Foskett v. Mass. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

Decision Date22 January 2021
Docket NumberDocket: 2177CV00021 B
PartiesJAMES FOSKETT, FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND OF EVAN FOSKETT v. MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION
CourtSuperior Court of Massachusetts

Dates: January 22, 2021

Present: Jeffrey T. Karp Associate Justice, Superior Court

County: ESSEX, ss.

Keywords: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Paper No. 5)

Plaintiff James Foskett (“Foskett”) has filed a verified Complaint seeking relief in the nature of certiorari pursuant to G.L. c. 249, § 4. He seeks to annul the decision of defendant Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (“MIAA”) to refuse to grant Foskett’s son, Evan Foskett (“Evan”), a waiver of ineligibility to play varsity hockey at Malden Catholic High School (“MCHS”) after Evan transferred to MCHS from Haverhill High School (“HHS”) at the start of his junior year in September 2020.

On January 21, 2021, the Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion For Preliminary Injunction (Paper No. 5) (“Motion”). Foskett seeks to preliminarily enjoin the MIAA from enforcing its decision that Evan is ineligible to play varsity hockey at MCHS for one year.

As explained below, after thorough consideration of the parties’ submissions and the argument of counsel at said hearing, the Motion is ALLOWED.

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from the parties’ submissions and are not in dispute.1

Evan is 17 years-old and lives in Haverhill. He was educated in the Haverhill public school system his entire life until the start of this school year (i.e., September 2020) when he enrolled at MCHS for his junior year of high school. Evan played varsity hockey at HHS as a freshman (i.e., the 20182019 school year) and sophomore (i.e., the 20192020 school year).

The MIAA Regulatory Framework

The MIAA is a non-profit association of public and private member schools, which regulates interscholastic athletics in Massachusetts. The MIAA has promulgated rules and regulations governing member schools. (See MIAA Rules And Regulations Governing Athletics, Defendant’s Opposition To Plaintiff’s Request For Injunctive Relief (Paper No. 8) (“MIAA Rules”), Ex. 3 (“D. Ex. 3)). HHS and MCHS are members of the MIAA.

The MIAA Rules state that, subject to exemptions that are not applicable here, student athletes who played a varsity sport at a member school are ineligible to play that varsity sport for one year upon transferring to another member school. See MIAA Rule 57. Notwithstanding the aforementioned one-year period of ineligibility, the MIAA Rules set forth a process by which the student will be eligible to play sports for the transferee school. (See generally MIAA Rule 57). In such an instance, the school from which the student transferred (i.e., the transferor school) must certify in writing on a form (“Form 200”) that the transfer meets certain factors, such as the transferor school has no knowledge recruitment “was involved in any way” in the transfer. MIAA Rule 57.4.

The MIAA Rules further authorize a process by which the transferee school may seek a waiver of ineligibility to play sports from the MIAA Executive Director or his/her designee. MIAA Rule 87.2. The MIAA Rules require the Executive Director to consider the following four factors when deciding whether to grant a waiver of ineligibility:

(1) the rule works an undue hardship on the student,

(2) granting the waiver will not result in an unfair competitive advantage,

(3) the waiver approval would not cause displacement of another student-athlete from the [transferee school]’s own team, and

(4) the waiver would not be in conflict with the general well-being of MIAA interscholastic athletic objectives.

MIAA Rule 87.2 (“Waiver Factors”).

“An adverse decision [regarding the waiver of ineligibility] by the Executive Director may be appealed before a subcommittee of the Eligibility Review Board [“ERB”].” MIAA Rule 87.4. Furthermore, [a]n adverse decision of the ERB may be appealed by the student’s principal for a hearing before a subcommittee of the Massachusetts Interscholastic Council [(“MIAC”)].” MIAA Rule 87.5. “The four standards that must be addressed in an appeal before the [MIAC] are” identical to the Waiver Factors. Id.

The parties agree that “waiver hearings” before the ERB and the MIAC are not recorded and no record is kept or made of documents or testimony they receive in evidence.

Allegations Of Recruiting Violations

In September 2019, the Merrimack Valley Conference (“MVC”), of which HHS is a member, reported concerns to the MIAA that MCHS was actively recruiting MVC student athletes to play hockey at MCHS. (See Correspondence of MVC to MIAA, Complaint (Paper No. 1), Ex. E (“Compl. Ex. E”)). The MIAA Rules strictly forbid recruiting of student athletes.

Having not heard back from the MIAA about its allegations of recruiting, the MVC wrote to the MIAA again on March 2, 2020. (Id.). On November 24, 2020, the MIAA informed the MVC that it conducted a thorough investigation of the MVC’s concerns and concluded that it did “not receive[] clear-cut evidence of a recruiting violation.” (Id.).

