Brown ex rel. Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association

• Decision Date: 08 December 2005
• Docket Number: No. 102,816.,102,816.
• Citation: 125 P.3d 1219,2005 OK 88
• Parties: Suzanne Leigh BROWN, as mother and next friend of Tucker BROWN, a minor, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellant.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

125 P.3d 1219

2005 OK 88

Suzanne Leigh BROWN, as mother and next friend of Tucker BROWN, a minor, Plaintiff/Appellee, v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 102,816.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

December 8, 2005.

Appeal from the District Court of Pottawatomie County.

¶ 0 Shawnee High School sought review of a player suspension imposed by a referee in a playoff game before the defendant/appellant, Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (Association). The Association upheld the suspension. Thereafter, the plaintiff/appellee, Suzanne Leigh Brown as next friend of Tucker Brown (collectively, Brown/player), sought an injunction prohibiting the Association from enforcing its two-game suspension of the player for unsportsmanlike conduct. The suspension negated the player's ability to compete in his school's semifinal playoff game preceding the state championship game. The trial court granted a temporary injunction enjoining the Association from enforcing any penalty or suspension against Brown. Because the Association's construction of Rule 4(b), Conduct of Students, Rules Governing Interscholastic Activities in Senior High Schools (2005-06), its application and the discipline imposed are reasonable and there is no evidence that the penalty was called in anything other than good faith and in conjunction with the rule of law by a referee who was positioned to see the play and who reacted immediately to the player's action, we hold that the injunction should be vacated.

REVERSED; INJUNCTION VACATED.

Terry W. West, Bradley C. West, The West Law Firm, Randy C. Parsons, John Cloar, Shawnee, OK, for plaintiff/appellee.

Clyde A. Muchmore, Harvey D. Ellis, Jr., Mark S. Grossman, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, for defendant/appellant.

PER CURIAM.

¶ 1 The controlling issue presented by the expedited appeal is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction barring the Association from enforcing its decision that Brown not be allowed to participate in upcoming State Championship elimination games. If so, we must vacate the injunction.

¶ 2 The Association's construction of Rule 4(b), Conduct of Students, Rules Governing Interscholastic Activities in Senior High Schools (2005-06),¹ its application and the discipline imposed are reasonable. There is no evidence that the penalty was called in anything other than good faith and in conjunction with the rule of law by a referee who was positioned to see the play and who reacted immediately to the player's action. Therefore, we vacate the injunction.²

FACTS

¶ 3 Shawnee and Booker T. Washington High Schools opposed each other in the Class 5A quarterfinal football playoffs on November 19, 2005. In the last seconds of the game, a referee ejected two players — Brown, who was serving as Shawnee's quarterback, for kicking an opponent and a player on the opposing team for taking a swing at a Shawnee player. The Association construed its rule violation, which was based on the player having engaged in a "fight," to require Brown's suspension in the next two games of the season — the semifinal and, assuming the team's success, the state championship round.³

¶ 4 The Association asserts that it is undisputed that Brown kicked an opposing team player in the helmet while the player was on the ground. The Shawnee Head Coach (coach), who happens to be the player's father, conceded that Brown kicked "at" the opposing player.⁴ Allegations are that the same player punched Brown in an earlier play without being penalized, but it is admitted that the referee may not have seen the opposing player's actions.⁵ The coach also agrees that his son's actions appeared retaliatory and that they fell within the definition of a "fight" under the applicable Association rule.⁶ The coach is convinced that the referee was pressured and intimidated by the opposing team's coaches into entering the call while, at the same time, the Shawnee coaches were prohibited from taking the field to enter the conversation. The coach acknowledged that the only chance Tulsa had of winning the game in the last seconds was to cause a fumble.⁷

¶ 5 Although agreeing that Brown's actions constituted a violation, the retired commissioner of the Oklahoma Intercollegiate Conference testified that, in his opinion, the calls at the end of the game resulted from poor judgment and common sense.⁸ He also believed that the officials were pressed by the Tulsa coaches into making the ejection call.⁹

