Seibert v. Amateur Athletic Union of U.S., Inc, 04CV1461JMRFLN.

• Decision Date: 14 March 2006
• Docket Number: No. 04CV1461JMRFLN.,04CV1461JMRFLN.
• Parties: Jeff SIEBERT et al. v. AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., (AAU) et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota

422 F.Supp.2d 1033

Jeff SIEBERT et al. v. AMATEUR ATHLETIC UNION OF THE UNITED STATES, INC., (AAU) et al.

No. 04CV1461JMRFLN.

United States District Court, D. Minnesota.

March 14, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Jennifer E. Giesen, Roderick J. Mac-Pherson, III, Minneapolis, MN, for Jeff Siebert et al.

David E. Camarotto, Robert G. Haugen, Michael C. Lindberg, Johnson & Lindberg, PA, Minneapolis, MN, for Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., (AAU) et al.

ORDER

ROSENBAUM, District Judge.

Plaintiffs claim they suffered disabilitybased discrimination when the Amateur Athletic Union ("AAU") declined to provide an American Sign Language interpreter during plaintiff's participation in an AAU basketball program. They seek relief under both the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213 ("ADA"), and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 363A.01-.41 ("MHRA").¹ Defendants move to dismiss. For the reasons set forth below, Jeff and Cindy Siebert's claims regarding the 2003 season are dismissed. The remainder of this action is stayed pending arbitration.

I. Background²

Plaintiffs, Jeff Siebert and his minor daughters, Amy and Cindy, are deaf. They primarily communicate through the use of American Sign Language ("ASL"). In the spring of 2001, defendants³ recruited Amy to play girls' basketball. Amy requested the services of`an ASL interpreter. When her request was denied, she declined to participate. Now age 17, Amy plays high school varsity basketball at the Minnesota State Academy for the Deaf.

In 2003, Mr. Siebert decided he and Cindy would again attempt to participate in defendants' basketball program. He expected another refusal to provide an interpreter, but claims he hoped to effect a change in the AAU. He apparently also decided that if defendants maintained their refusal, he would invoke federal and state disability discrimination laws.

Mr. Siebert coached, and Cindy played for, defendants' basketball team. As expected, defendants refused the request to provide an ASL interpreter, prompting the Sieberts to hire their own interpreter at a cost of $1,200 for the 2003 season. Plaintiffs claim that if defendants had provided an interpreter, Amy would also have joined the AAU and participated in the girls' basketball program.

The Sieberts filed this action in April, 2004, alleging that defendants' refusal to provide an ASL interpreter violated both the MHRA and the ADA. In lieu of answering the complaint, defendants moved to dismiss the action, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b), claiming the Sieberts are contractually obliged to submit all claims to binding arbitration in Florida.

The AAU requires that its members bind themselves to the AAU Codebook, an online-accessible document. The 2003 Codebook contains both mandatory arbitration and forum selection clauses. Taken together, these clauses mandate that all disputes between the AAU and its members be arbitrated in Florida. When joining the AAU, the applicant must complete the AAU's online membership form. As part of that process, applicants click a box indicating their "agree[ment] to be bound" by the Codebook terms. (Affidavit of Jan Lyon ¶ 5 and Ex. A-6.) In bold type, on the AAU's membership web page, is the following language:

I agree to be bound by the AAU Code as well as all AAU operating procedures and policies, including but not limited to: binding arbitration and the release and indemnity of the AAU.

(Id.) After applicants click "continue" to manifest acceptance of these terms, each of the next two screens remind them they may request a refund within 30 days if the athlete does not participate in any activities. (Lyon Aff. Exs. A-7 and A-8.)

Jeff and Cindy Siebert did not complete the AAU online membership applications; their forms were completed and submitted by John Durham, the team's head coach. Mr. Durham completed the applications on February 27, 2003, and shortly thereafter notified the Sieberts and other team members that their applications were being processed. (Affidavit of John Durham ¶¶ 7-8 and Ex. A.) The email notifying the Sieberts of their admission into the AAU's program attached an "order summary" from the AAU website. This communication included the following language:

If accepted as a club member, we agree to abide by the policies and procedures of the Amateur Athletic Union of the United States, Inc., and to respect and adhere to the By-Laws of the AAU Association in which we are applying for membership.

(Durham Aff. Ex. A.)

Jeff and Cindy Siebert paid their AAU dues. Upon doing so, each received and signed individual AAU membership cards. Each card bore a printed statement above the signature line saying:

I agree to be bound by the AAU code as well as all AAU operating procedures and policies, including but not limited to: binding arbitration and the release and indemnity of the AAU.

