Valencia v. Blue Hen Conference

• Decision Date: 23 August 1979
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 79-135.
• Citation: 476 F. Supp. 809
• Parties: Dorothy VALENCIA and Joseph G. Lanzi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The BLUE HEN CONFERENCE et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Delaware

476 F. Supp. 809

Dorothy VALENCIA and Joseph G. Lanzi, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The BLUE HEN CONFERENCE et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 79-135.

United States District Court, D. Delaware.

August 23, 1979.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Thomas Stephen Neuberger and John S. Grady, of Bader, Dorsey & Kreshtool, Wilmington, Del., for plaintiffs.

Edward M. McNally and P. Clarkson Collins, Jr., of Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams, Wilmington, Del., for the New Castle County School Dist., defendants.

Jeffrey M. Weiner, of Bayard, Brill & Handelman, P.A., Wilmington Del., for Vocational-Technical School, defendants.

OPINION

LATCHUM, Chief Judge.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought by two parents of children attending St. Mark's High School in New Castle County, Delaware, who claim that the defendants violated their constitutional rights to the free exercise of religion, equal protection and substantive due process by refusing to admit St. Mark's to the Blue Hen Conference. The plaintiffs, Dorothy Valencia and Joseph G. Lanzi, seek to proceed on their own behalf and on behalf of all other Roman Catholic parents of children at St. Mark's who participate in interscholastic athletics, whose free exercise rights have been or will be similarly infringed.¹ The defendants are the Blue Hen Conference ("BHC"), which is an unincorporated association of public high schools in New Castle County, and the principals and athletic directors of its eighteen member schools during the academic years 1977-1978 and 1978-1979.² The plaintiffs have asserted claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983; subject matter jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) and (4).

The case is presently before the Court on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.³ The parties submitted extensive briefs on the issues raised by the motion and the Court heard oral argument of opposing counsel on July 30, 1979. This Opinion constitutes the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law on the motion as required by Rule 52, F.R.Civ.P.

BACKGROUND FACTS

Interscholastic athletics in the State of Delaware are regulated by the Delaware Secondary School Athletic Association ("DSSAA"), which functions under the auspices of the Delaware State Board of Education.⁴ From the early 1930's until 1958 the rules of the DSSAA and its predecessor, the Delaware State Athletic Association, prohibited conferences. Hence, no league or conference type competition occurred in Delaware during that period.⁵ In 1958, however, the rule was changed to permit the formation of conferences and shortly thereafter the Blue Hen Conference was created.⁶

Originally, the DSSAA rules authorized only public school conferences and private school conferences; no conference could include both public and private schools.⁷ The BHC constitution therefore limited eligibility for membership to accredited secondary public institutions. Article III, Section 2 of the constitution provides: "All approved public schools in New Castle County are eligible for membership in this Conference."⁸ The DSSAA rules have since been changed to permit public and private schools to belong to the same conference.⁹ The BHC, however, has not amended its rule.

The objectives of the Conference are set forth in Article II of its constitution as follows:

Sec. 1. To foster and develop amateur athletics among the member schools of this Conference.

Sec. 2. To equalize athletic opportunities by standardizing rules of eligibility for individuals.

Sec. 3. To supplement the physical education program of the secondary schools by making a practical application of the theories of physical activity.

Sec. 4. To promote uniformity in the arrangement and control of the athletic program.

Sec. 5. To protect the mutual interests of the members of the Conference through the cultivation of ideals of good sportsmanship in their relation to the development of character and good citizenship.

Sec. 6. To promote initiative, friendly relations, and cooperation among member schools.

To maintain a competitive balance among its members, the Conference is divided into two flights or divisions on the basis of size.¹⁰ Generally, a member school will play the majority of its games in a particular sport against the other schools in its flight in the BHC. The remaining games on the schedule may be played against schools in the other flight or schools that are not in the BHC.¹¹

Each high school in the Blue Hen Conference has a defined geographic area from which it may draw students. With two exceptions, these attendance areas cover only small portions of New Castle County.¹² Consequently, the athletic fortunes of most of the Conference schools depend on the students who by chance live in their respective areas.

