For Justine Pissott, this is less a story about a lawsuit than a story about confusion, distance and a clear line she says she does not want crossed. The former Tennessee and Vanderbilt forward says she was unaware she had been named in a class-action complaint against the NCAA, and now she is trying to be removed from it.
Pissott told IndyStar on Thursday that she only learned about the filing after it resurfaced publicly and that she had no intention of attaching herself to it. The complaint, Patterson vs. National Collegiate Athletic Association, was initially filed on Sept. 2, 2025 and later expanded on Nov. 10, but Pissott said she did not know she had been included. “Very unaware” was how she described her reaction, adding that she was confused when college coaches and others began contacting her about joining the lawsuit.
That matters because Pissott is not positioning herself as a player weighing one more college season against a professional future. She said she has no plans to return to college basketball and wants to stay with the Las Vegas Aces, who signed her to a standard contract in early July. “I do not have any inkling of going back to college,” she said, making clear that her preferred path is in Las Vegas, not back in the NCAA system.
The eligibility question is broader than her case
The complaint asks whether 2022 high school graduates can use an extra season of eligibility from a Colorado injunction, and Pissott’s name appears to have been pulled into that debate because of her past interest in an additional NCAA season. Before her senior year at Vanderbilt, she tried to secure another year of eligibility and was denied, and she had also explored the possibility through an appeal and through interest in Diego Pavia's lawsuit.
But Pissott said that is not where she is now. She recalled being told on Thursday, about 45 minutes before warm-ups, that there was a contract with her signature on it, yet she said she has no memory of signing it and does not know what the contract entails. She also said she spoke with JoAnna B. Adkisson, who told her the matter was tied to financial circumstances rather than a return to college, further reinforcing her view that she should not remain in the filing.
The public attention intensified after a social media post from attorney Mitch Gilfillan was quoted by Skim Milkey on Monday night and highlighted Pissott's involvement. That is often how these disputes move from paper to public conversation: one post, one name, and suddenly an athlete is being treated as part of a case she says she never meant to join.
For Pissott, the practical issue is simple even if the legal one is not. She says she is in the process of getting removed from the filing, she says she does not want to return to college basketball, and she says Las Vegas is where she wants to be. In a case built around eligibility and who qualifies for relief, that is an important distinction. Pissott is not asking for another college chapter. She is asking not to be written into one.
