Pliuskaitis v. USA Swimming
17-4051
| 10th Cir. | Jan 2, 2018Background
- Michael Pliuskaitis, a USA Swimming coach-member, was banned for life after allegations he had an inappropriate sexual relationship with a minor.
- Under the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (Sports Act), he invoked a statutory right to binding arbitration challenging his ineligibility.
- An arbitrator found USA Swimming’s ban arbitrary and capricious, ordered reinstatement and payment of arbitration fees, but denied Pliuskaitis’s request for damages; neither party sought judicial review of the award.
- Nearly a year later Pliuskaitis sued in federal court asserting state-law claims (defamation, breach of duty/contract, breach of good faith, tortious interference) and a standalone Sports Act claim seeking damages tied to USA Swimming’s process.
- USA Swimming moved to dismiss, arguing (inter alia) that the Sports Act preempts private suits challenging eligibility-determinations, the defamation claim was time-barred, and res judicata applied; the district court dismissed the complaint.
- The Tenth Circuit affirmed, holding the Sports Act preempted the state-law claims because they effectively challenged the eligibility determination and found the defamation claim untimely.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Sports Act preempts Pliuskaitis’s state-law claims | Pliuskaitis: claims challenge procedural violations, not eligibility, so not preempted | USA Swimming: Sports Act preempts private suits challenging eligibility methods | Held: Preempted — claims effectively attack eligibility determination, so dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
| Whether federal court can review alleged violations of USA Swimming’s internal rules | Pliuskaitis: courts may review whether the NGB followed its own rules | USA Swimming: review is barred where claim pertains to eligibility under Sports Act | Held: Complaint did not plead specific internal-rule violations; substance attacked eligibility, so review barred |
| Timeliness of defamation claim | Pliuskaitis: continuing-tort doctrine makes claim timely | USA Swimming: defamation claim is untimely | Held: Defamation claim untimely; district court decision affirmed |
| Whether res judicata bars claims given arbitration award | Pliuskaitis: arbitration denied damages; he seeks damages in court | USA Swimming: arbitration adjudicated the dispute; res judicata applies | Held: Court affirmed on preemption and timeliness; declined to reach res judicata alternative (but district court had also found claims barred) |
Key Cases Cited
- Satterfield v. Malloy, 700 F.3d 1231 (10th Cir. 2012) (standard of review for Rule 12(b)(1)/(6) dismissals)
- Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n v. Davis, 476 U.S. 380 (U.S. 1986) (preemption may be jurisdictional or an affirmative defense)
- Milligan-Hitt v. Bd. of Trs., 523 F.3d 1219 (10th Cir. 2008) (appellate appendix must include district-court motion materials; courts may nonetheless review full district record)
- Lee v. U.S. Taekwondo Union, 331 F. Supp. 2d 1252 (D. Haw. 2004) (declining to find Sports Act preemption of certain federal-discrimination claims)
- Shepherd v. U.S. Olympic Committee, 464 F. Supp. 2d 1072 (D. Colo. 2006) (similar treatment of non-preempted federal statutory claims under Sports Act)