HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.blasports/ansrvds0009 and id is 1 raw text is:
Volume 9, Number 1
{ Spring/Summer 20071
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
Ohton v. Bd. of Tr. of the Cal. State Univ., 56 Cal. Rptr. 3d 11] (Cal. Ct. App. 2007). David
Ohton, a strength and conditioning coach for the California State University (CSU) football
team, filed an internal administrative complaint alleging that Tom Craft, the head football coach,
and other members of the athletic department retaliated against him in violation of the California
Whistleblower Protection Act (CWPA) because he reported information critical of various
athletic department personnel and practices to a university auditor. Under a promise of
confidentiality, Ohton provided the auditor with a 103-page report chronicling violations of
NCAA rules, among other things. Somehow, Craft managed to get a copy of the report and
circulated it to various members of the athletic department staff. After the distribution of the
report, Ohton was no longer invited to help run football camps, was replaced as football strength
and conditioning coach, was barred from contact with football players, and was not invited to the
annual football booster dinner. The Superior Court dismissed his claims of retaliation because he
failed to exhaust internal administrative procedures. The Court of Appeals reversed and
remanded the Superior Court finding, ruling that the court misinterpreted a clause in the CWPA
which required CSU to satisfactorily address Ohton's claims.
Palyani v. State, Department of State, Division of State Athletic Commission, No. 118347/06,
2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3844 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Apr. 26, 2007). Palyani sought a judgment
compelling the New York State Athletic Commission (NYSAC) to terminate a boxing
suspension. In 2003, he was denied a boxing license because an MRI revealed old trauma on his
brain. The NYSAC suspended Palyani from boxing indefinitely. Palyani argued that since
NYSAC had never granted him a license it did not have the power suspend him, and that since a
boxing license is only valid for one year, the suspension would have lapsed at the end of one
year anyway. In October 2006, Palyani demanded that the NYSAC remove his suspension
because it barred him from fighting in any jurisdiction since the Professional Boxing Safety Act
of 1996 required all members of the Association of Boxing Commissions to adopt any medical
C Copyright 2007, National Sports Law Institute ofMarquette University Law School
Page 1](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.blasports/ansrvds0009&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)