Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n

Decision Date13 September 1994
Docket NumberNo. 94-CV-73231.,94-CV-73231.
Citation863 F. Supp. 483
PartiesRonald G. SANDISON and Craig M. Stanley, Plaintiffs, v. MICHIGAN HIGH SCHOOL ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION, INC., a non-profit Michigan Corporation, the Rochester Community Schools, and the Grosse Pointe Public School System, Defendants.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan

Richard J. Landau, Dykema Gossett, Ann Arbor, MI, for plaintiff.

Edmund J. Sikorski, Jr., Muraski & Sikorski, Ann Arbor, MI, for Mich. High School Athletic.

Douglas H. West, Hill Lewis, Detroit, MI, for Grosse Pte. Public Schools.

Richard E. Kroopnick, Hardy, Lewis, Pollard & Page, Birmingham, MI, for Rochester Community Schools.

OPINION AND ORDER

FEIKENS, District Judge.

I. BACKGROUND

On August 25, 1994, after receiving evidence and hearing oral argument, I granted plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order permitting them to participate in cross-country races at their respective high schools. I found that plaintiffs were entitled to immediate relief because plaintiff Ronald Sandison was scheduled to participate in a cross-country race on the hearing date and plaintiff Craig Stanley was scheduled to participate in a race within 10 days after the hearing date. This Opinion and Order is in response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1 This case arises out of plaintiffs' claim that defendant, the Michigan High School Athletic Association ("MHSAA"),2 has violated the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 12101-12213 ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.A. § 794 ("Section 504" or "Rehabilitation Act"),3 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 and the Michigan Handicappers' Civil Rights Act, M.C.L.A. §§ 37.1101-1607 ("MHCRA"), by its refusal to allow plaintiffs to participate in interscholastic athletics in the 1994-1995 school year. Under MHSAA Regulation I § 2, plaintiffs are ineligible to participate in any athletic sport at their respective high schools because they are nineteen years old.

As set forth in the findings of facts and conclusions of law, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a), I conclude that: (1) plaintiffs have shown a probability of success on the merits; (2) plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm if they are not permitted to participate on the cross-country and track teams at their respective high schools; (3) the harm to plaintiffs, if the preliminary injunction is not granted, would outweigh any injury that defendant would suffer by the imposition of the injunction; and (4) the public interest would be best served by the issuance of the preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED.

II. FINDINGS OF FACT

Plaintiffs, Ronald G. Sandison ("Sandison") and Craig M. Stanley ("Stanley") are both nineteen years old. Sandison is a senior at Adams High School ("Adams"), part of the Rochester Community School District, and participated on the cross-country and track teams during his freshman, sophomore, and junior years at Adams. Stanley is a senior at Grosse Pointe North High School ("GPN"), part of the Grosse Pointe Public School System, and he also participated on the cross-country and track teams during his freshman, sophomore, and junior years at GPN. Both students wish to continue their participation on the cross-country and track teams at their respective schools during their senior years but are prohibited from competing under MHSAA Regulation I § 2 which provides:

SECTION 2 — AGE
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.

(MHSAA Handbook 1994-95 at 29.) Because both plaintiffs were nineteen years old before September 1 of the current school year, and because both plaintiffs were born prior to September 1, 1975,4 they are ineligible to participate on the cross-country and track teams at their respective schools. Although MHSAA has procedures in place for the waiver of most eligibility requirements, there are no such procedures for the age requirement. (MHSAA Handbook 1994-95 at 20.)

Though there is some evidence that both plaintiffs receive some form of special education support in high school, the learning disability which triggers their case was discovered when they were both held back in grade promotion during grade school. Sandison was previously diagnosed as suffering from an auditory import disability which caused him to have difficulty speaking, reading, and writing. (Test. of Janet Sandison, Sept. 6, 1994.) His disability became apparent when he was three and this caused him to spend a significant number of years in an ungraded classroom.5 At the age of seven, Sandison was still in kindergarten. Id. Subsequent to completion of kindergarten, Sandison was placed in graded classrooms in which he continued to receive special education support. Because his early education was delayed due to his learning disability, Sandison is two years behind his age group.

Stanley was previously diagnosed as having a learning disability in mathematics. His disability was diagnosed while he was at the kindergarten level. (Test. of Michael Sandison, Sept. 6, 1994.) Similar to Sandison, Stanley repeated kindergarten and subsequently spent a number of years in an ungraded classroom. By the time Stanley entered a graded classroom, he was also two years behind his age group.

Defendants, Rochester Community Schools and the Grosse Pointe Public School System, are public school districts within the state school system. Both school districts receive federal financial assistance6 and both districts are members of the MHSAA.

