Jones v. West Virginia State Board of Education, No. 31785 (WV 7/6/2005)
| Decision Date | 06 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 31786,No. 31785,31785,31786 |
| Parties | DANIEL JONES AND CHRISTIE JONES, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; STATE SUPERINTENDENT DAVID STEWART; MARION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; MARION COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS LONG; AND WEST VIRGINIA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES COMMISSION, Defendants Below, WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION AND STATE SUPERINTENDENT DAVID STEWART, Appellants. and DANIEL JONES AND CHRISTIE JONES, Plaintiffs Below, Appellees, v. WEST VIRGINIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION; STATE SUPERINTENDENT DAVID STEWART; MARION COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION; MARION COUNTY SUPERINTENDENT THOMAS LONG; AND WEST VIRGINIA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES COMMISSION, Defendants Below, WEST VIRGINIA SECONDARY SCHOOLS ACTIVITIES COMMISSION, Appellant. |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, Honorable Louis H. Bloom, Judge, Civil Action No. 02-MISC-447.
REVERSED.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. Prohibiting home-schooled children from participating in interscholastic athletics does not violate equal protection under art. III, § 10 of the West Virginia Constitution.
2. "Notwithstanding the transfer of supervisory authority over interscholastic athletic events and other extracurricular activities to county boards of education and the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission, West Virginia Code § 18-2-25 (1994) is constitutional, since it is clear that the Legislature, in enacting said statute, only intended to permit county boards of education and the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission to supervise and to regulate extracurricular activities subject to the West Virginia State Board of Education's duty under Article XII, § 2 of the West Virginia Constitution to generally supervise the schools in this state." Syllabus point 6, State ex rel. Lambert by Lambert v. West Virginia State Board of Education, 191 W. Va. 700, 447 S.E.2d 901 (1994).
3. The West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission did not violate its constitutional or statutory authority in promulgating the legislative rule found at W. Va. C.S.R. § 127-2-3.1, which requires that, to be eligible for participation in interscholastic athletics, a student must be enrolled full-time in a school participating in the West Virginia Secondary Schools Activities Commission.
Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Barbara H. Allen, Managing Deputy Attorney General, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for the Appellants, West Virginia State Board of Education and State Superintendent David Steward.
Randall A. Minor, West Virginia University, College of Law, Morgantown, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellees.
William B. McGinley, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Education Association.
Charles F. Donnelly, Jeffrey G. Blaydes, Donnelly & Carbone, P.L.L.C., Charleston, West Virginia, Attorneys for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO.
Stephen R. Brooks, Flaherty, Sensabaugh & Bonasso, Morgantown, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellants, Marion County Board of Education and Marion County Superintendent Thomas Long.
William R. Wooton, Beckley, West Virginia, Attorney for the Appellant, West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission.
Gregory W. Bailey, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia, Attorney for Amicus Curiae, West Virginia School Boards Association.
This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Kanawha County rendered in favor of the parents of a home-schooled child with respect to their claim that their child should be permitted to participate in interscholastic athletics notwithstanding his home-schooled status. On appeal, the West Virginia State Board of Education, State Superintendent David Stewart, the Marion County Board of Education, Marion County Superintendent Thomas Long, and the West Virginia Secondary School Activity Commission (hereinafter collectively referred to as "School Officials") argue that the circuit court erred in concluding: (1) that the School Officials had breached a statutory duty by failing to make interscholastic athletics available to home-schooled children; (2) that the legislative rule prohibiting home-schooled children from participating in interscholastic athletics violates equal protection; and (3) that the School Officials breached their duty to make reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the participation of home-schooled children in interscholastic athletics. We agree with the School Officials and reverse the order of the circuit court.
Daniel and Christy Jones (hereinafter "the Joneses"), plaintiffs below and appellees herein, are residents of Marion County, West Virginia. The Joneses have elected to home school their children, including their son Aaron. In 2002, when Aaron was approximately eleven years old, he indicated to his parents his desire to participate on the Mannington Middle School wrestling team. Had Aaron been a student in the public school system, he would have been a sixth grade student at Mannington Middle School. The Joneses investigated the possibility of Aaron joining the Mannington Middle School wrestling team and were advised that they needed approval from the West Virginia Secondary School Activities Commission (hereinafter "the WVSSAC"). Upon contacting the WVSSAC, the Joneses were advised that, pursuant to W. Va. C.S.R. § 127-2-3.1,1 participation in interscholastic athletic activities was limited to students who were enrolled full-time in a WVSSAC participating school. Consequently, since Aaron was not enrolled as a full-time student at Mannington Middle School, he would not be permitted to participate on the wrestling team. The Joneses received similar responses from Dave Stewart, State Superintendent of Schools, and from the Marion County Board of Education.
Thereafter, on or about December 12, 2002, the Joneses filed a complaint against the School Officials seeking, inter alia, declaratory, equitable and injunctive relief. Along with the complaint, the Joneses filed a motion seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. Following a preliminary hearing on December 13, 2002, the circuit court entered a preliminary injunction permitting Aaron to immediately participate on the Mannington Middle School wrestling team. At the same time, the circuit court established a briefing schedule and set the matter for a final hearing on February 13, 2003. The final hearing was held and, on September 23, 2003, the circuit court entered its "DECISION AND FINAL ORDER" ruling in favor of the Joneses and declaring that:
1) the defendants have breached their statutory duty under West Virginia Code section 18-8-1(c)(3) by failing to make an available educational resource available to Aaron, 2) the defendants have violated Aaron's right to equal protection, as guaranteed by Article III, section 10 of the West Virginia Constitution, because the blanket prohibition on home schooled students participating in interscholastic athletics fails the applicable rational basis test, and 3) the defendants have breached the duty to promulgate reasonable rules and regulations by implementing a total ban rather than crafting fair rules tailored to any legitimate concerns that may flow from allowing home schooled students, who are otherwise qualified, to participate on sports teams fielded by the public school they would be attending if they were not home schooled.
In addition, the circuit court granted a writ of prohibition directed to the School Officials to "prevent them from exceeding their statutory and constitutional authority by excluding otherwise qualified home schooled students from participating on sports teams fielded by public schools." Finally, the circuit court issued a writ of mandamus
a. to compel the defendants to comply with their statutory duty to afford the plaintiffs access to available educational resources, which includes participation in interscholastic athletics;
b. to compel the defendants to afford the plaintiffs and their son the right to equal protection, as guaranteed by the West Virginia Constitution, which means that the defendants shall not give effect to the enrollment rule that excludes home schooled students from interscholastic athletics;
c. to compel the defendants to comply with their statutory duty to promulgate reasonable rules, which shall not include an enrollment rule that results in the blanket prohibition against home schooled students participating in interscholastic athletics; and
d. to compel the defendants to allow the plaintiffs' son, Aaron, to try out for and, if successful, to compete on any sports team that is being fielded by the public school Aaron would otherwise attend were he not being home schooled.
It is from this order of the circuit court that the School Officials now appeal.
In this appeal we are asked to review a final order rendered by a circuit court. We apply a three-part standard of review to such an order:
In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit court, we apply a two-prong deferential standard of review. We review the final order and the ultimate disposition under an abuse of discretion standard, and we review the circuit court's underlying factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.
Syl. pt. 2, Walker v. West Virginia Ethics Comm'n, 201 W. Va. 108, 492 S.E.2d 167 (1997). We are also asked to review the circuit court's award of extraordinary relief in the form of writs of mandamus and prohibition. These rulings are reviewed de novo. "The standard of appellate review of a...
To continue reading
Request your trial