A deaf wrestler at Royal Oak High School (Michigan) has sued the Michigan High School Athletic Association (MHSAA), claiming it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act when it refused to allow an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter to be present along the mat during MHSAA-sanctioned matches, where he or she could relay coaching instructions and strategies to the plaintiff.
Representing plaintiff Ellis Kempf is Nyman Turkish PC, a national litigation and disability law firm. The lawsuit seeks an emergency injunction against the MHSAA to prevent it from barring the interpreter this season.
“We aren’t seeking money and he doesn’t want an advantage,” said Kempf’s mother. Elizabeth Kempf. “He just wants to continue using his interpreter so he can understand what his coach wants him to do during matches — that’s all.”
Ellis, 18, is captain of the Royal Oak Ravens and wrestles in the 152-pound weight class. He has been deaf since the age of 2 due to meningitis. Cochlear implants allow him some hearing but he can’t wear the external components during matches, rendering him completely deaf.
Last season during non-sanctioned matches, the 18-year-old Kempf used an ASL interpreter provided by the school district. However, during a sanctioned match last year, an MHSAA referee disallowed the interpreter, concluding that it might interfere with or block the vision of opposing coaches.
Without his interpreter, Kempf claims he is “at a competitive disadvantage because he can’t hear his coach shouting instructions on what offensive and defensive strategies to employ — a key element of high school wrestling – nor can he tell when matches begin and end.”
Jason Turkish, managing partner of Nyman Turkish, said the firm is taking the case pro bono.
“Ellis just wants a fair fight — literally and figuratively,” Turkish said. “A student-athlete shouldn’t win or lose a match because he’s deaf — he should win or lose based solely on ability. In our estimation, the priorities of the MHSAA are incredibly misplaced and create a danger for him, which is why we’re seeking injunctive relief in federal court.”
ADA Expert Examines Argument
John Waldo, Advocacy Director and Counsel for the Washington State Communication Access Project (www.wash-cap.com) suggested to Sports Litigation Alert that the plaintiff may have a good legal argument.
“The ADA would clearly require allowing an interpreter unless the association could invoke one of the two applicable defenses,” Waldo said. “I see no indication that the plaintiff is asking the association to pay for the interpreter, which takes the ‘undue burden’ defense off the table. So the only remaining defense is that permitting an interpreter to be on the mat would be a ‘fundamental alteration’ of the competition.
“That seems to be the argument; namely, that it would fundamentally alter the competition if a coach could not see and communicate with the competitor. But that is exactly the argument the plaintiff is making — that he, like all wrestlers, needs to be able to receive instruction from the coach, who obviously needs to see what is happening to provide meaningful input.”
Putting himself in the plaintiff’s shoes, Waldo said he would “argue that the issue is not so much doing something a bit out of the ordinary, but rather, the issue is whether doing so affects the competitive balance.
“Then I would argue that there is no reason to believe the interpreter gets in the way of one coach more than the other, and that if the presence of an interpreter can be something of a nuisance in some situations, that nuisance does not affect the fairness of the competition. On the other hand, completely denying one competitor the ability to communicate with a coach surely would do so.”
He added that that “the burden of proof is extremely important. The ADA clearly requires the defendant to bear the burden of proof on the ‘undue burden’ issue, so sort of like a tie going to the receiver, a tie in cases of this sort should go to the claimant.”
Waldo also suggested that the landmark case Casey Martin v. PGA Tour may come into play.
“Using a cart made life easier for Casey, but it didn’t alter the competitive balance of a golf tournament. That’s the argument I think will arise in this case.”