(Lyon Aff. ¶ 5 and Ex. A-12.)

The full text of the AAU's arbitration and forum selection clauses appear in its 164-page 2003 Codebook, which is only available online. Plaintiffs aver that they never reviewed the Codebook or read the arbitration or forum selection clause terms until they filed this action.

The 2003 season was the only time plaintiffs Jeff and Cindy Siebert belonged to the AAU or participated in its events. Amy Siebert never joined the AAU, nor did she participate in its sporting events. All plaintiffs opted against joining the AAU after the 2003 season; instead, they claim they wished to participate in the AAU girls' basketball program—and would have done so—but for defendants' unwillingness to provide an ASL interpreter.

II. Discussion

The Sieberts claim their rights, as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101-12213, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. §§ 363A.01-.41, have been violated. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367.

Defendants' Rule 12(b)⁴ motion to dismiss the complaint avers that, if plaintiffs have any standing to assert claims against the AAU, their rights are limited to those afforded AAU members. This would bar Amy Siebert's claims entirely, as she never joined the AAU, and would similarly bar any claim by Jeff or Cindy Siebert after spring 2003, as they declined to join after that year.

For the reasons set forth herein, the Court finds Jeff and Cindy Siebert must pursue their remedies by arbitration as required by their membership in the AAU. The Court finds Amy Siebert has standing to bring her claims in this Court, and Jeff and Cindy Siebert may assert claims for periods beyond the 2003 season.

A. Claims Beyond the 2003 Season

Parties seeking to establish Article III standing must prove (1) they suffered an "injury-in-fact"; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) that the injury likely will be redressed by a favorable decision. Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 892 (8th Cir.2000). An injury-in-fact is "concrete and particularized" and "actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical." Id. (quoting Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)). Plaintiffs need not engage in futile gestures such as, in the context of an entirely different ADA case, "visiting a building containing known barriers that the owner has no intention of remedying." Steger, 228 F.3d at 892. But the injury must exist, and be likely to exist in the future.

Here, the Court finds the Sieberts have standing to raise their claims; each asserts a need for an ASL interpreter to facilitate participation in AAU activities. The AAU says it will not provide one. Plaintiffs declare that, but for the AAU's refusal, they would have participated in AAU sports in 2003 and thereafter. Having expressed their intent to join the AAU, if provided ASL interpreters, and because AAU membership is required to participate, the Court concludes that granting the relief requested by the Sieberts will redress their asserted grievances. Therefore, plaintiffs have standing.

B. Arbitration of Jeff and Cindy Siebert's 2003 Claims

Defendants claim Jeff and Cindy Siebert are obliged to arbitrate their claims in Florida. The Court concurs, finding there is a binding arbitration agreement which bars the Sieberts⁵ from pursuing their 2003 claims here.

Both state and federal governments have strong policies favoring arbitration. See Green Tree Fin. Corp. v. Randolph, 531 U.S. 79, 89-90, 121 S.Ct. 513, 148 L.Ed.2d 373 (2000); Eden Land Corp. v. Minn-Kota Excavating, Inc., 302 Minn. 529, 223 N.W.2d 658, 659 (1974). Questions of arbitration are governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (or "FAA"), 9 U.S.C. § 1 et seq. (1999). The FAA was enacted to "reverse the longstanding judicial hostility to arbitration agreements" and treat arbitration agreements like any other contract. Green Tree, 531 U.S. at 89, 121 S.Ct. 513. Minnesota has adopted very similar—but not identical—statutory language concerning the validity of arbitration agreements. See Minn.Stat. § 572.08 (2004).⁶ To the extent there is any conflict between the state and federal statutes, federal law preempts Minnesota law. Onvoy, Inc. v. SHAL, LLC, 669 N.W.2d 344, 351 (Minn.2003).

Under the Federal Arbitration Act, a court will enforce an arbitration agreement unless a party can show it will not be able to vindicate its rights in the arbitral forum. Green Tree, 531 U.S. at 90, 121 S.Ct. 513. The Supreme Court has extended this policy to claims arising under specific antidiscrimination statutes which are intended to "further important social policies." See Gilmer v. Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20, 27, 111 S.Ct. 1647, 114 L.Ed.2d 26 (1991) (holding Age Discrimination in Employment Act claims are arbitrable). A party wishing to avoid arbitration must show that "Congress intended to preclude a waiver of judicial remedies for the statutory rights at issue." Id.

These principles require the Court...