Appellate court heard arguments whether USATF waiver is unfair to professional athletes

The Indiana Court of Appeals heard arguments Wednesday in a case that first began in 2021 during the U.S. Olympic Track and Field trials.

Olympian Taliyah Brooks suffered heat-related injuries while competing in heptathlon events in the 2020 U.S. Olympic Track and Field trials in Eugene, Oregon, in 2021.

Brooks filed her complaint against USATF in Marion Superior Court where she sought a declaratory judgment that a waiver, release of liability, assumption of risk, and indemnity agreement contained in USATF’s membership documents was unenforceable and an injunction preventing USATF from enforcing the waiver and indemnity agreement against her if she were to raise any tort claim against the organization.

Both parties filed cross motions for summary judgment on the enforceability of the waiver and indemnity agreement. In June 2023, the trial court issued orders denying Brooks’ motion and granted USATF’s motion

Brooks then filed a notice of appeal.

Two days after the trial court issued the June 2023 orders, Brooks filed a motion to amend her complaint to add additional claims and parties. The trial court denied Brooks’ motion to amend her complaint. She then filed a notice of appeal.

The appellate court consolidated the two appeals. Both parties argued their case before Judges Elaine Brown, Melissa May and Rudolph Pyle in the Indiana Court of Appeals Courtroom in Indianapolis.

Kroger Gardis Regas LLP Attorney Bill Bock argued before the appellate court that USATF could have prevented injuries by moving the event like they had done with other events during the trials.

“Miss Brooks and her fellow competitors were forced to compete in 150 degree on track temperatures because USATF would not move the time of her competition by a few hours,” Bock said.

He further argued that USATF has a monopoly due to being the only avenue for professional athletes to go through to attempt to compete in the Olympics.

“You must go through USA Track and Field, and it’s uncomfortable for USA Track and Field to use that leverage as the one way in order to extract an agreement to a provision that essentially makes them unaccountable for athlete safety because no one brings cases against them because of this agreement,” Bock said. “But they publicly say, and they even said, in response to the complaint, that they do have a duty for safety for track and field athletes, but that duty is unenforceable.”

Bock asked the court to reverse the trial court’s summary judgment order.

Kightlinger and Gray LLP Attorney Crystal Rowe, who represented USATF, argued that the since the appellate court does not issue advisory opinions, it should dismiss the appeal with prejudice.

“I believe the trial court got this right,” Rowe said.

She argued that since the final judgment had been made by the trial court, Brooks was not able to amend her complaint afterwards.

“This is not even a gamesmanship type case. We actually said before we don’t understand their strategy,” Rowe said.

May asked if Brooks should have filed a whole new lawsuit instead rather than filing it in the open case.

Rowe responded yes, and that, “It’s a path of their own making.”

Rowe also noted that while they are unsure of how long the language of the waiver has been around for athletes, Brooks has been signing it since 2015.

Pyle asked Rowe if she could comment on Bock’s argument that USATF has unfair bargaining power when it comes to having athletes sign the waiver.

Rowe said she doesn’t think it is unfair and that they should look to the precedent they cited in their briefs.

May closed by wishing Brooks well in her heat tomorrow in the Paris 2024 Olympic women’s heptathlon.

“I think I can say that we are probably all in agreement that regardless of what has occurred here today, we wish Miss Brooks all the luck in the world tomorrow when she competes at the Paris Olympics,” May said.

The case is Taliyah Brooks v. USA Track & Field, 23A-PL-1685.