A federal judge from the Eastern District of Missouri has a denied a high school student’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which would have required the Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) to count any points she earned as a para-athlete in a track meet toward her high school track team’s point total.
In so ruling, the court found that it would be unfair to count plaintiff Katie Ladlie’s points against teams “that did not have any para-athletes in their school or on their team.” Furthermore, “any threat of harm to the (plaintiff) was speculative and did not outweigh the harm to defendants and others, and the student’s requested modifications in scoring of track and field events would fundamentally alter the nature of the track and field program.”
Ladlie is a student at Troy-Buchanan High School (TBHS) in Troy, Missouri. According to her amended complaint, the plaintiff was born with a venous malformation involving her left leg, known as “Bockenheimer’s Syndrome” and underwent surgical removal of her left leg above the knee in 2011. The plaintiff is an athlete who is active in extensive racing chair athletics, sled hockey and triathlon competition, including use of her racing chair outside of her school with opportunities to compete and display her talent in regional and national competitions with para-athletes from other states. The plaintiff testified that she is returning for her fourth year as a member of the TBHS track team and uses a racing chair in 100m, 200m and 400m racing. Plaintiff described her racing chair as 4-5 feet long with three wheels. The plaintiff alleges that on average there is a “ten-second difference” in her 100m and 200m racing times but “no time difference” in her 400m race times compared to the performance of non-disabled runners. It was undisputed by the plaintiff that in head-to-head competition between non-disabled runners and para-athletes using racing chairs, the non-disabled runners have an undisputed advantage in shorter distances, while the advantage shifts in favor of para-athletes using racing chairs at longer distances, which makes head-to-head competition inequitable and unfair.
The plaintiff did not seek to race athletes without disabilities in head-to-head competition. Rather, she “would rather race against disabled athletes and get a chance to win,” or “by myself.”
The court went on to note that the MSHSAA has taken extensive steps to create adaptive events for disabled athletes. The “evidence shows that MSHSAA has been responsive to requests for accommodations when reasonable,” wrote the court.
Nevertheless, the plaintiff wanted to compete and have her efforts count toward her high school team’s point total. When the MSHSAA blocked her, she sought the preliminary injunction, alleging violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C.S. § 794, and Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.S. § 12132.
One of the more interesting arguments put forth by the plaintiff was that she desires to attend a college that offers scholarship opportunities to para-athletes and that the defendants are “interfering with her ‘opportunity to vie for athletic scholarships.’”
The court, however, noted that “the speculative possibility of obtaining a college athletic scholarship is not a protected property right justifying judicial intervention. The plaintiff adduced no evidence that any actions of the defendants are, in fact, interfering with any college scholarship and the plaintiff’s counsel have cited no case law to the contrary. However, this court notes that the plaintiff is active in extensive racing chair, sled hockey and triathlon competition outside of her school with significant opportunities to compete and display her talent for athletic scholarship consideration in regional and national competitions with para-athletes from other states. The evidence also revealed that the plaintiff has been accepted to four Missouri colleges and is not waiting to hear from any others. She has received academic scholarship offers from two of these colleges. The plaintiff testified that the only college she knows with a racing chair track program is Arizona University, but she has not applied there. The plaintiff has benefited from substantial MSHSAA efforts to expand opportunities for para-athletes, including the plaintiff, who will be eligible to appear in a first ever special “exhibition” events for para-athletes at the 2016 MSHSAA Track and Field Championships, … where individual places and marks will be recorded and medals awarded. Plaintiff testified that she was willing to participate in this special exhibition to “help get the word out.” In sum, the plaintiff will not suffer “great” harm if the injunction is denied.
That said, the granting of a preliminary Injunction “will inflict greater harm to MSHSAA, its member schools and other students.”
One relevant case was Badgett ex rel. Badgett v. Ala. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, No. 2:07-CV-00572-KOB, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36014, 2007 WL 2461928 (N.D. Ala. May 3, 2007), in which a plaintiff, similar to the one in the instant case, sued the Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) to have her points included with the able-bodied athletes.
