Res Judicata
 

The appellate court ruled that we are not employees, but independent contractors, thus PIAA won the case. PIAA then justified rescinding our insurance because, in part, it could be seen as proof we are employees--an issue PIAA had already prevailed on (and therefore can't be relitigated).

This action is just a big middle finger from the PIAA.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Winning that case doesn't mean there can't be more. In today's sue-happy climate, it is sure to resurface.

They just want to avoid giving people a reason to try to stick to them again. It cost them enough. Do people thing their costs from the whole ordeal were going to just get covered with monopoly money?

I can't blame them for reducing their exposure to risk.

Nope, can't be raised again, at least not in PA. The caption of the case is PIAA v. NLRB, denominating the parties. The ruling of the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit* is binding on the NLRB. If another group of PA officials were to claim employee status and try to unionize, the claim would go to and through the NLRB, which would be bound by precedent.

PIAA is passing on the cost of litigation to all registered officials, not just those who sought to unionize, and, as far as I know, not to its member schools.

Yep. Teaching us not to mess with the powers that be.

Only until some other condition of the arrangement is changed. In that case, the ruling may no longer hold. Some lawyer, looking to pad his/her income, would be sure to at least make that argument.
Who else can they pass it on to? There isn't some magic money source. When people sue the government looking for a payday, all the citizens pay, not some nebulous body with a money printing machine.

Their membership. The member schools should be paying the cost of defending litigation or their insurance company.

If you were arguing that the schools should be paying more in general, I'd agree with you, but the schools didn't cause this expense. The PIAA membership also includes officials and that is the group that caused them to incur the expense, even if it wasn't all of them. Why should the schools have an extra bill because some officials wanted to take them for something? And even if they did pay for it, why should I (as a tax paying citizen) have to pay for it?

I agree with Rich. Charging the officials to cover a debt incurred by the PIAA while litigating a case against some officials in PA has to be unethical, if not outright illegal. I would argue that it is a punitive action being taken by the PIAA. If I were an official in PA, would refuse to pay that part of the dues. My next step would be to contact my local rep to the state legislature in an attempt to get the state legislative body to pass a resolution stating that the PIAA cannot pass along the costs incurred from the recent litigation of this case to the officials. If that isn’t successful, I would then sue in court on the grounds that the PIAA is a punitive manner. There to be precedent out there to prevent one side from taking such action against its adversary in prior litigation.
Imagine if a government contractor sued the government, then after the case was over the government took steps either to ban that contractor from future government work or impose fees upon that business whenever it applied for contracts or services future contracts. That would have to be seen as improper.

How is the PIAA funded? If it receives state funds, then you as a taxpayer already are footing the bill.
In my state, the NIAA is a state agency codified by legislative statutes, but receives no state funding. (Well, not directly.) Its budget comes from corporate sponsorships, private donations, ticket sales at events, and membership dues of the schools and the officials. It can certainly be contended that the money coming from the dues of the member schools which are public schools is basically state funding just being passed along.

For the record, I’ve never understood why the officials ever agreed to paying dues to the state assn. The officials provide a service to the member schools who are collectively represented by the state office. The state assn doesn’t provide anything to the officials. Here the state doesn’t provide any training or education, doesn’t do any assigning, and doesn’t pay the officials. Why the heck are the officials paying this organization? It is basically a forced donation.

MTD, does your NASO insurance include medical expenses and such, or just liability against assaults and getting sued and such? It's not clear to me from the website.

CIAC Officials’ Association ...
 

Here in Connecticut, the CIAC Officials Association exists to work in concert with school administrators, athletic directors, coaches, and the CIAC to advance the best interest of high school athletics, serve the betterment of all member officials and their respective organizations, promote ethical standards, sportsmanship, professionalism, and high quality officiating.

The CIAC handles the coordination between the schools schedule software and the officials Arbiter assigning software. It handles 100% (including cost) of all criminal background checks. Officials have a "seat at the table" to discuss issues that are important to us. Basketball officials (actually all sports officials) get a CIAC membership card that gets us into all regular season sports (all sports) at no cost, and into all basketball (only basketball for basketball officials) state tournament games at no cost.

CIAC dues are $13.00 annually, included as part our local boards annual dues. Attend two or three state tournament games, especially the state finals at the Mohegan Sun Casino, and it's a bargain.

We get our books and insurance from the SCHSL, plus they're now requiring background checks which of coursed was passed onto us.

The argument that all PA sports officials should bear the cost of defending the lawsuit when a small group of officials brought the suit is just silly.

Officials are not part of the membership -- they are independent contractors. If the state decides to remove this insurance coverage and doesn't lower the fee, then the officials should do what they feel is necessary, including not working the games unless their fees are lowered and/or their insurance coverage is reinstated. And the PIAA should recover its fees by raising membership dues on its member schools or on advertisers, etc. like any other business.

Schools requiring officials to bring their own coverage would get a quick message -- good luck having your games cause we're not coming.

I agree with the poster above. The "it's for the kids" mentality and officials continuing to bend, bend, bend is why officials are horribly underpaid and why fees stagnate for years on end. And why working conditions are the way they are. State associations just expect officials to take it....and then cry out that there's a horrible shortage. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

When you pass the PIAA test in a sport, you have to affiliate with a local chapter.

I pay $45 per sport (basketball and soccer) to PIAA, plus another $30 to my two chapters. We pay our own costs for background checks, which are good for five years and then must be renewed. For my yearly outlay of $150, I get a rule book in each sport, plus the basketball case book. That's it. Some chapters also provide the basketball referee manual; chapters usually offer an end-of-season "banquet" to its members.

PIAA is not a state agency, nor does it get federal or state funds. According to its website, it is a non-profit, "voluntary membership" organization and its primary source of revenue, again according to the website, is ticket sales to championship events. Member high schools pay between $475 and $625 yearly, depending on school size, and middle schools pay $265, and these fees constitute ~10% of PIAA's revenue. There are currently 1,431 HSs and 594 MS/JHSs.

Nevadaref's questions strike home--what do I get for my $150 a year?