A federal judge from the District of Maryland permanently enjoined Towson University (Towson) from preventing a student athlete from participating on the football team after the player made a near-miraculous comeback from a heat stroke he suffered two years earlier on the practice field.
The court’s decision was made pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
On August 12, 2013, plaintiff Gavin Class collapsed on the field while practicing as a member of the Towson football team. Class was rushed to the nearest hospital, where it was determined that he had suffered a heat stroke with liver failure and was facing a life-threatening situation. Ultimately, he was able to survive by receiving a liver transplant. After two years of intense medical and physical rehabilitation, his physicians, one an expert in liver transplants and the other in heat strokes, cleared him to resume his football career.
However, Towson’s team physician blocked the plaintiff’s return.
Class sued, alleging that Towson refused to clear him to play football in the upcoming season or to make any “reasonable accommodations” that would permit him to return to full participation. He further alleged that by refusing to make such accommodations, Towson is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12133 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.
Class’ specific claims are:
The university has excluded him from fully participating in the football program solely because of his disability, thereby excluding him from participating in, denying him the benefits of, and otherwise discriminating against him in its facilities, services, programs or activities in violation of the Rehabilitation Act.
Towson has failed to meet its obligations to provide him with equal opportunities as other students without disabilities by excluding him from the football team and denying him the benefits of, and otherwise discriminating against him in its facilities, services, programs and activities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12133
The university moved to dismiss.
In considering the arguments, the court provided some background about the “severity of both his original illness and subsequent complications.
“Class’ rehabilitation was a long and arduous process. He was unable to stand on his own until several weeks into his hospital stay, and he was only able to remain on his feet for a matter of seconds. By the time he returned home (about six weeks after his initial hospitalization), Class was able to move around his house using a walker. He eventually transitioned to a cane, then to some unassisted walking. By December of 2013, he was able to perform some light jogging. He began other rehabilitation work, including light lifting and banded exercises, and in the spring of 2014, he began running and footwork drills with a personal strength coach. By October of 2014, he was lifting and running with the University’s strength coach. In short, this young man was making a remarkable recovery.”
The only condition placed on Class by his treating physician, if he returned to football, was that he wear protective padding to protect his abdominal wall.
Meanwhile, the Korey Stringer Institute determined “that Class had physically recovered from his heat stroke and that the accommodations and recommendations outlined in the report would insure that Class could cease activity before he reached a level where he was in danger of a reoccurrence of heat stroke or heat illness.”
In analyzing the arguments, the court noted that both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities. Title II of the ADA, in particular, states that “no qualified individual with a disability shall by reason of such disability be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
“Similarly, Section 504 provides that ‘no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .’ 29 U.S.C. § 794. Because the language of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 is substantially similar, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit analyzes the two statutes together. See Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333, 336, n.1 (4th Cir. 2012). To prove a violation of either the ADA or Section 504, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) he has a disability; (2) he is ‘otherwise qualified to receive the benefits of a public service, program, or activity;’ and (3) he is ‘excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of such service, program, or activity, or otherwise discriminated against, on the basis of [their] disabilities.’ Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 498 (4th Cir. 2005).
“In assessing this third element of a disability discrimination claim, there are ‘three distinct grounds for relief: (1) intentional discrimination or disparate treatment; (2) disparate impact; and (3) failure to make reasonable accommodations.’” A Helping Hand, LLC v. Balt. Cnty., 515 F.3d 356, 362 (4th Cir. 2008). As explained by Judge Chasanow in Adams v. Montgomery College (Rockville), 834 F. Supp. 2d 386, 393 (D. Md. 2011):
The court determined that a key question was whether providing the accommodations would “constitute a fundamental alteration of its football program or impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the University. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.164; see also Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509, 532, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 158 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2004). The relevant inquiry in this case focuses on a ‘fundamental alteration’ because Class and his family have indicated that they will pay the costs associated with implementing the CTM System to monitor Class and there is no evidence of an increased administrative burden on the University due to the use of the system. Essentially, the University must demonstrate that the proposed accommodation—the use of the CTM System and protective padding over Class’ abdomen—would, in practice, ‘be unreasonable to implement.’ Disabled in Action, 752 F.3d at 202.”
The court noted that both doctors testified that Class “is currently physically able to return to football, and there was no evidence that Class would be unable to withstand the rigors of a collegiate level football practice. Accordingly, there is no merit to the University’s argument that Class’ participation would constitute a fundamental alteration because he would only be participating on a part-time or optional basis. Indeed, the University has been unable to present any credible evidence to support a fundamental alteration defense.
“As noted above, this Court finds that Towson University has and continues to violate the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying Gavin Class the right to actively and fully participate in the University’s football program.”
Gavin Class v. Towson University; D, Md.; Civil Action No. RDB-15-1544, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 93115; 7/17/15
Attorneys of record: (for plaintiff) Andreas Lundstedt, LEAD ATTORNEY, Law Office of Andrew M. Dansicker, Hunt Valley, MD; Andrew Marc Dansicker, LEAD ATTORNEY, Dansicker Law Firm, Hunt Valley, MD; Andrew L Jiranek, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jiranek Company PA, Towson, MD; Latane James Mason, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jiranek Company, Towson, MD. (for defendant) Kathleen Evelyn Wherthey, LEAD ATTORNEY, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Educational Affairs Division, Baltimore, MD.