“In rejecting the plaintiff’s request … , the court in Badgett reiterated that the AHSAA must be allowed to take fairness into account in setting the rules for scoring of track and field events,” wrote the court.
It further concluded that such scoring would “fundamentally alter the nature of the track and field events in the able-bodied divisions,” and that “courts generally have concluded that if a requested accommodation violates the fundamental alteration principle, it is by definition ‘not reasonable,’” PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 121 S. Ct. 1879, 149 L. Ed. 2d 904 (2001).
In another case, McFadden v. Grasmick, 485 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D.Md. 2007), “the plaintiff was described as a highly skilled, world class wheelchair racer who sued the Maryland Public Secondary Schools Athletic Association (MPSSAA) seeking federal court relief under Section 504 and the ADA to also have her points competing against other wheelchair racers added to the team points of her school in the 2007 Regional and State Track Tournament. In balancing the harm to the plaintiff against the impact on other students, the District Court recognized the potential harm to non-disabled students who may have their opportunities diminished by ‘unwarranted advantage in the quest for team championships’ for teams with wheelchair racers, 485 F.Supp. 2d at 647. Couched as a ‘discrimination’ case, the Court in McFadden could not find that plaintiff was being treated ‘less favorably on account of her disability.’ The court focused on three factors: 1) the MPSSAA’s rule for adding new sports or events to Regional and State Tournaments was not facially discriminatory; 2) wheelchair racers do not compete against non-wheelchair racers; and 3) all but a small number of teams are significantly under-represented in the distinct class of wheelchair student competitions. The McFadden Court agreed with Badgett, supra, that ‘there are inherent and relevant differences between the class of wheelers and the class of non-wheelers that education officials are entitled to consider in operating a fair and equitable system of racing competition designed to identify team rankings.’ Id. at 650 (citing Badgett, supra). The court went on to conclude that the request to earn points toward a team’s point total simultaneously accepts that wheelchair athletes are different and therefore entitled to compete only against other wheelchair athletes while disavowing the reality of that difference in seeking to have their points count toward the able-bodied competition. McFadden, 485 F. Supp. 2d at 651. Ultimately, the McFadden court concluded that it was unlikely the court would be persuaded that it is discriminatory under the disability rights statutes for defendant to maintain a difference in the opportunity of wheelchair racers, in contrast to non-wheelchair racers, to earn points for teams, where all but a small number of teams are significantly under-represented in the distinct class of competitors of which McFadden is the sole member: ‘wheelers,’ McFadden, 485 F. Supp. 2d at 651. There is no national consensus on qualifying standards or how to fairly score these Adaptive Events against teams without para-athletes in racing chairs. In concluding that the student point scoring requests in both Badgett and McFadden would be a fundamental program alteration, the courts in Badgett and McFadden essentially found that any modification to the rules of play for any sport which alters the manner in which points are scored would simultaneously and by definition fundamentally alter the nature of these track programs.”
The court concluded that the plaintiff “seeks a judicial remedy, but, as much as the court may be able to empathize with the personal concern of Plaintiff, there is a distinct limitation on what this court can mandate as a matter of law. Any modification to MSHSAA rules, which alters operating standards, qualifying standards, grouping of students for competition, events offered at MSHSAA District, Sectional and State Championships or the manner in which points are earned and scored would simultaneously and by definition fundamentally alter the nature of the MSHSAA track and field program. The plaintiff does not seek to ‘preserve the status quo’ but to substantially ‘change the status quo’ by her motion.
“Balancing the (1) the lack of threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the lack of probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest,” the court denied the motion.
K. L., by and through her next friend, Jim Ladlie v. Missouri State High School Activities Association, Board of Directors; E.D. MO.; Case No: 4:15CV679 HEA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47621; 4/8/16
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Amanda Davis Anthony, Kaitlyn Marie Rausch, Susan K. Eckles, LEAD ATTORNEYS, MISSOURI PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES, Overland, MO. (for defendant) Mallory V. Mayse, LEAD ATTORNEY, MAYSE LAW OFFICE, Columbia, MO.
