Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Association
Q1. The Plaintiff, in this case, is Jennifer Hill while the defendant is the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). The cases volume number is 865, page number 633, reported by the California Reporter 2d series, and decided under the California Supreme Court.
Q2. In describing the facts of the case, Hill and other athlete students if Stanford University objected the NCAA’s drug-testing program bringing forward a suit alleging violation of their right to privacy. The trial court upheld Hill’s allegation adding that student-athletes do not use drugs as much as regular college students and that the NCAA was at fault for not proving that certain drugs such as heroin and amphetamines enhanced athletic performance. The NCAA appealed.
Q3. The causes of action for the case were that the defendant was violating the student’s privacy by asking them to disclose any medications they were using along with any other information related to their health conditions. The defendant was also asking the plaintiffs to urinate in the presence of a monitor. They would then chemically analyze the samples for proscribed substances.
Q4. The NCAA was found not to be in violation of the constitutional right to privacy as such the judgement of the court of appeals was reversed by the Supreme Court and a ruling was made in favour of NCAA.
Q5. The basic elements of the drug-testing consent form required by the NCAA included an advance notice to athletes regarding testing procedures and written consent to testing, a random selection of the athletes engaging in competition, monitored collection of urine samples to avoid contamination or substitution, and limited disclosure of the chain of custody for the samples.
Q6. The three elements of a cause of action for invasion of the right to privacy include the identification of a specific legally protected privacy interest, a reasonable expectation of privacy on the plaintiff’s part and the seriousness of the invasion.
Q7. No. A defendant may prevail in a state constitutional privacy case by negating any of the elements mainly by providing an affirmative defence.
Work Cited
Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Assn., 865 P.2d 633, 7 Cal. 4th 1, 26 Cal. Rptr. 2d 834 (1994).