The Appeal Of Denial Of The Waiver In This Matter On October 13, 2020, HHS submitted to the MIAA the Form 200 regarding Evan’s transfer to MCHS in which it declined to certify that the factors were met that would make Evan immediately eligible to play sports at MCHS.

Thereafter, MCHS applied for a waiver of ineligibility on behalf of Evan with the MIAA Executive Director who, on November 19, 2020, declined to grant a waiver. (See MIAA Eligibility Waiver Denial, D. Ex. 6). Thus, Evan continued to be “ineligible to participate in ice hockey for one year from the date of his transfer (September 4, 2020).” (Id.).

MCHS and Evan appealed the denial of the waiver to the ERB, which conducted a hearing on December 8, 2020. The ERB voted unanimously (3 – 0) to deny the waiver request. (See MIAA Eligibility Appeal Hearing Decision, D. Ex. 7). MCHS, on behalf of Evan, appealed that decision to the MIAC. On December 15, 2020, the MIAC conducted a hearing on Evan’s appeal of the ERB’s denial of the waiver. (See MIAC Appeal Hearing Decision, Compl. Ex. A) (“MIAC Decision”). The MIAC voted unanimously (3 – 0) to uphold the decision of the ERB to deny the waiver request. (Id.).

DISCUSSION
I. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK

“The party seeking a preliminary injunction must show (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) that irreparable harm will result from denial of the injunction; and (3) that, in light of the [moving party’s] likelihood of success on the merits, the risk of irreparable harm to the [moving party] outweighs the potential harm to the [nonmoving party] in granting the injunction.’2 Garcia v. Department of Housing and Community Dev., 480 Mass. 736, 747 (2018) (citations omitted). [T]he significant remedy of a preliminary injunction should not be granted unless the plaintiffs had made a clear showing of entitlement thereto.” Student No. 9 v. Board of Educ., 440 Mass. 752, 762 (2004) (citation omitted). As stated, this action is in the nature of certiorari brought under G.L. c. 249, § 4. [T]he animating principle behind certiorari review . . . is ‘a limited procedure reserved for correction of substantial errors of law apparent on the record created before a judicial or quasi-judicial tribunal.’ Revere v. Massachusetts Gaming Comm’n, 476 Mass. 591, 606 (2017) (citations omitted).3 “Generally, the standard of review for a certiorari action is calibrated to the nature of the action for which review is sought.” Id. at 604 (citation omitted); see also Perullo v. Advisory Comm. on Personnel Standards, 476 Mass. 829, 835 – 836 (2017) (“In an action in the nature of certiorari, ‘the standard of review may vary according to the nature of the action for which review is sought.’) (citation omitted). ‘Ordinarily, where the action being reviewed is a decision made in an adjudicatory proceeding where evidence is presented and due process protections are afforded, a court applies the ‘substantial evidence’ standard.’ Massachusetts Gaming Comm’n, 476 Mass. at 604 (quoting Figgs v. Boston Hous. Auth., 469 Mass. 354, 361-362 (2014)). The MIAC Decision challenged by Foskett is such a decision. Accordingly, the Court will apply the “substantial evidence” standard when determining if Foskett has demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits.4

In the context of a review of an administrative agency decision, the substantial evidence standard is well known:

When analyzing the validity of a[n agency] decision, a reviewing court must determine whether the decision is supported by substantial evidence. Substantial evidence is such evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The burden is on the appealing party to demonstrate the invalidity of the [agency]’s decision. In conducting [the] review of such decision, [the court] give[s] due weight to the experience, technical competence, and specialized knowledge of the [agency], as well as to the discretionary authority conferred upon it. It is the province of the [agency], not this court, to weigh the credibility of the witnesses and to resolve any factual disputes.

Doe v. Sex Offender Registry Bd., 81 Mass. App. Ct. 610, 618 (2012) (internal citations and quotations omitted).5 Moreover, “to determine whether an agency’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, [the court] examine[s] the entirety of the administrative record and take[s] into account whatever in the record fairly detracts from the supporting evidence’s weight.” Cobble v. Commissioner of Social Servs., 430 Mass. 385, 390 (1999). With these legal principals in mind, the Court will determine if Foskett has met his burden to obtain a preliminary injunction.

II. THE PLAINTIFF HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT IRREPARABLE HARM WILL OCCUR IF THE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS NOT GRANTED

The MIAA argues that Evan will not suffer irreparable harm if the Court...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT