortious interference of
contract law, or civil rights law, or any other Federal, State,
or local law providing protection from discrimination.
Section 5. Preemption
Section 5 provides that this Act preempts the laws of any
State to the extent such laws are inconsistent with the Act,
but shall not preempt any State law that affords additional
protection from liability relating to the rulemaking activities
of nonprofit athletic organizations.
Section 6. Effective Date
Section 6 provides that the Act shall take effect on the
date of enactment and will apply to any claim for harm caused
by a nonprofit athletic organization that is filed on or after
the effective date, but only if the harm that is the subject of
the claim occurred on or after the effective date.
Markup Transcript
BUSINESS MEETING
THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2005
House of Representatives,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable F.
James Sensenbrenner, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
[Intervening business.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Pursuant to notice, I now call up
the bill H.R. 1176, the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization
Protection Act,'' for purposes of markup and move its favorable
recommendation to the House.
Without objection, the bill will be considered as read and
open for amendment at any point.
[The bill, H.R. 1176, follows:]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The Chair recognizes himself
briefly to explain the bill.
This bill, like the previous bill, is narrowly tailored to
address the liability exposure for problems with nonprofit
sports rulemaking bodies such as the National Federation of
State High School Athletic Associations. These rulemaking
bodies use the expertise of experienced volunteers to set forth
rules for athletic competitions and practices that preserve
sports traditions and minimize risks to participants.
Because these organizations are not covered by the
Volunteer Protection Act, lawsuits have dramatically increased
insurance premiums for many rulemaking associations. The
Federation of National High Schools saw a 300-percent increase
in the premiums over 3 years. What this bill does is it
provides nonprofit athletic rulemaking organizations with
limited liability protections. I believe that this is a good
bill. I ask unanimous consent to include a letter of support
from the National Federation of State High School Athletic
Associations and yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Conyers. Mr. Chairman?
Chairman Sensenbrenner. The gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. Conyers. My reservations against this bill is because,
as it's drafted, the broad immunity that 1176, this bill's
number, extends to nonprofit athletic organizations, reaches
far beyond the potential for frivolous lawsuits. It exempts a
nonprofit athletic organization from liability for harm caused
by an act or omission in the adoption of rules for sanctioned
or approved athletic competitions or practices. So, in effect,
this legislation will effectively bar those who have non-
frivolous lawsuits from having their day in court. Such
lawsuits that call attention to public safety hazards are
needed to protect our Nation's children.
In addition, this measure would also protect the right of a
nonprofit athletic organization to sue others. If this
legislation is designed to suppress unnecessary litigation
altogether, how are an organization's grievances are legitimate
but individual complaints are not? Written to suppress only the
outlets available to individual citizens, this legislation is
overreaching and unfair. To me, it's hypocritical to suggest
that these organizations be allowed to have their day in court
while limiting the ability of individual athletes and others to
hold them accountable.
So these are a couple of the serious problems that seem to
me require us to send this bill back to Subcommittee.
Ms. Lofgren. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Conyers. Of course.
Ms. Lofgren. I would just like to concur with the
reservations expressed by the gentleman and note that if an
organization promulgated rules requiring adult supervision at a
game but failed to provide for background checks or the kind of
efforts you need to prevent children from being the victims of
sexual predators, they would be exempt from that negligence.
This has become a very big issue in the San Francisco Bay Area,
and recently we've had two soccer coaches that have molested
girls on their girls' soccer team, and it is important.
I mean, I support athletics and I support these nonprofit
organizations, but they have to take due diligence to make sure
that their young charges are protected from sexual predators.
And it is a huge mistake to exempt them from that liability if
they don't take those prudent steps. And I thank the gentleman
for yielding.
Mr. Conyers. Well, the gentlelady from California has
emphasized the point that causes my reservation. This
legislation does not differentiate between frivolous lawsuits
and meritorious lawsuits, and thereby it fails in a very large
and serious way.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include my full
statement in the record and return the balance of my time.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. And, without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Conyers follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative
in Congress from the State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee
on the Judiciary
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this legislation. As drafted, H.R. 1176
provides immunity for nonprofit athletic organization from lawsuits in
the adoption of rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions
or practices. This legislation would virtually eliminate any valid
claims from being brought forth.
Specifically, the legislation does not differentiate between
meritorious lawsuits and frivolous lawsuits. H.R. 1176 prohibits civil
litigation of any grievance arising under the rules promulgated by a
nonprofit sporting organization. As drafted, the broad immunity H.R.
1176 extends to nonprofit athletic organizations reaches far beyond the
potential for ``frivolous'' lawsuits in the federal judicial system. It
exempts a nonprofit athletic organization from liability for harm
caused by an act or omission in the adoption of rules for sanctioned or
approved athletic competitions or practices if: (1) the organization
was acting within the scope of its duties; (2) the organization was
properly licensed, certified, or authorized for the competition or
practice; and (3) the harm was not caused by the organization's willful
or criminal misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct. So
while lawsuits filed by parents because their child was not put on a
team may rightly be dismissed, cases with legal merit, such as a rule
which endangers the life of a child, would also be dismissed. In
effect, this legislation will effectively bar them from their day in
court. Such lawsuits call attention to public safety hazards are needed
to protect our nation's children.
Additionally, H.R. 1176 also protects the right of a nonprofit
athletic organization to sue others. If this legislation is designed to
suppress unnecessary litigation altogether, how are an organization's
grievances are legitimate but individual complaints are not? Written to
suppress only the outlets available to individual citizens, this
legislation is simply overreaching and unfair. It is the height of
hypocrisy to suggest that these organizations be allowed to have their
day in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes and
others to hold them accountable.
There are serious problems with this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to oppose H.R. 1176.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Also without objection, all Members
may include opening statements in the record at this point.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Waters follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Maxine Waters, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition of this legislation, H.R. 1176,
the ``Nonprofit Athletic Organization Protection Act.'' This bill
provides immunity for nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits
arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the passage or
adoption of rules for athletic competitions and practices. As a member
of the House Judiciary Committee, many of my colleagues have
reservations about the broad sweep of immunity that this bill will give
to certain organizations and eliminate valid discrimination claims.
H.R. 1176 would provide immunity for any act or omission of a
nonprofit athletic organization and its employees in the adoption of
rules for sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices.
This broad sweep of immunity would virtually eliminate valid
discrimination claims such as those found in the following cases:
In Cureton v. NCAA, a class of African-American student-athletes
challenged the National Collegiate Athletic Association's rule
requiring all potential student-athletes to achieve a minimum score on
the SAT or the ACT. Early on, the Educational Testing Services (ETS),
which designed the SAT, criticized the NCAA's then-proposed use of a
fixed cut-off score and warned such a rule would have a
disproportionate impact on African-American students. It did in fact
have such an impact, but the NCAA did not change its rule. Only when
this class brought a civil action did the NCAA change its rule so that
student athletes could be eligible for Division I schools on the basis
of their grades, not just their test scores.
In PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the
Americans with Disabilities Act requires the PGA Tour to allow
professional golfer Casey Martin , who suffers from a circulatory
disorder making it painful to walk long distances, to ride in a golf
cart between shots at Tour events. The nonprofit PGA had ruled that
walking the course is an integral part of golf, and Martin would gain
an unfair advantage using the cart. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme
Court decided that the PGA could not deny Martin equal access to its
tours on the basis of his disability.
Moreover, in Michigan High School Athletic Association v.
Communities for Equity, a federal district court ruled that the state's
high school athletic association practice of scheduling its female
teams during nontraditional seasons discriminated against female
athletes. The court found that scheduling the girls' sports, but not
boys' sports, during nontraditional seasons resulted in limited
opportunities for athletic scholarships and collegiate recruitment,
limited opportunities to play in club or Olympic development programs,
and missed opportunities for awards and recognition.
H.R. 1176 allows nonprofit athletic organizations to sue, but not
be sued. It is the height of hypocrisy to suggest that these
organizations be allowed to have their day in court while limiting the
ability of individual athletes and others to hold them accountable.
There is no need for Congress to preempt state law. If states want
to protect certain state athletic organizations, they can do so right
not without any action by Congress. Unfortunately, H.R. 1176 doesn't
just preempt state law. It preempts state law that gives more
protections to athletes and leaves in places states that give
additional liability protections to nonprofit athletic organizations.
I urge my colleagues to see this bill for what it really does,
catering to special interests. Please join me in voting against HR
1176. Thank you.
Chairman Sensenbrenner. Are there amendments? Are there
amendments?
[No response.]
Chairman Sensenbrenner. If there are no amendments, a
reporting quorum is present. The question occurs on the motion
to report the bill H.R. 1176 favorably. All those in favor will
say aye? Opposed, no?
The ayes appear to have it. The ayes have it, and the
motion to report favorably is agreed to.
Without objection, the staff is directed to make any
technical and conforming changes, and all Members may be given
2 days, as provided by the House rules, in which to submit
additional, dissenting, supplemental, or minority views.
