Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc.
| Decision Date | 12 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | No. 94-2106,94-2106 |
| Citation | 64 F.3d 1026 |
| Parties | , 103 Ed. Law Rep. 56, 4 A.D. Cases 1478, 11 A.D.D. 534, 7 NDLR P 65 Ronald G. SANDISON; and Craig M. Stanley, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Rochester Community Schools; and Grosse Pointe Public School System, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Richard J. Landau (argued and briefed), Dykema, Gossett, Spencer, Goodnow & Trigg, Ann Arbor, MI, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Edmund J. Sikorski, Jr. (argued and briefed), Ann Arbor, MI, for defendant-appellant.
Before NELSON and RYAN, Circuit Judges; ECHOLS, District Judge. *
Ronald Sandison and Craig Stanley, two recent graduates of Michigan public high schools, filed this action against their respective high schools and the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA) alleging claims under, inter alia, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794, and titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12132, 12182. Each student suffers from a learning disability, and before reaching high school each fell behind the typical school grade for children of his age. The plaintiffs started their senior years in Fall 1994, but by then had turned nineteen years old. The MHSAA, of which the plaintiffs' high schools are members, prohibits students who turn nineteen by September 1 of the school year to compete in interscholastic high school sports. In the district court, the plaintiffs won preliminary injunctive relief. We DISMISS as moot the challenge to that portion of the preliminary injunction ordering that the high schools and the MHSAA permit the plaintiffs to run on the cross-country and track teams, and REVERSE that portion of the preliminary injunction ordering the MHSAA refrain from penalizing the high schools for permitting the plaintiffs to participate.
When he was four years old, Ronald Sandison was placed in a special preschool program for learning disabled children because he had difficulty processing speech and language. Sandison started ungraded kindergarten at age six, rather than at the usual age of five, and it was not until age seven that Sandison was considered a student in graded kindergarten. This two-year delay placed Sandison two school grades behind his age group. At age eleven, Sandison was diagnosed with auditory input disability, which hampers Sandison's ability to distinguish between similar sounds. With the help of special education support, Sandison attended Rochester Adams High School in regular classrooms and graduated in June 1995. Sandison ran on Adams's cross-country and track teams during his first three years of high school. He turned nineteen years old in May 1994, a few months before starting his senior year.
Due to a learning disability in mathematics, Craig Stanley repeated kindergarten and then spent five years in a special education classroom. Stanley made the transition into regular classrooms by entering the fourth grade, rather than the fifth grade, after those five years in special education. Accordingly, Stanley is two school grades behind his age group. With the help of special education support, Stanley has attended Grosse Pointe North High School in regular classrooms and graduated in June 1995. Stanley ran on his high school's cross-country and track teams during the first three years. He turned nineteen years old in May 1994, a few months before starting his senior year.
Like most high schools in Michigan, Rochester Adams and Grosse Pointe North are members of the MHSAA. Members of the MHSAA agree to adopt the MHSAA's rules governing interscholastic sports. MHSAA Regulation I Sec. 2 forbids students over nineteen years old from playing interscholastic sports:
A student who competes in any interscholastic athletic contests must be under nineteen (19) years of age, except that a student whose nineteenth (19th) birthday occurs on or after September 1 of a current school year is eligible for the balance of that school year. Any student born before September 1, 1975, is ineligible for interscholastic athletics in Michigan.
No waiver of the age requirement is permitted. MHSAA Handbook, Art. VII, Sec. 4E.
On August 18, 1994, the plaintiffs sued the Rochester and Grosse Pointe school systems, and the MHSAA, under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 794; the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 12132, 12182; the federal Constitution, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; and the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, Mich.Comp.Laws Ann. Secs. 37.1101-1607. Sandison and Stanley alleged that excluding them from playing interscholastic sports amounted to unlawful disability discrimination. In late August 1994, the district court granted the plaintiffs a temporary restraining order permitting the students to run in immediately upcoming interscholastic cross-country races. The plaintiffs then moved in early September for a preliminary injunction, which the district court entered. Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 863 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Mich.1994).
First, the district court restrained all three defendants from preventing the plaintiffs from participating in interscholastic cross-country and track competition. Second, the district court enjoined the MHSAA from sanctioning Rochester Adams and Grosse Pointe North for permitting the plaintiffs to participate in interscholastic meets. The district court explained that it relied only on the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA to support the preliminary injunction.
The district court first reasoned that two titles of the ADA, as well as the Rehabilitation Act, applied to the claim against the MHSAA. The district court held that, by managing interscholastic athletic events, the MHSAA operated "place[s] of education" and "place[s] of entertainment" under title III of the ADA, Secs. 12181-89, which generally prohibits disability discrimination in places of "public accommodation." In addition, the district court relied on Michigan law and the MHSAA's membership to conclude that the MHSAA was a "public entity" under title II of the ADA, Secs. 12131-34. Finally, the district court held that the MHSAA indirectly received federal financial assistance under the Rehabilitation Act, Sec. 794.
