Mancuso v. Mass. Interscholastic Athletic

• Decision Date: 23 January 2009
• Docket Number: SJC-10151.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court
• Parties: Elizabeth MANCUSO & another<SMALL><SUP>1</SUP></SMALL> v. MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC.

900 N.E.2d 518

453 Mass. 116

Elizabeth MANCUSO & another¹ v. MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC.

SJC-10151.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Norfolk.

Argued October 6, 2008.

Decided January 23, 2009.

Paul J. Klehm, Andover (James B. Krasnoo with him) for the plaintiffs.

James P. Long, Boston, for the defendant.

The following submitted briefs for amici curiae:

William E. Quirk & Anthony W. Bonuchi, Kansas City, KS, for National Federation of State High School Associations.

Peter M. Kelley & Stephen J. Finnegan, Boston, for Boston Public School Department & another.

Martha Coakley, Attorney General, & Sookyoung Shin, Assistant Attorney General, for the Commonwealth.

Michael J. Long & Amy L. Leuchte for Massachusetts Association of School Superintendents.

Present: MARSHALL, C.J., IRELAND, SPINA, COWIN, CORDY, & BOTSFORD, JJ.

COWIN, J.

The plaintiff, Elizabeth Mancuso, claims that she has a property interest in participating in interscholastic athletics as a member of her high school swim team. She contends that the defendant Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) deprived her of that property interest without due process, and that such deprivation entitles her to relief under the Federal and State civil rights laws. The plaintiff also maintains that the defendant violated her right to equal protection as a "class of one" by denying her eligibility under its so-called "fifth year student rule."² She claims the defendant unfairly declared her ineligible because of her participation in a private swimming club, while others who also swam in such clubs were not deemed ineligible. In addition, the plaintiff argues that the MIAA has promulgated rules intended to discourage the exercise of her right to seek judicial review of the MIAA's decision, and that these rules amount to "threats, intimidation or coercion" in violation of her rights under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H, 11I.

We conclude that the plaintiff has no property interest in participating in interscholastic athletics, and thus no due process rights in the circumstances. Furthermore, the plaintiff has not shown that she was treated differently from other similarly situated students, or that this alleged differential treatment resulted from a gross abuse of power or fundamental procedural unfairness on the part of the MIAA. Thus, the plaintiff has failed to establish the existence of an equal protection violation. Finally, we conclude that the MIAA's rules do not amount to "threats, intimidation or coercion" that is actionable under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act.³

Facts and prior proceedings. We recite the facts that the jury could reasonably have found from the evidence at trial, reserving certain details for later discussion in connection with the issues raised. At the end of her freshman year at the Austin Preparatory School (Austin) during the 1999-2000 academic year, the plaintiff (who had started school a year earlier than most of her peers) repeated the ninth grade at Andover High School (Andover).

The plaintiff has been a competitive swimmer since she was eight years old. During her freshman year at Austin, the plaintiff did not swim for the school's team but was a member of a private swimming club. When the plaintiff transferred to Andover for her second freshman year in the fall of 2000, the plaintiff joined the school's varsity swim team. The plaintiff was one of the faster swimmers on that school's swim team, which is regarded as one of the most successful in Massachusetts. Indeed, the plaintiff was considered one of the fastest high school swimmers in the Commonwealth.

The plaintiff continued to compete with the Andover swim team during the fall athletic seasons⁴ of her sophomore and junior years. Shortly before the plaintiff's senior year, the MIAA,⁵ an association that regulates competitive interschool athletic programs as the authorized representative of its member school committees,⁶ deemed her ineligible to compete that year pursuant to its "fifth year student rule." See note 2, supra. Andover Principal Peter Anderson, on behalf of the plaintiff,⁷ applied to the MIAA, requesting a waiver allowing her to compete during her senior year.⁸ The request was denied in May of 2003 by Assistant Director Brian Halloran, the MIAA's eligibility officer. Principal Anderson, again on behalf of the plaintiff, appealed this decision according to the MIAA's internal review process, taking the matter first to a three-member subcommittee of the MIAA's Eligibility Review Board (ERB). Following a hearing where the plaintiff was represented by Principal Anderson and gave testimony, the ERB unanimously upheld Halloran's initial decision. Principal Anderson next appealed to the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Council (MIAC), the final reviewing entity in the MIAA's waiver appeals process. The MIAC upheld the denial of the waiver.

