A.H. v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n

• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
• Writing for the Court: John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge
• Citation: A.H. v. Ill. High Sch. Ass'n, 263 F.Supp.3d 705 (N.D. Ill. 2017)
• Decision Date: 07 July 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16–CV–1959,16–CV–1959
• Parties: A.H., a minor, BY his father and next friend, Keith HOLZMUELLER, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

263 F.Supp.3d 705

A.H., a minor, BY his father and next friend, Keith HOLZMUELLER, Plaintiff,

v.ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, Defendant.

No. 16–CV–1959

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed July 7, 2017

Louis E. Fogel, Lina Ragep Powell, Ren–How Harn, Shaun M. Van Horn, Abraham Michael Salander, Jenner & Block LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.

Matthew S. Hefflefinger, Tyler James Pratt, Heyl, Royster, Voelker, & Allen P.C., Peoria, IL, Andrew J. Roth, Brett Michael Mares, Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

John J. Tharp, Jr., United States District Judge

Plaintiff A.H. is a high school runner with cerebral palsy. Although he competes as a member of his school's track team during the regular season, he has sued the Illinois High School Association ("IHSA"), which runs the state track and field championship and other events, seeking two accommodations for his disability: that IHSA establish realistic qualifying times for para-ambulatory athletes to compete in the state finals and that IHSA establish a para-ambulatory division in its annual 5K "Road Race" event. IHSA has moved for summary judgment. Although there are some preliminary issues to address, the principal dispute between the parties is whether A.H.'s requested accommodations are reasonable. The reasonableness of accommodations for disabilities is often a fact question, but here the question can be resolved as a matter of law, both because there is no evidence from which to infer that A.H. could meet the required performance standards were he not disabled and because a public entity need not lower its qualifying standards to facilitate participation by the disabled. His related claim that IHSA's denial of his accommodation requests deprived him of equal protection also fails because IHSA's position is rational, not arbitrary, and is not the product of discriminatory animus. Accordingly, and as more fully set forth below, IHSA is (with one minor exception) entitled to summary judgment.

BACKGROUND

On summary judgment, the Court "must construe all facts and reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party."

Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads v. Foxx , 815 F.3d 1068, 1074 (7th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. Citizens for Appropriate Rural Roads, Inc. v. Foxx , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 310, 196 L.Ed.2d 219 (2016). Only IHSA has moved for summary judgment so all facts are interpreted, and all inferences drawn, in A.H.'s favor. The facts summarized below are undisputed unless otherwise noted. The Court did not consider the portions of the expert report deemed inadmissible later in this opinion. See Poulter v. Cottrell, Inc. , 50 F.Supp.3d 953, 955 (N.D. Ill. 2014).

Plaintiff A.H. is a high school student at Evanston Township High School in Evanston, Illinois. Def.'s Statement of Material Facts ("DSOF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 156. Since his freshman year, A.H. has been a member of his school's swim, track, and cross-country teams. Id. at ¶ 89. During his three years of high school, A.H. has missed fewer than five track and cross-country practices and has never missed a meet. Id. at ¶ 90. A.H.'s coach has made him feel welcome "to the best of [his] ability" and A.H. is accepted and respected by his teammates and coaches. Id. at ¶ 94–95. A.H. has received awards for his leadership and determination from his track coach. Id. at ¶ 100.

A.H.'s athletic participation is noteworthy in light of the fact that he has physical disabilities, including spastic quadriplegia related to cerebral palsy. Pl.'s Statement of Additional Facts ("PSOF") ¶ 1, ECF No. 168. Due to his disabilities, A.H. has a limited range of motion in his hips, knees, and ankles as well as an abnormal gait pattern and involuntary movement. Id. at ¶¶ 2–4. These disabilities adversely affect the basic mechanics of running, which require an athlete to balance, flex, extend, and propel his body by coordinating the movements of all four limbs. Id. For example, A.H. cannot push off on his toes in the way that an able-bodied runner would.Id. at ¶ 5.

In addition to competing on the high school track team, A.H. frequently participates in adaptive sports against other individuals with disabilities. DSOF ¶ 116. A.H. competes both locally and nationally in these competitions, including the 2016 U.S. Paralympic Trials. Id. ; PSOF ¶ 9. Within the disabled athletic community, A.H. is seen as an "elite" and "up and coming" athlete who may well compete internationally in the future. PSOF ¶¶ 8, 10.

