news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

SPORTS

Northern players' families file suit

Friday, August 21, 2009
(Updated 12:50 pm)
By Robert Bell
Staff Writer

GREENSBORO — The families of two Northern Guilford High basketball players banned last spring from competing in sports as seniors are asking a Superior Court judge to reinstate them, charging that Guilford County Schools denied the families due process before making its decision.

Mark Gray, the lawyer seeking the preliminary injunction for the families of basketball players James Gant and Asad Lamot, said district officials declared the students ineligible last spring — a ruling that eventually led to Northern Guilford losing its state basketball title — without hearing evidence from the families involved.

“There was never any opportunity to be heard,” Gray said Thursday. Guilford County Schools “proceeded without ever hearing from the other side.”

The complaint, which includes the North Carolina High School Athletic Association as a defendant, asks that Gant and Lamot be reinstated to Northern Guilford and that the state’s athletics association reinstate their eligibility.

The complaint also requests compensatory damages seeking more than $10,000 for each family.

The hearing likely will be held late next week.

Nora Carr, Superintendent Maurice “Mo” Green’s chief of staff, said the school system feels all the decisions made regarding Northern athletes meet legal standards.

“We feel very confident that, based on all the information we’ve received, we’ve made the right decisions,” Carr said.

Carr was not aware of any other pending legal actions regarding Northern Guilford.

Jim Maxwell, the attorney for the athletics association, said students are guaranteed a constitutional right to an education but that does not include extracurricular activities such as sports.

He said he believed Guilford County Schools conducted a thorough investigation into Northern Guilford’s athletics program and that the athletics association acted appropriately on the findings.

Gant and Lamot are two of 12 students who were ruled ineligible this year after the investigation. In May, district officials ruled that administrators at Northern Guilford should have been able to determine that the families of Gant and Lamot supplied fraudulent documents to support their claim that they lived within Northern’s attendance zone.

That ruling led to the NCHSAA’s decision to strip the Nighthawks of their 3-A state basketball title.

The complaint says that both sets of parents, Tim and Gloria Gant and John and Marian Lamot, separated in the summer of 2007 — just before Northern Guilford opened.

Both mothers took legal custody of the students and moved within Northern Guilford’s attendance zone.

The complaint also says that on a school day last May, James Gant and Asad Lamot were summoned to the principal’s office where Green, the school superintendent, was waiting for them.

According to the complaint, Green told Gant and Lamot that they would have to transfer this fall — Gant to Northeast and Lamot to an unknown school.

 

Staff writer J. Brian Ewing contributed to this story.

Contact Robert Bell at 373-7055 or robert.bell@news-record.com

Accompanying Photos

File photo (News & Record)

Photo Caption: Northern Guilford High School

Comments

View Comments

This article has been closed to new comments. Comments are generally closed after 14 days. However, comments may be closed earlier at the discretion of the News & Record.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

redlink

August 21, 2009 - 7:20 am EDT

Thank GOD!!! I said all along that we didn't know the whole story and they didn't give these kids a fair deal, .. If these parents were speratered and rented a house in the district, then they were legal residents on NG school... Just goes to show that JILL WILSON / SHIRLEY MORRISON and their investagition was done half way. Did they check to see if these parents were seperated???? ""GOOD&RIGHT""" WILL ALWAYS COME OUT!!!..I think these kids should be reinstated and returned to NG School

Huck9

August 21, 2009 - 7:47 am EDT

Yeah right!, they probably rented the same house and never spent a night there. The coach probably paid the rent. Why are these people still trying to beat the system? They cheated and they got caught.

redlink

August 21, 2009 - 12:28 pm EDT

TO HUCH 9.. SORRY to disappoint you people... BUT these 2 familys had 2 different houses, and they did stay there, and they had 1 year leases, and the coach didn't pay the rent or have anything to do with the leases. I know the parents personally and the property owners.. We already know WILSON lied to the school baord about MR LAWSON to get him fired, because he wouldn't lie about things he knew nothing about. What makes you people think she is handling things any different know....

berillo

August 21, 2009 - 4:22 pm EDT

If they leased a house in the Northern District but did not rent out and abandon or sell their previous house, then they were ineligible. You can move into the district and go to school there legally but you can't be athletically eligible unless you rent out with a legal lease and abandon your last residence or sell your last residence. Not put it on the market but you must actually have it sold or rented out. If that didn't happen, then they were ineligible by state rules even if they were eligible to attend Northern as students. What the situation was with their previous residence will determine if they have a case or not.

Panacea

August 21, 2009 - 7:51 am EDT

I think these families are grasping at straws. Did they file papers with the court to prove separation? Do they have documentation of an address of the custodial parent in Northern's attendance zone?