As for the remaining elements of a disability discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, the district court held that the plaintiffs were disabled, "otherwise qualified," and discriminated against solely on the basis of their disabilities. The MHSAA does not dispute the finding of "disability" on appeal. The district court concluded that the plaintiffs were "otherwise qualified" because permitting the plaintiffs to participate would not thwart the purposes of the age restriction. The district court reasoned that the age limit had two purposes: (1) to safeguard other athletes against injuries arising from competing against overage, and thus oversized, athletes; and (2) to prevent overage athletes from gaining an unfair competitive advantage. Accordingly, waiver of the age limit for Sandison and Stanley was a "reasonable accommodation" because the plaintiffs played a noncontact sport and were not " 'star' players." The MHSAA appealed the issuance of the preliminary injunction. However, neither Rochester Adams nor Grosse Pointe North appealed; both schools have supported the plaintiffs' position from the start.
Before reviewing the preliminary injunction, we point out that the controversy over the first part of the preliminary injunction--requiring the defendants to permit Sandison and Stanley to participate in track meets--is moot. The 1995 track season has ended, and thus the plaintiffs will have no more races to run. The "capable of repetition yet evading review" exception to mootness does not apply to these plaintiffs because the exception requires not only that " 'the challenged action was in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration,' " but also that " 'there was a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.' " Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482, 102 S.Ct. 1181, 1183, 71 L.Ed.2d 353 (1982) (per curiam ) (emphasis added) (quoting Illinois State Bd. of Elections v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U.S. 173, 187, 99 S.Ct. 983, 992, 59 L.Ed.2d 230 (1979)). At oral argument, we learned that Sandison and Stanley graduated from high school in June 1995, which precludes the repetition of another controversy over whether these same plaintiffs may run on their high school teams.
However, the second part of the preliminary injunction--ordering the MHSAA to refrain from penalizing the high schools for permitting the plaintiffs to compete--is not moot. When an age-ineligible player competes on a high school team, MHSAA Regulation 5 Sec. 4(B), (D) provide for penalties such as forfeiture of team victories and erasure of individual performances. Sandison and Stanley of course still have an interest in preventing the MHSAA from erasing their teams' victories and their own performances. Accordingly, this controversy remains live.
We review the district court's issuance of a preliminary injunction for "abuse of discretion." In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 963 F.2d 855, 858 (6th Cir.1992). In determining whether the district court abused its discretion, we review the district court's findings of fact for clear error and its legal conclusions de novo. Id. Id. (quoting NAACP v. City of Mansfield, 866 F.2d 162, 166 (6th Cir.1989)).
We consider...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Niece v. Fitzner
...and would therefore not by "reasonable." Particularly persuasive is the Sixth Circuit's recent decision in Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.1995). In Sandison, the court considered whether the Michigan High School Athletic Association's (MHSAA) age-elig......
-
Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
...453, 463 (6th Cir.1997)(Michigan High School Athletic Association is not a public accommodation); Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1036 (6th Cir.1995)(same). Similarly, the good that plaintiff seeks is not offered by a place of public accommodation. The pub......
-
United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1099 v. Southwest Ohio Regional Transit Authority
...v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 119 F.3d 453, 459 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc) (quoting Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir.1995)). These factors are not prerequisites to issuing an injunction but factors to be balanced. See Unsecured Cre......
-
Ability Ctr. of Greater Toledo v. Lumpkin
...burdens on a grantee, or requires a fundamental alteration in the nature of [the] program.” Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 64 F.3d 1026, 1034 (6th Cir.1995) (quoting School Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287 n. 17, 107 S.Ct. 1123, 94 L.Ed.2d 307 (1987)). Defen......
-
Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
...v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 863 F. Supp. 483, 487 (E.D. Mich. 1994), rev’d in part, appeal dismissed in part , on other grounds , 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 1995); Pottgen v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities Ass’n, 857 F. Supp. 654, 661–62 (E.D. Mo. 1994), rev’d on other grounds , 40 F.3d ......
-
Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
...v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 863 F. Supp. 483, 487 (E.D. Mich. 1994), rev’d in part, appeal dismissed in part, on other grounds , 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 1995); Pottgen v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities Ass’n, 857 F. Supp. 654, 661–62 (E.D. Mo. 1994), rev’d on other grounds , 40 F.3d 9......
-
Lessons from Martin: the ADA and athletics don't mix.
...28 CFR Ch. 1 Pt. 36, App. B at 632 (July 1, 1997)). (97) Id. (98) 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997). (99) Martin, 994 F. Supp. at 1245 (citing 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. (100) Id. (citing McPherson, 119 F.3d at 456). (101) Martin, 994 F. Supp. at 1245, n.4. (102) Id. (citing Sandison, 64 F.3d at 103......
-
Pga Tour, Inc. v. Martin: Reasonable Modifications Under the Ada Fore the Disabled - Christopher James Hudson
...Id. at 930. 55. Id. (quoting Sch. Bd. of Nassau County v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287 n.17 (1987)) (citation omitted). 56. Id. 57. Id. 58. 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 1995). 59. Id. at 1037. 60. Id. 61. Id. 62. Id. (quoting MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. AT&T Co., 512 U.S. 218 (1994)). 63. 899 F. Supp. 57......