Syracuse University is being sued in a class action suit that claims the university knew about the risks of traumatic brain injuries in football players and neglected to distribute this information to and properly care for its student athletes prior to 2010.

Former SU football player Marcus Clayton is the plaintiff in the lawsuit, which involves six causes of action that allege SU, the American Athletic Conference and the National Collegiate Athletic Association failed to meaningfully warn and protect student athletes, including football players, against the dangerous effects of traumatic brain injuries, according to the complaint.

The SU football team, now a member of the Atlantic Coast Conference, was until 2013 a member of the old Big East Conference, which is now the AAC.

The suit is based in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana because the NCAA is based in Indianapolis, Indiana and thus many of the events giving rise to the claims in the complaint were based in Indianapolis. Clayton has demanded a trial by jury for all issues that are triable, according to the complaint.

Clayton’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.

The complaint alleges that the defendants were aware for decades of the danger of traumatic brain injury prior to April 2010, when the NCAA passed legislation that required its member institutions, including SU, to have a Concussion Management Plan in place for all sports, according to the complaint.

From the launch of SU’s football program until at least 2010, according to the complaint, “there were no adequate concussion management protocols or policies in place to address and treat concussions sustained by student-athletes during practice and in games.”

“We consider the health and welfare of our students, including our student-athletes, extremely important,” said Kevin Quinn, senior vice president for public affairs at SU, in a statement. “With this in mind, Syracuse University and Syracuse Athletics will continue to provide comprehensive care to our students. Given that this matter involves pending litigation, we are not able to comment on the specifics of the lawsuit at this time.”

Clayton, the plaintiff, played football at SU from 2003 to 2005 as a receiver, kick returner and cornerback. Clayton claimed he suffered from many concussions while playing football at SU and at one point, while playing against the University of Miami, was hit so hard that he “became disoriented and experienced difficulty walking,” according to the complaint.

Because SU did not implement “any adequate return to play guidelines,” according to the complaint, “every time Clayton suffered a concussive or sub-concussive hit, he would quickly be returned to the field of play.”

Eleven years after his time playing football at SU ended, Clayton suffers from memory issues, headaches, mood swings, depression “and other debilitating issues,” according to the complaint.

The suit is class action because it involves, along with Clayton, a class that includes “all individuals who participated in Syracuse’s varsity football program between 1952 and 2010,” according to the complaint. The suit also involves an AAC subclass, which includes “all individuals who participated in Syracuse’s varsity football program between 1991 and 2010,” according to the complaint.

Below is a breakdown of each of the suit’s six causes of action:

1. The first cause of action is negligence against SU, the AAC and the NCAA. This cause of action, according to the complaint, alleges that the defendants breached their duties to Clayton, as a student athlete, by “fraudulently concealing and/or failing to disclose and/or failing to recognize and/or being willfully blind to” information about the risks and effects of traumatic brain injury “they possessed or should have possessed” and the “proper ways to evaluate, treat, and avoid concussive and sub-concussive trauma to student football players.” According to this cause of action, SU in particular breached its duty to Clayton by “actively teaching and encouraging Syracuse football players to inflict head injuries on themselves and others as an effective way to play football.”

2. The second cause of action is fraudulent concealment against SU, the AAC and the NCAA. This cause of action alleges that the defendants “were aware of and understood the significance of the published medical literature … which detailed the serious risk of short-term and long-term brain injury associated with repetitive traumatic impacts to the head to which Syracuse football players were exposed.” Despite this knowledge, according to the complaint, the defendants were either “willfully blind to” and/or “knowingly concealed” from Clayton and the class the risks of traumatic brain injury in NCAA football games and practices.

3. The third cause of action is breach of express contract against the NCAA. This cause of action alleges that Clayton, as a student athlete, was required to enter into a contract with the NCAA, which the complaint alleges the NCAA breached by “failing to ensure that their student-athletes were provided with a safe environment in which to participate in NCAA sport activities.”

4. The fourth cause of action is breach of implied contract against SU, the AAC and the NCAA. In plain language, it essentially has the same meaning as the third cause of action.

5. The fifth cause of action is breach of express contract against the NCAA and SU. This cause of action alleges that SU and the NCAA breached their contractual duties owed to Clayton and the class through the university and NCAA’s express contract to each other, according to the complaint.

6. The sixth cause of action is unjust enrichment against SU, the AAC and the NCAA. This cause of action claims the defendants should not be able to keep the profits they made at the expense of Clayton and the class “while refusing to pay for medical expenses incurred as a result of their unlawful actions or otherwise failing to prevent such injuries,” according to the complaint. Clayton is seeking restoration of the money the defendants “have unjustly received as a result of their conduct alleged herein,” according to the complaint.

Published on October 5, 2016 at 6:33 pm

Contact Alexa: atorrens@syr.edu