¶ 6 The referee responsible for game management, testifying on behalf of the Association, stated that he saw Brown kick the other player in his helmet and that when he dropped his flag on the infraction, he knew he had to eject Brown for his actions.¹⁰ He also testified that neither of the team's two coaches had any influence on the call he made or the sanction imposed¹¹ and that neither team's coach tried to intimidate him or any of the other referees.¹² In an e-mail report, the referee described the incident to Association headquarters as follows:

"In tonight's game at Shawnee, between Shawnee and Tulsa Washington we had two ejections:

With 19.4 seconds left in the ballgame Shawnee is leading and has the ball running out the clock. They were taking a knee and just before the snap a Washington player dives over the center and tries to grab the Shawnee quarterback. We have a whistle and a flag but as the Washington player hits the ground the Shawnee QB, Tucker Brown # 8 kicks him in the face. During the next few moments trying to get calm back Tulsa Washington player # 3 swings and hits a Shawnee player. He is also ejected. . . ."

Three video tapes were entered into evidence in the trial court proceedings. All three tapes contained shots of the referee's contested ruling. Although it is impossible to determine whether Brown actually kicked the other player in the helmet or the face, the tapes clearly demonstrate that, immediately following the play, he "kicked" toward another player. The tapes also show the position of the referee close enough to the action to see the play and his immediate throw of the penalty flag.¹³ Furthermore, the referee's observations are consistent with those of the umpire who was also close to the play and threw his flag contemporaneously for the same violation.

¶ 7 Shawnee High School representatives protested Brown's suspension before the Association. After meeting with Shawnee's head football coach and Shawnee's athletic director, reviewing videotape of the incident and the written reports from game officials, and interviewing the head referee in charge, the Association upheld the suspension.¹⁴ On November 22, 2005, the player's mother, as his next friend, filed a petition for a temporary and permanent injunction. Although Shawnee's head football coach appeared as a witness for the player, no official representatives of the Shawnee High School joined in the injunction proceedings. A hearing was held in the matter on November 23rd. At the close of the hearing, the trial judge granted the temporary injunction on grounds that the Tulsa coaches, having approached the referees and having engaged them in conversation, created "an appearance of impropriety."¹⁵

¶ 8 On November 28, 2005, the Association filed its petition along with a motion to retain and to expedite the appeal. The following day, an order issued granting both motions and directing that the briefing cycle be completed with the filing of the player's answer brief no later than December 5th.

DISCUSSION

¶ 9 a. Standard of review applicable to Association and to injunctive proceeding.

¶ 10 The Association is made up of schools who voluntarily apply for membership.¹⁶ One of its purposes is to promote high standards of good sportsmanship.¹⁷ With member input, the Association adopts rules governing the interaction between the Association and the membership.¹⁸ Member schools are presumed to acquiesce in the rules and in the constitutional provision vesting final authority as to whether a rule violation occurs in the Board of Directors.¹⁹ Regarding judicial interference with a voluntary association, we have long abided by the general rule that the courts should not intervene except to ascertain whether association proceedings are conducted pursuant to the rules and laws of the organization, in good faith and lawfully. Absent fraudulent, collusive, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious behavior, this Court may not overturn a voluntary association's enforcement of its rules.²⁰ We may not interject ourselves in the Association's internal affairs if the rules are reasonable, lawful, in keeping with public policy, and are interpreted fairly and reasonably and enforced uniformly and not arbitrarily.²¹

¶ 11 The standard of review imposed for the issuance of a temporary injunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a decision against the evidence.²² Pursuant to 12 O.S.2001 § 952(b)(2),²³ we may reverse, vacate or modify a judgment of the district court where, on review it appears from the nature of the case and all the facts properly before the Court, the plaintiff was not entitled to injunctive relief.²⁴ Injunction proceedings are equitable in nature. Therefore, we consider all the evidence on appeal.²⁵

¶ 12 b. The Association's construction of Rule 4, Conduct of Students, Rules Governing Interscholastic Activities in Senior High Schools (2005-06), its application and the discipline imposed are reasonable. There is no evidence that the penalty was called in anything other than good faith and in conjunction with the rule of law by a referee who was positioned to see the play and who reacted immediately to the player's action.

¶ 13 Rule 4(b), Conduct of Students, Rules Governing Interscholastic Activities in Senior High Schools (2005-06), provides in pertinent part:

". . . A student whose flagrant or unsportsmanlike conduct consists of fighting,...