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

• Decision Date: 02 February 2018
• Docket Number: No. 17-2456,17-2456
• Citation: 881 F.3d 587
• Parties: A.H., a minor, BY his father and next friend, Keith HOLZMUELLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

881 F.3d 587

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

v.ILLINOIS HIGH SCHOOL ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-2456

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued November 6, 2017

Decided February 2, 2018

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied April 10, 2018

Louis E. Fogel, Attorney, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Chicago, IL, Devi M. Rao, Attorney, JENNER & BLOCK LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Matthew S. Hefflefinger, Craig L. Unrath, Jessica R. Sarff, Attorneys, HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, Peoria, IL, Tyler James Pratt, Attorney, HEYL, ROYSTER, VOELKER & ALLEN, Champaign, IL, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before Bauer, Kanne, and Rovner, Circuit Judges.

Bauer, Circuit Judge.

A.H., a senior at Evanston Township High School, is a member of the school's track and field team despite his physical limitations from spastic quadriplegia

related to cerebral palsy. During his junior year, he requested that the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) create a separate division with different time standards for para-ambulatory runners in the Sectional and State championship track meets, as well as the annual 5K Road Race. The IHSA denied these requests, and A.H. filed this suit seeking injunctive relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) ; and, Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12182(a). The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IHSA, finding that A.H.'s requests were not reasonable accommodations under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. We affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Despite being born with spastic quadriplegia

related to cerebral palsy, A.H. has been a three-sport athlete in cross country, swimming, and track and field at Evanston Township High School since his freshman year. A.H. is classified by the International Paralympic Committee (IPC) as a T-36 disabled athlete, meaning that his disability impairs his muscular control, balance, coordination, and range of motion. In particular, A.H. has limited coordination in both his legs and arms, and has limited range of motion in his hips, knees, and ankles. Thus, his disability hinders crucial parts of his body that are essential for running.

A.H. is a full member of the track and field team, and he has never been prevented by his school or the IHSA from being on the team or participating at individual school meets. In fact, A.H. has never missed a track meet in his high school career. He is fully embraced and respected by both his coaches and teammates. Moreover, A.H. is considered an elite athlete within the disabled athletic community, as he competed at the U.S. Paralympic Trials in 2016.

The IHSA is a not-for-profit voluntary association which organizes and regulates interscholastic high school athletic events throughout Illinois. It consists of 810 public and private member high schools, more than 90% of the high schools in Illinois. The IHSA's Board of Directors is comprised of ten principals from its member high schools who have the final authority on the overall operations and rules; an Executive Director of the IHSA oversees the day-to-day operations.

The Executive Director has complete authority to decide accommodation requests, which can be brought by member schools, or by an individual. There is no published criteria the Executive Director consults when evaluating such requests. The Executive Director's ruling on an accommodation request can be appealed to the ten-member Board, which will hold a hearing with the student-athlete and other relevant parties.

The IHSA maintains an "Accommodation Policy for Students with Disabilities," which provides:

It is the policy of the IHSA to provide students with disabilities full and equal opportunities to be integrated in IHSA interscholastic sports and activities whenever possible. IHSA recognizes and adopts the definition of disability as provided within the [ADA]. The IHSA will not discriminate against students with disabilities on the basis of disability in its services, programs, or activities.

In this vein, the IHSA has implemented events and divisions within particular sports for student-athletes with disabilities, such as a para-ambulatory division at swim meets, and a wheelchair division at track and field meets.

However, the IHSA does not have a para-ambulatory division for runners like A.H. in the track and field meets it regulates. While the IHSA does not organize or regulate individual school meets throughout the track and field season, it does manage the two most important track meets: the Sectional meet and the State championship meet. In order to qualify for the State championship meet ("State"), a runner must place first or second in their event, or attain a particular qualifying time at the Sectional meet. Runners who compete at State can achieve points for their team, which are accumulated to determine which team wins the overall State championship. The IHSA does not preclude any runner from participating at Sectionals, as individual track and field teams determine who runs in the events. In fact, A.H. ran the 1600 meter race for his team at Sectionals in the Spring of 2017.

By design, the State qualifying times established by the IHSA at the Sectional meet preclude thousands of able-bodied runners from qualifying for State each year. Approximately 10% of all runners on IHSA-member track and field teams qualify for State.

A.H. cannot attain any of the qualifying times for State, and it is undisputed that world record holders in the T-36 classification would be unable to achieve any of the qualifying times. Thus, on September 26, 2015, A.H., on an individual basis, submitted three accommodation requests to the IHSA: (1) that the IHSA create separate para-ambulatory time standards for the Sectional and State meets in the 100, 200, 400, and 800 meter races; (2) that the IHSA create a para-ambulatory division in the annual 5K Road Race; and, (3) that A.H. be allowed to use a modified starting block in the 100, 200, and 400 races. A.H. suggested in the first accommodation request that IHSA adopt the Louisiana High School Athletic Association (LHSAA) qualifying times for para-ambulatory runners. A.H. has recorded personal best times in the 100, 200, 400, and 800 that would qualify him for State under the LHSAA qualifying times.

On October 8, 2015, the Executive Director granted A.H.'s third request for a modified starting block; however, he denied the first two requests, finding that they were not reasonable but that A.H. "currently has the same opportunity to compete in track and field as his nondisabled peers."

The Executive Director relied on guidance from the U.S. Department of Education Office of Civil Rights, which noted in a letter to school officials that students with disabilities must be provided access to extracurricular activities, but that schools were under no obligation to create separate or different activities for the disabled.

On October 25, 2015, A.H. appealed the Executive Director's ruling. The Board held a hearing on December 14, 2015, and sustained the Executive Director's decision to deny the requests. The Board noted that A.H. was already part of the team, and that being a part of the team was a greater intangible benefit than participating at State. Moreover, the Board emphasized that the IHSA's goal is to integrate disabled athletes with able-bodied athletes rather than separating them. Finally, the Board concluded that granting A.H.'s request would provide him an unfair competitive advantage because he would have a greater opportunity to advance to State and earn points for his team.

A.H. filed a lawsuit on February 4, 2016, seeking injunctive relief to compel the IHSA to adopt the separate para-ambulatory qualifying times and divisions at the Sectional and State track meets, as well as the Road Race. The complaint alleged that IHSA's refusal to adopt these accommodations amounted to impermissible discrimination against disabled individuals under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and Titles II and III of the ADA.

After discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the IHSA. The court found that A.H. could not show that the alleged discrimination had occurred on the basis or by reason of his disability. The court also concluded that even if A.H. had presented such evidence, his accommodation requests were not reasonable, as a matter of law, because they would fundamentally alter the nature of the IHSA's track and field competitions.

II. DISCUSSION

We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo . Steimel v. Wernert , 823 F.3d 902, 910 (7th Cir. 2016). Summary judgment is appropriate if the moving party shows there is "no genuine dispute as to any material fact," and that he is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a).

The relevant provisions and implementing regulations of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA are "materially identical." Steimel , 823 F.3d at 909 (quoting Bruggeman ex. rel. Bruggeman v. Blagojevich , 324 F.3d 906, 912 (7th Cir. 2003) ). As a result, "courts construe and apply them in a consistent manner," and our evaluation of A.H.'s claims under both require the same analysis. Radaszewski ex rel. Radaszewski v. Maram , 383 F.3d 599, 607 (7th Cir. 2004).

The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA provide expansive protections from discrimination for individuals with disabilities. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that no disabled individuals "shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance...." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Rehabilitation Act's prohibition on disability discrimination was greatly expanded by the ADA. Titles II and III of the ADA expand protections against discrimination for disabled...