It may well be possible that in these two cases there is more to the story . . . that's what the courts will decide.

Just remember, redlink, just because you sue doesn't meant you have a case. The "good and right" you are talking about may very well mean that Wilson did do a good job, Green did make the right call, and these two athletes were and are still ineligible.

Sometimes people sue in an effort to pressure people to back off . . .regardless of what the truth really is.

dalekm123

August 21, 2009 - 7:54 am EDT

There are systems and procedures in place within GCS....that include hearings...evaluations...and reviews.
Do you honestly think that these were not carried out?
Give it a break and how about you focus on the students education as the most important thing here.

Lets use GCS's declining resources and money to further the education of our kids.

berillo

August 21, 2009 - 8:02 am EDT

When it comes to athletic eligibility in the state athletic association of which the Guilford County Schools are members, parents can't just seperate or divorce and rent or buy a place in the disctrict. If they do, they might be ok to attend school there by Guilford County, but they are not necessarily eligible to participate in athletics. I will list below from the state athletic association rules on eligibility as they apply to residency. Again, you may or may not think they are fair, but these are the rules that each school agrees to abide by. So after reading below, the question will be did they, in addition to moving into the district, actually completely abandon their other residence? It seems like a big coincidence that these two basketball players parents got seperated at the same time and both decided at the same time to move into the Northern District, one from outside of the county, without any prodding from anyone. However, that does not mean it did not legitimately happen, so who knows. We don't know their side and to be honest, we don't really know the side of Guilford County either since we don't know what information they actually have since they were not able to release it. I suppose we will find out both sides soon enough. Legally, it will be a tough battle for the two families, but I doubt they would take it on if they did not think they had a legitimate claim. Again, hopefully they are aware of exactly what the eligibility rules are and are not basing their claim on the fact that they simply moved into the district and are eligible.
"Residence” as used for athletic eligibility purposes is defined as the equivalent of the term ”domicile“
as applied by the courts of North Carolina. Under no circumstances can a student have more
than one residence for eligibility purposes. It is the obligation of the school to know the residence
status of each athlete and to require compliance with these requirements.
Any change in residence must be bona fide. Determination of what constitutes a bona fide
change of residence depends upon the facts of each case. In order for a change of residence to be
considered bona fide at least the following facts must exist: (1) The original residence must be
abandoned as a residence; that is sold, rented or disposed of as a residence, and must not be used as
residence by any member of the family; (2) The entire family must make the change and take with
them the household goods and furniture appropriate to the circumstances;

Panacea

August 21, 2009 - 8:15 am EDT

People sue without having a legit claim all the time. It's very easy to use the courts as a battering ram to get people to do things.

I think these parents are hoping to settle out of court with athletic eligibility restored. If that's the case, then I hope they lose.

berillo

August 21, 2009 - 8:39 am EDT

I doubt a county school system will do that because of the precedent and can of worms it would create for down the road, and the state athletic association NEVER settles and always goes to court and and rarely loses, so I imagine that this will go all the way to court.

DaveW

August 21, 2009 - 9:02 am EDT

Looks like these 2 guys need to go to Oak Ridge and play for Stan again.Did NCHSAA rule that they deceived GCS and would therefore be ineligible at any NCHSAA member school?If that is the case and they want to continue playing basketball then private school is their only option.If they are just not eligible at Northern (per GCS) then I suppose Gant could play at Northeast. However, Northeast from what I understand runs a real honest athletic program and might not even want him.Lamont could also go to his "unknown" school and play as well. This article did not state what NCHSAA ruled on these two. That is why I have speculated on what their options are.We also don't know the details of the "separations".Did the the two couples separate but still "visit" with each other? It sounds to me like a convenient separation for basketball. Also, during the games last season,did Mr. Gant sit with Mrs. Gant and did Mr. lamont sit with Mrs. Lamont?

berillo

August 21, 2009 - 10:24 am EDT

They were ruled ineligible by the NCHSAA so they are not eligible in any county public school system. Private school is their best option. This case will not be settled. It might be dropped and called a settlement like the Northern vs NWG suit, but after having spent all that money on the investigation, the county is not going to settle or buckle. The state athletic association never settles. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Panacea

August 21, 2009 - 12:06 pm EDT

If you separate, and then spend even one night together, then you have to start all over again to fill the state requirement of one year of legal seperation before divorce. I have a friend who recently went through this.

bettejayne

August 21, 2009 - 9:18 am EDT

Here we are again. Same play book again. File suit. Get some money. Settle out of court rather than fight the case due to legal costs. When will the legal system wake up. Next will be the Ace in the Hole card ..when all else fails the race card will come.

jstevenh1952

August 21, 2009 - 11:38 am EDT

I am afraid you are right. Damages? What damages! Self-inflicted attorney's fees? I guess alot of folks out there "have to get theirs". I wouldn't be surprised if Sharpton didn't get involved here soon. Race card part deuce......stay tuned.