On October 10, 2003, the plaintiff commenced this action in the Superior Court and filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to allow her to compete during her senior year despite the MIAA's determination of ineligibility. Her complaint was in four counts. Count I sought relief in the nature of certiorari (pursuant to G.L. c. 249, § 4)⁹ from the adverse decision of the MIAA. In this count, the plaintiff asked the court to vacate the MIAA's denial of the waiver and to reinstate the plaintiff as a member of the Andover swim team. Counts II and III claimed that the MIAA had violated the plaintiff's civil rights¹⁰ and requested an award of compensatory and punitive damages in addition to an award of attorney's fees and costs. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 & 1988(b) (2000); G.L. c. 12, §§ 11H & 11I. Count IV sought declaratory relief under G.L. c. 231A.¹¹ On October 23, 2003, a Superior Court judge granted a preliminary injunction,¹² and the plaintiff competed for the Andover swim team for the remainder of the fall 2003 season.¹³

Prior to trial, the plaintiff moved for partial judgment on the pleadings on count I (certiorari), and the MIAA filed a cross motion for summary judgment on all counts. The plaintiff responded to the MIAA's cross motion by filing her own cross motion for summary judgment on counts II through IV. The same Superior Court judge who issued the preliminary injunction granted the plaintiff's motion for partial judgment on the pleadings on count I (certiorari) of her complaint, concluding that the MIAA's decision to deny the waiver was "arbitrary and capricious." The judge denied summary judgment for both parties on counts II through IV, thereby allowing the plaintiff's claims for Federal and State civil rights violations and for declaratory relief to proceed to trial.¹⁴

The case was tried before a jury in the Superior Court. At the close of the plaintiff's case, which was also the close of all the evidence, the MIAA moved for directed verdicts on all counts. The trial judge¹⁵ granted the MIAA's motion with respect to all the plaintiff's claims except her § 1983 claim based on the alleged violation of due process. The judge reserved the question whether the plaintiff had a property interest in her participation in interscholastic athletics, and submitted the § 1983 claim to the jury. The jury were asked to decide (1) whether the MIAA had afforded the plaintiff due process; (2) if not, then what (if any) compensable harm the plaintiff had sustained; and (3) whether the MIAA's conduct, if unlawful, was sufficiently malicious and intentional to warrant an award of punitive damages. The jury returned a special verdict in the plaintiff's favor, finding that the MIAA had failed to provide the plaintiff with due process and awarding the plaintiff compensatory damages in the amount of $10,000. The jury declined to award punitive damages. The MIAA then moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (judgment n.o.v.), which the judge granted, ruling that the plaintiff had "no constitutionally protected interest in the right to participate on the swim team" that would entitle her to pursue a due process claim under § 1983.

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of the Superior Court on her civil rights claims, and the MIAA cross-appealed from the entry of judgment on the pleadings on the certiorari count of the plaintiff's complaint. We transferred the case to this court on our own initiative. We conclude that there was no error in the allowance of either the directed verdicts or judgment n.o.v. in favor of the MIAA. We also conclude that the MIAA's cross appeal is not properly before us, and order it dismissed for reasons we shall discuss.

Discussion. We apply the same standard in reviewing a motion for a directed verdict that we apply to a motion for judgment n.o.v., both of which are at issue here. See Foley v. Polaroid Corp., 400 Mass. 82, 100, 508 N.E.2d 72 (1987), quoting D'Annolfo v. Stoneham Hous. Auth., 375 Mass. 650, 657, 378 N.E.2d 971 (1978). In deciding whether either motion was properly allowed, "[we] must determine, on viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, whether a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the nonmoving party, or if the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Donaldson v. Farrakhan, 436 Mass. 94, 96, 762 N.E.2d 835 (2002).

1. The § 1983 claim. The plaintiff claims that she is entitled to recover under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for damages resulting from the MIAA's infringement of her Federal civil rights. As the text of the statute¹⁶ makes clear, "two elements ... are necessary for recovery. First, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has deprived [her] of a right secured by the `Constitution and laws' of the United States.... Th[e] second element requires that the plaintiff show that the defendant acted `under color of law.'" Adickes v S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144, 150, 90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970). Generally, "conduct...