And last, but not least, the next item on the agenda is the
adoption of H.R. 2955, the ``Intellectual Property Jurisdiction
Clarification Act of 2005.'' The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Texas, Mr. Smith, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on
Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property, for a motion.
Mr. Smith. Mr. Chairman, the Subcommittee on Courts, the
Internet, and Intellectual Property reports favorably the bill
H.R. 2955 and moves its favorable recommendation to the full
House.
[Intervening business.]
The business noticed on today's schedule having been
concluded, without objection, the Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:01 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Dissenting Views
We strongly oppose H.R. 1176, the ``Nonprofit Athletic
Organization Protection Act of 2005,'' which would extend
immunity to nonprofit athletic organizations in lawsuits
arising from claims of ordinary negligence relating to the
passage or adoption of rules for athletic competitions and
practices. While proponents maintain this legislation was
designed to protect nonprofit athletic organizations from
unnecessary litigation relating to physical safety regulations,
its effects would all but eliminate any valid claims brought
against such organizations, including civil rights claims.
H.R. 1176 is problematic for several reasons. First, under
H.R. 1176, valid cases would be affected as well as frivolous
claims. Second, this legislation is overly broad. It would go
beyond the ``physical harm'' claims the sponsors state are
intended to be encompassed by the legislation and would affect
legitimate claims and matters that arises from nonprofit
athletic organizations' rules for practices and competitions.
Third, this legislation provides one-way immunity--the
nonprofit athlete organization would receive immunity yet
retain its right to sue.
A. THE LEGISLATION DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN MERITORIOUS LAWSUITS
AND FRIVOLOUS CLAIMS.
The broad immunity that is extended to nonprofit athletic
organizations reaches far beyond the potential for
``frivolous'' lawsuits. H.R. 1176 prohibits civil litigation of
any grievance arising under the rules promulgated by a
nonprofit sporting organization. Specifically, H.R. 1176
exempts a nonprofit athletic organization from liability for
harm caused by an act or omission in the adoption of rules for
sanctioned or approved athletic competitions or practices if:
(1) the organization was acting within the scope of its duties;
(2) the organization was properly licensed, certified, or
authorized for the competition or practice; and (3) the harm
was not caused by the organization's willful or criminal
misconduct, gross negligence, or reckless misconduct.
So while a lawsuit filed by parents because their child was
not put on a team may rightly be dismissed (and would be
dismissed under current law without the benefit of this
legislation), cases with legal merit, such as a case
challenging a rule that endangers the life of a child, would
also be dismissed. In effect, this legislation will bar young
athletes and their families from having their day in court for
an entire range of legal actions--frivolous as well as non-
frivolous. H.R. 1176 would dramatically obstruct valid,
meritorious claims that call attention to public safety
hazards, discriminatory practices, and are needed to protect
our nation's children.
Proponents of the legislation claim that it is designed to
narrowly limit a nonprofit athletic organizations' immunity in
``physical harm'' claims. However, the effect of the bill is
vast and far reaching. This legislation would inadvertently
protect individuals who could potentially harm children. During
the Judiciary Committee markup, Representative Lofgren remarked
that if a poor hiring rule was in place that did not screen out
pedophiles, parents would be barred from suing the athletic
association regarding that rule. While the sponsors claim their
true intent was to eliminate physical harm claims, the
legislation, as drafted, eliminates any and all civil actions
relating to practices and procedures of a non-profit athletic
organization.
B. H.R. 1176 PROVIDES ONE WAY IMMUNITY.
Significantly, while immunizing nonprofit athletic
organizations from civil claims, H.R. 1176 protects the right
of a nonprofit athletic organization to sue others.\1\ If this
legislation is designed to suppress unnecessary litigation
altogether, it fails to describe how an organization's
grievances are legitimate but individual complaints are not.
Written to suppress the only outlets available to athletes and
their families, this legislation is overreaching. It is unfair
to provide that these organizations be allowed to have their
day in court while limiting the ability of individual athletes
and others to hold them accountable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ H.R. 1176, sec. 3(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CONCLUSION
As we have in the past, we are willing to work with the
Majority to develop reasonable legislation that protects non-
profit groups from unnecessary litigation while insuring that
meritorious claims are protected. H.R. 1176 however, does not
meet this test. Instead of protecting good faith and reasonable
actions by non-profit athletic associations designed to protect
athletes from physical harm, the bill massively overreaches and
limits legitimate actions.
John Conyers, Jr.
Bobby Scott.
Maxine Waters.
Bill Delahunt.
Linda T. Sanchez
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Howard L. Berman.
Melvin L. Watt.