MHSAA is technically a private non-profit corporation. However, its creation, existence, and authority as an athletic association are mandated by the Michigan legislature. M.C.L.A. § 380.1289(2) (West 1988). See also Berschback v. Grosse Pointe Public Sch. Dist., 154 Mich.App. 102, 111, 397 N.W.2d 234 (1986) (MHSAA eligibility rules involve state action for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment). The statute provides:

An association established for the purpose of organizing and conducting athletic events, contests, or tournaments among schools shall be the official association of the state. The association shall be responsible for the adoption and enforcement of regulations relative to eligibility of pupils in schools for participation in interscholastic athletic events, contests, or tournaments.

(Emphasis added.) MHSAA's stated purposes are: to promote the educational value of interscholastic athletic programs throughout the state; to assist schools in their regulation of interscholastic athletic eligibility and competition; to promote uniformity, predictability and competitive equity in the application of eligibility rules for athletic contests; and to promote the physical welfare of participating students. (MHSAA Handbook 1994-95 at 13.) To effectuate these goals, MHSAA promulgates rules governing interscholastic sports and invites school boards to become members.

To join the MHSAA, individual school boards must adopt and adhere to its rules and regulations or face various sanctions. The statutory provision which authorizes board membership states:

A board may join an organization created pursuant to section 380.1289 which has as its object the promotion of sport and the adoption of rules for the conduct of athletic contests between students. The association is the official association of the state for the purpose of organizing and conducting athletic events, contests, and tournaments among schools. The association shall be responsible for the adoption and enforcement of regulations relative to eligibility of athletes in schools for participation in interscholastic athletic events, contests, and tournaments.

M.C.L.A. § 380.1521 (West 1988). (Emphasis added.) Virtually every public school and private secondary school in the State of Michigan is a member of MHSAA.7

III. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiffs argue that MHSAA is a private entity which provides or operates a public accommodation under Title III of the ADA, or, alternatively, is a public entity under Title II of the ADA. MHSAA argues that this court does not have jurisdiction because it is neither a private entity operating or providing a public accommodation nor a public entity and plaintiffs therefore have no right of action under the ADA. As a basis for their claim under section 504, plaintiffs argue that MHSAA receives federal financial assistance. MHSAA counters that it does not receive any federal assistance and is therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of this court under section 504.

I conclude as I did in granting the temporary restraining order,8 that there is a basis for jurisdiction under the ADA and section 504; MHSAA is a private entity operating a public accommodation and a public entity; and MHSAA is an indirect recipient of federal financial assistance. Thus, this court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1331.

A public accommodation is a private entity which affects commerce through the operation of "a concert hall, stadium, or other place of exhibition or entertainment; a nursery, elementary, secondary, ... school, or other place of education." 42 U.S.C.A. § 12181 (West 1994). By its own admission, through the management of interscholastic athletic activities and competition at virtually every public and private secondary school throughout the state, defendant operates a place of education. One of its stated purposes is to "increase and promote the educational value of interscholastic programs throughout the state." (MHSAA Handbook 1994-95 at 13.) (Emphasis added.) Additionally, defendant sponsors interscholastic athletic competitions and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Monette v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 30 Julio 1996
    ...of handicap discrimination under Michigan law essentially track those under federal law. See Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 863 F.Supp. 483, 487 (E.D.Mich.1994), rev'd on other grounds, 64 F.3d 1026, 1035-37 (6th Cir.1995). Therefore, our resolution of Monette's clai......
  • Rhodes v. Ohio High School Athletic Ass'n, 5:96cv1816.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio
    • 5 Septiembre 1996
    ...activity is receiving federal funding. Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n., Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030-31 (6th Cir. 1995). In Sandison v. MHSAA, the Sixth Circuit considered a scenario quite similar to the instant scenario, brought by two nineteen-year-old learning-disabled high sc......
  • Communities for Equity v. Mich. High Sch. Athletic
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan
    • 16 Noviembre 1998
    ...not necessarily as broad as the parties arguments might lead one to believe. The cases relied upon by the parties, Sandison v. MHSAA, 863 F.Supp. 483 (E.D.Mich.1994), rev'd 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir.1995), and McPherson v. MHSAA, 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir.1997) (en banc), all address the definition......
  • Key v. Grayson, Civil Action No. 96-40166.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
    • 19 Marzo 1998
    ...3 (6th Cir.1996); Hamlin v. Charter Township of Flint, 942 F.Supp. 1129, 1136 n. 14 (E.D.Mich.1996); Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 863 F.Supp. 483, 487 (E.D.Mich.1994). Accordingly, this court will accept the magistrate judge's recommendation, and exercise supplemental juri......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIII-2, January 2022
    • 1 Enero 2022
    ...Supp. 579, 583 (M.D. Fla. 1995), vacated on other grounds , 102 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 1997); Sandison 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 Hig......
  • Challenges facing LGBTQ youth
    • United States
    • Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law No. XXIV-2, January 2023
    • 1 Enero 2023
    ...Supp. 579, 583 (M.D. Fla. 1995), vacated on other grounds , 102 F.3d 1172 (11th Cir. 1997); Sandison 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 Hi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT