Liberty Track Walk-On Stays Course in House v. NCAA Deal Objections

The last time track and field runner Gracelyn Laudermilch appeared before U.S. District Court Judge Claudia Wilken, she was fighting for her first shot to compete as a Division I athlete. On April 7, that opportunity seemed imperiled by the immediate roster limits proposed in the House v. NCAA settlement agreement.  

Then a soon-to-be graduating high school senior in Rome, Pa., Laudermilch flew with her family to Oakland, Calif., where Judge Wilken presides, to counter the deal in person—one of only a few unrepresented objectors to speak at the fairness hearing.

In a six-minute address, Laudermilch urged the court to secure the opportunities promised to incoming college athletes, citing her own experience with a then-unnamed Division I school she said had rescinded her offer amid expectations that the agreement would force cuts to track and field and cross-country programs.

Judge Wilken subsequently delayed her approval of the deal, and encouraged the parties to include a provision “grandfathering” in existing roster spots for this current academic year. That change allowed Laudermilch to walk on as a distance runner this year at Liberty University, the previously unnamed school.

Now a college freshman, Laudermilch will make her (virtual) return to Wilson’s courtroom Thursday—seven months later—to continue pressing her objections during a second fairness hearing, the first since the settlement took effect.

This time, she will be the only unrepresented objector to appear. 

In her Sept. 12 letter to Judge Wilken, from the perspective of a so-called “designated student athlete,” Laudermilch voiced her ongoing concern.

“I am thankful to write to you from Liberty University,” she said, “(but) I am extremely concerned that there are major contradictions that exist in the space between the court-mandated policies and how these things are being carried out in the actual lives of student athletes across the nation.”

Laudermilch explained that Liberty’s women’s track and cross-country program was told on July 30 that, in order for the school to comply with Title IX, its roster would have to shrink from 24 to 17 runners. This was meted out through a racing time trial two weeks into practice.

“Nothing really prepares you for watching your teammates, who love each other, compete for spots on a team because of roster limits,” Laudermilch wrote to Wilken. “I would congratulate one just to turn around and cry with another. How is it rationalized that this settlement is fair, just and beneficial to the members of the Injunctive Relief Settlement class?”

Laudermilch accused the House class counsel of failing to represent her interests and criticized the settlement’s notice process, arguing that parents of children over 8 years old should now be informed of its provisions going forward, given the agreement’s longstanding consequences.

“Optional participation, negotiated by biased Class Counsel, and instituted by the universities in ‘grandfathering them in’ and overlooking the need for Title IX compliance was a lack of foresight and an ‘abuse of discretion’ by the Court,” Laudermilch wrote. “Because of this unjust settlement, current, absent, future, and unrepresented members of the Injunctive Relief Class have been and are being harmed.”

In response, lead counsel for the class argued that Laudermilch has demonstrated a “misunderstanding of the settlement and the role of class counsel” and that her suggestions for improving the notice process “would not be feasible.”

They also disputed her claim that they had provided her insufficient guidance, saying that she had previously been given “detailed instructions” on how to object.

In addition to Laudermilch, Thursday’s fairness hearing will feature Leigh Ernst Friestedt, an attorney who is representing two Vanderbilt women’s lacrosse players—Piper Whitty and Katherine McCabe Ernst, Friestedt’s niece. The class counsel has argued that objectors are raising either points that were already decided, inappropriate for this forum, or unreasonable to address.

Despite the steep uphill climb, Laudermilch remains resolute.

“In light of the concerns that a lot of people brought forward, and in line with the stories I’ve heard, there’s definitely harm being done to the class,” she told Sportico in a recent phone interview. “I’ve seen the harm being done to the class.” 

Beyond the legal arguments—created by an 18-year-old with the help of her non-lawyer parents—Laudermilch hopes to highlight the moral and practical shortcomings of the settlement. She sees her lone role as a speaking objector not as evidence of the settlement’s broad support, but of the barriers for young athletes to challenge it.

“I think it’s hard that they expect 18-to-22-year-olds to stand up for themselves, when these 18-to-22-year-olds are in college athletics, they’re D-I athletes, and they don’t have time to write objections and do legal research,” she said. “This was a huge undertaking. It was like my first two weeks of school when I was working on it, and like, I had my first biology test. And I had no clue. It was just really, really stressful.”

She continued: “We wake up before 6:30 every day. We go to practice, we go to class, we eat food and we go to bed, because that’s our life. So I think that it’s really hard for them to expect us to object. … I’ve talked to so many athletes [who’ve said] that they don’t like the settlement, like they don’t like the effects of the settlement, they think it’s wrong. They think it’s going to destroy the sport of track and field. I’ve talked to so many people that think that, but sitting down and actually writing an objection is like a whole other undertaking.”

Laudermilch said she has received strong encouragement from her teammates and coaching staff, and has found particular support in Mark Fairley, the Flames’ assistant cross-country coach who primarily works with the team’s B-squad runners. Amid the roster’s consolidation, that group has largely been wiped out, leaving Fairley to manage the fallout.

“It was a huge challenge,” he said in a phone interview. “The whole month of August was spent with me meeting with different girls in my office and them trying to figure out, honestly, their identity and what this all meant for them.”

Fairley had previously taken an active role in advocating against the settlement’s roster limits, writing to Congress and assisting a number of Liberty athletes in filing objections. His discussion about the issue on a Jan. 20 episode of The Runner Effect podcast was what initially sparked Laudermilch’s interest in the topic, back when she was still a recruit.

“Gracelyn is going way above and beyond what she probably has bandwidth to do,” Fairley said. “It is awesome she is doing that, but I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t affecting her stress levels. This is just a lot for a freshman in college to be thinking about. … And that is why you haven’t seen as many people object, because they feel there is nothing to do. And Gracelyn is like: Maybe there is.”

Fairley notes the role of religion for Laudermilch, a committed Christian attending an Evangelical university.

 “I think there is a hole there in our team, because there are a lot of good girls who would have continued to develop into incredible athletes, but now they are just Liberty students,” Fairley said. “Which is fine, but at the end of the day, that is what the House settlement is doing in the sports of cross country and track and field: eliminating some of the walk-on success stories.”

Laudermilch’s own collegiate track future remains uncertain. Her roster spot at Liberty is guaranteed for only this year, and she will need to re-qualify next season, likely against tougher competition.

She is currently one of the slower runners on her squad, and the new era of college track exists on a much harsher timetable. Fairley sees this as yet another casualty of the settlement.

“Now she feels she has to prove herself by next year,” Fairley said. “So there is a temptation to skip steps and get injured and burned out.”

Laudermilch acknowledges the difficulty of staying present.

“I definitely felt the pressure of not knowing if I have a spot for next year at the first meet,” she said. “So it did not go great. … I did a lot better at the second one. We got second as a team, which is pretty exciting. And, yeah, I think that we’re just building momentum and really focusing on today and what we’re called to today. I think it’s really easy to worry about tomorrow.”