Los Angeles Sparks forward Dearica Hamby is challenging the WNBA’s application of case precedent in her employment retaliation lawsuit. She claims the league is using the precedent to avoid scrutiny in her case, according to a recent court filing.
In response to a WNBA court filing that argued Hamby’s lawsuit fails because the league is not her employer, Hamby’s attorneys filed a memorandum. They argue that the WNBA and the Las Vegas Aces were her joint employers when she faced discrimination for being pregnant. The WNBA, however, contends it is not a joint employer of players who sign employment contracts with privately owned WNBA franchises.
The WNBA cited the Lamar Dawson v. NCAA case to support its argument. In that case, the court ruled that the NCAA and Pac-12 were not joint employers of a USC football player. The WNBA sees its relationship with WNBA teams in a similar light, stating that it regulates the employment relationship but does not directly control players.
Hamby’s brief, written by her attorneys at HKM Employment Attorneys, counters this argument. She highlights the unionization of WNBA players, which gives the league more influence over players compared to the NCAA’s control over college athletes.
She also points out the changes in college athlete compensation since the Dawson case in 2019, referencing the NCAA v. Alston ruling that allowed college athletes to receive compensation for education-related expenses. Hamby argues that recent developments support her case against the WNBA.
She further accuses the WNBA of overlooking the joint employment case of Aaron Senne, et al. v. MLB, involving minor league baseball players. Despite the settlement of that case, Hamby believes it is relevant to her case and questions the WNBA’s dismissal of its applicability.
U.S. District Judge Andrew P. Gordon will consider these arguments in determining the outcome of Hamby’s lawsuit in Nevada.