Panacea

August 21, 2009 - 12:08 pm EDT

The families tried this when the investigation started, and the NAACP refused to get involved. That says that race is not an issue here, because if there is even a hint of a real race issue, they jump in head first.

I doubt we'll see Sharpton stick his nose in this one. Even he knows a loser case when he sees one.

beach35

August 21, 2009 - 10:14 am EDT

Anyone want to guess the percentage that there will be another scandal of some type at Oak Ridge within a year? I'm putting it at over 90%. This coach is allegedly the high school equivalent of John Calipari.

berillo

August 21, 2009 - 10:23 am EDT

If Oak Ridge is a private school and not in any particular league at the moment, I am not sure what kind of scandal there could be since there are not really any league rules that have to be followed. This basketball coach does not appear to be someone you want at a high school with league policies to follow, but from what I gather he does appear to be a good AAU coach, and if Oak Ridge is in no league, then it is perhaps close to being the equivalent of an AAU type situation where this coach might actually be a good fit for the school. The only problem I could forsee would be if he brings in players who don't like or buy into the military aspect in which case it could be a disaster for those students and perhaps the students around them, but if he brings in players that buy into being in that type of school, he might do just fine and perhaps quite well. Time will tell, I suppose.

Panacea

August 21, 2009 - 12:09 pm EDT

Kowalewski would need a school that lets him cherry pick players without regard to residency for that to happen. Not gonna happen in Guilford County.

beach35

August 21, 2009 - 11:38 am EDT

Anything is possible. Maybe the kids who come in get caught with drugs, maybe there is an assault with another student, the possibilities are endless. How about potential recruiting violations with those kids who may be division one prospects? Based on the coach's history NOTHING is out of the realm of impropriety. If there are no league rules, it just gives someone who is allegedly dirty a license to further push the boundaries.

whyus

August 21, 2009 - 12:16 pm EDT

Give me a break! Sour grapes... but then again, there is the Duke Lacrosse team..

eduguytoo

August 21, 2009 - 6:08 pm EDT

Without saying what is right and what is wrong, let me state unequivocally that if my wife and I separated today, I stayed in our house and she moved out with the kids, to me it would be a "no brainer" that the kids should attend school where she decided to move. For instance, if she moved in with her mother who lives in the shadow of one of the "city" high schools, then it would seem practical and logical that the kids would go to that nearby school. From what I'm understanding, the requirement would be that the kids would have to be ferried to the schools to which our house is zoned, even if that meant transporting them 20 miles one way. I'll fess up that this domicile/residency thing brings up rules and laws that I never knew existed, and I think I'm a reasonably astute person. It would not occur to me that such legal intricacy should enter into school attendance. These players who were ruled ineligible might have been "playing the system." They and their families might have known full-well what they were doing. But I'll tell you right now, under the circumstances of separation or other family strife, I'm not sure I would find myself in compliance either.

One last thing. If it is true that that the reason for ineligibility for these two individuals is based upon this premise of living with one parent in a separated condition, and it took such time and resources for this to be determined, how can the school system continue to maintain that is is something that should have been so readily apparent to Northern's former principal and athletic director? It looks more and more to me that it took a Herculean effort to ferret all this out...or may Columbo/Monk effort would be more appropriate. Is there anyone out there but me who believes that among all the Guilford County high schools there are not more "illegal school residents" based upon this rule...and that at least some of them are playing sports? Yet we've been told that other schools have been investigated, and they're clean. Sorry, I'm not buying it. I'm not buying that the investigation went that deep (not enough time, money and resources were expended...not that I want them to be). And whether out of ignorance or intent, I'm convinced there are many more students and families in this same boat. I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

Panacea

August 21, 2009 - 6:51 pm EDT

There's a difference between what is "practical and logical" as you put it, and what the GCS and state rules are.

The reason those rules are there are to keep parents and students from gaming the system. It might sound logical that if parents seperated, and a child left the house to live with the custodial parent in another school system, they should go to school and be athletically eligible there. But it is not that simple. You can't be athletically eligible because there has to be a mechanism in place to keep people honest. Maybe that puts innocent kids in a pickle when their parents fight, but it has to be that way because there are too many parents willing to cheat to get their way (as this scandal has amply shown).

As for the evidence: it may have been readily apparent, but give how emotionally charged the situation is I don't blame the school system from taking the time to confirm their beliefs through other sources. It is what they should have done, and what they did. Even in an open and shut murder case, the prosecutor will take the time to prepare his evidence carefully, and that's what Wilson did.

