PIAA & Insurance

[LRZ]

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).

[Rich]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Rich

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


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

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

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

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.

[LRZ]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by LRZ

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by Rich

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?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

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.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

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?

Why should you as a tax payer foot the bill for any costs associated with hiring officials for sports contests?

[Nevadaref]

Originally Posted by Rich

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

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.