The BHC has adopted the rules of the DSSAA concerning the eligibility of individual students to compete in athletics. Rule 1.D of the DSSAA prohibits a student athlete who transfers from one school to another from participating in athletics for five months, unless he falls within an exception, such as that pertaining to students whose parents or guardians changed residence. The rule also prohibits recruiting, providing that:

The use of undue influence by anyone to cause a student to transfer for athletic purposes from one school district to another, or from one school to another within a school district, shall render the student ineligible.¹³

The existence of geographic attendance zones facilitates enforcement of this rule.

St. Mark's High School is a typical Roman Catholic secondary educational institution and is operated by the Diocese of Wilmington.¹⁴ The school opened in September 1969 with a total enrollment of 310, all of whom were ninth graders. By 1972 the enrollment had grown to 1512 and in 1978 it was 1730.¹⁵ Parents of children who attend St. Mark's must pay a substantial tuition fee.

In the 1971-1972 academic year St. Mark's played 40 percent of its athletic events against Blue Hen Conference schools. The percentage remained roughly the same through 1975-1976, when St. Mark's competed in 105 events against BHC schools. Since that time, however, St. Mark's has experienced increasing difficulty in scheduling events against Conference schools. Indeed, by the end of the 1978-1979 academic year, the number of athletic contests between St. Mark's and BHC schools had been cut in half.¹⁶

The inability of St. Mark's to schedule athletic events, particularly football games, with schools in Delaware eventually prompted the former principal of St. Mark's, the Reverend J. Thomas Cini, to apply for membership in the Blue Hen Conference. Father Cini made the application in a letter dated February 23, 1977 to the defendant Earl R. Batten, who was then President of the Blue Hen Conference.¹⁷ The letter read in part:

To insure that our students will be able to participate in interscholastic athletics, I am making this formal application for full membership in the Blue Hen Conference. Membership will of course solve our scheduling problems and give our students the full benefit of in-state competition.

I am aware that the Blue Hen Conference has in its constitution a requirement that only public schools can belong. However, the Delaware Secondary School Athletic Association, as you know, permits any conference to be composed of public and non-public schools.

On March 3, 1977, Mr. Batten responded to Father Cini's letter and agreed to bring St. Mark's application up for discussion at the BHC meeting scheduled for March 7th.¹⁸ There is no evidence in the record that any formal action was ever taken on the 1977 application.

By the end of 1977 Ronald Russo had succeeded Father Cini as principal of St. Mark's, and he approached several public school officials in an attempt to determine what reservations they had about admitting St. Mark's to the Blue Hen Conference. Among the problems mentioned to Mr. Russo were: (1) the fact that St. Mark's could accept students from a wide geographical area; (2) a fear that St. Mark's would dominate the other schools in the Conference; and (3) allegations that St. Mark's had engaged in illegal recruiting and awarded athletic scholarships.¹⁹ Considering those objections to be the product of misinformation and misunderstanding, Mr. Russo attended a meeting of the athletic directors of the BHC on January 16, 1978 and renewed St. Mark's application for membership. Mr. Russo supplied the athletic directors with certain information concerning St. Mark's admissions and scholarship policies and assured them that the school was willing "to take reasonable steps to comply with any entrance requirements to the Conference" and, if admitted, would abide by all the Conference's rules. The athletic directors voted to discuss the application with their principals.²⁰

At the next Conference meeting, in February, the members voted not to change the constitution to permit the membership of non-public schools.²¹ Mr. Russo was informed of this decision during a telephone conversation with the defendant Plitnik about a month later. Mr. Russo then requested a written statement of the reasons for the rejection of St. Mark's application, and Plitnik sent him a letter on April 4, 1978, which stated:²²

The Blue Hen Conference Athletic Directors have discussed your application to the Conference and the decision was made not to change the constitution at this time. To admit non-public schools would require a constitutional change. Therefore we can not act on your application at this time.

Mr. Russo appealed the Conference's decision to the DSSAA and the State Board of Education, but both those bodies upheld the decision.²³ This suit followed.

The two named plaintiffs in this action are Roman Catholics. Mrs. Valencia is a resident of Delaware; Mr. Lanzi is a resident of Maryland.²⁴ Each one has...