The other schools weren't clean. There were ineligible players at other schools. Page self reported one ineligible student. Another school had an ineligible player but I can't remember. Northeast?

I have no doubt there are other ineligible students playing. I don't think the investigation hit every high school, and not the middle schools. I think the focus was on Northern, Page, and the other school.

redlink

August 21, 2009 - 8:05 pm EDT

I know that you and I don't always agree on things, But some of the things I comment on I know for a fact, not what I have read or been led to believe. This all started way back when with Northwests John Hughes crying foul with Northern Guilfords coach. A suit was filed and settled out of court with him paying.. Like a post I had a while back.. MY kids went to NW a few years ago and I know what went on then. A lot of nights out, Dinners.Trips and weekends spent with the coaches and who knows what else to have their kids on the team.. Nobody said anything then because NW was the school of the county. NOW we have NG on the map, busing kids from poor neighhoods, poor GPAs and they come out of the box with a better program than NW with all the money in that area. They just had to hollow foul.. AND I am not saying things are right at NG. BUT I still say the invegestion was poorly handled, and centered around the basketball team, Starting with MR LAWSONS and his Son.That was what the suit was about to start with..NW wanted Lawson to bring his kid there, AND IF he had we would never heard a word about kids moving into a school district. IF I remember correctly, somewhere it was said the only reason Mr Lawson got the job at NG was so his son could play basketball their.. NO!!! I AM NOT FOR CHEATING, BUT I think these parents was right this time.. I have a daughter that is Divorced for 2 yrs and she and her ex still go to their kids school functions and sit together. Some people are still civil about their kids even if they are not together any longer.. JUST FOR the kids sake..

berillo

August 22, 2009 - 1:16 am EDT

It is pretty common knowledge that the suit against the NWG Athletic Director was technically settled but he did not have to pay a dime except to his own lawyer. The settlement was that both sides were basically told to drop it.

eduguytoo

August 21, 2009 - 11:59 pm EDT

And my point would be, I would probably break the rules and not be aware that I had. There's a good chance that lots of people will break them, currently are breaking them, and have broken them in the past intentionally or unintentionally. Did any of you, personally, know that these rules and regulations were on the books before this Northern thing occurred? I'm just saying that one thing that probably would NOT cross my mind if I separated from my wife would be where my kids are legally "domiciled" and where they legally should attend school. I mean, does somebody bring up that topic, and if so, who? Without blinking, my initial reaction is that they would go to the school nearest to where they are living with no thought as to what their legal residence might be. If I might be so bold, I would say that a parent who was really trying to play the game would have been smart enough to make sure that the domicile/legal residence thing was squared away. Seems to me that the cheaters were not only playing with a marked deck, they wrote "Marked Deck" on the back of the cards so everyone playing the game could see it. If a child is legitimately living in a certain locale with one parent who happens to be separated from his spouse, and that child attends the school nearest the place where he takes his meals and puts his head on the pillow, that's not the worst infraction I've ever heard of. And before this, I never knew it was an infraction. I'd say that one thing I've learned from this is that schools that want to be absolutely certain that they are fielding eligible athletes need to really scrutinize families that exhibit these characteristics: those that have single parents; those who live in rented dwellings; those who move; those who have parents working for the school system. I thought that the kids who were found ineligible at Northern lived outside of the attendance zone and had manipulated themselves into the school. Maybe I'm missing something, but I think that it's not quite so much a case of black and white now, but there is a big gray zone. Just thinking in terms or raw numbers and statistics, with all of the families featuring single parents living in rented houses or apartments recently having moved there, there's more than two kids at Northern Guilford who are athletically ineligible based on this residence/domicile rule. And I'll bet that a lot of them put on shoulder pads tonight.

DaveW

August 22, 2009 - 9:49 am EDT

Panacea--northWEST had eligibility issues with baseball. Not northEAST.

DaveW

August 22, 2009 - 9:55 am EDT

Let's not bring in schools that have never had any eligibilty issues recently into this.I have been in this system many years and have never heard of Eastern, Northeast or Southeast have ANY dishonesty in their athletic programs.

Panacea

August 22, 2009 - 10:04 am EDT

My apologies to Northeastern Guilford. That was why I had the question mark--I couldn't remember. I stand corrected and I apologize for putting down the wrong school.

DaveW

August 22, 2009 - 10:22 am EDT

Thank you for correcting yourself. I should have also mentioned the CLEAN programs at Western, Southwest and Ragsdale as well. I have not heard anything negative about those 3 either.

DaveW

August 22, 2009 - 10:37 am EDT

Where has my mind gone? I also forgot Southern Guilford. Very good school.

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Local Tickets

View All

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search