Despite these achievements, A.H. has never been able to compete in the state finals for track, a competition sponsored and managed by defendant IHSA.¹ Id. at ¶ 6. IHSA does not offer a division for athletes with disabilities in track unless they use a wheelchair. Id. at ¶ 20. In contrast, IHSA allows both wheelchair athletes and para-ambulatory athletes (including A.H.) to compete in a disability division in swimming. Id. Disabled swimmers and wheelchair track participants are able to earn points for their teams that contribute to a "Combined State Championship" award (which is open only to schools which have disabled athletes competing). Id. at ¶ 19.

Selected by his coach, A.H. ran the 1600 meter race at the spring 2017 sectional competition (which is a qualifying race for the state championship) against able-bodied athletes, but he did not run fast enough to qualify for the state finals according to the metrics used for able-bodied runners. DSOF ¶¶ 112, 113. A.H. finished last in that race, almost a minute and a half behind the next fastest runner. PSOF ¶ 12. It is undisputed that even the world record holders for runners with A.H.'s disability classification would not meet IHSA's qualifying times to compete at the state track meet. Id. at ¶ 18.

On or about September 26, 2015, A.H. made three requests to IHSA regarding its track program: 1) that he be allowed to use a modified starting block, 2) that IHSA create qualifying time standards² for para-ambulatory athletes for the state finals,³ and 3) that IHSA create a para-ambulatory division in the annual Road Race⁴ event.⁵ DSOF ¶ 62. Only the latter two requests are at issue in this case, because IHSA's Executive Director granted the request permitting A.H. to use a modified starting block. Id. at ¶ 66. On October 8, 2015, IHSA's Executive Director (Dr. Hickman) denied A.H.'s request for different time standards and the new para-ambulatory division.Id.

A few words are necessary at this point about IHSA. IHSA is a not-for-profit⁶ which organizes interscholastic athletic events throughout the state for high school students. DSOF ¶¶ 2, 4. Illinois high schools that meet the criteria of IHSA membership may elect to join IHSA as long as they follow its terms and conditions, bylaws, and constitution. Id. at ¶ 8. Over 90% of Illinois high schools are members of IHSA. PSOF ¶ 13. IHSA's board comprises 10 principals from member schools. DSOF ¶ 9. IHSA's Executive Director has the authority to decide "all matters concerning eligibility, accommodation requests ... and make modifications or impose penalties where appropriate." Id. at ¶ 22. IHSA does not have a template or published set of criteria for adjudicating accommodation requests. Id. at ¶ 24. A dissatisfied party may appeal the Executive Director's action to the IHSA Board, which will hold a hearing and then decide whether to affirm or alter the Executive Director's decision. DSOF ¶ 26–27.

On October 25, 2015, A.H. appealed the denial of his accommodation requests to the IHSA Board, which scheduled a hearing for December 14, 2015. DSOF ¶ 76.

After the hearing, the Board affirmed the Executive Director's decision, reasoning that A.H. was already participating in his school's track team and that he had the opportunity to participate even if he was unlikely to win. Id. at ¶ 77–79. Individual board members expressed that granting A.H.'s requested accommodations would give him an unfair competitive advantage compared to able-bodied students because he would have a greater opportunity to advance to state from the sectional competition given the much smaller number of competitors he would face. See id. at ¶ 84. Following the Board's denial of his appeal, A.H. filed this suit on February 4, 2016. IHSA has moved for summary judgment on all counts and moved to bar A.H.'s expert.

DISCUSSION

A.H. brings claims for injunctive relief under Section 504(a) of the Rehabilitation Act ( 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) ), Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") ( 42 U.S.C. § 12132 ), Title III of the ADA ( 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) ), and the Equal Protection Clauses of the Illinois and federal constitutions. IHSA has moved for summary judgment on the various claims and additionally moved to bar A.H.'s expert's testimony. Summary judgment, of course, is only appropriate if the moving party (IHSA) shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Spurling v. C & M Fine Pack, Inc. , 739 F.3d 1055, 1060 (7th Cir. 2014). The Court addresses the Daubert motion first, so that what constitutes the record on summary judgment is clear, and then addresses IHSA's arguments for summary judgment.⁷

I. Daubert Challenge

IHSA moves to bar the testimony of Keri Serota, A.H.'s expert, under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. , 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). The admissibility of Serota's opinions is largely academic in view of the Court's conclusion that the antidiscrimination statutes do not require IHSA to provide the principal accommodations A.H. seeks, but not entirely. Serota has offered opinions bearing on safety accommodations in connection with the Road Race. As discussed infra , the grant of summary judgment in IHSA's favor does not extend to the question of those modifications and Serota's opinions on that question remain relevant. Accordingly, IHSA's Daubert challenge to Serota's opinions...