A federal judge from the Middle District of Pennsylvania has ruled that the mother of a home-schooled student is a not entitled to an expedited hearing concerning her claim that the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association (PIAA) violated her son’s Constitutional rights when it banned him from competing in athletics for a private school in which he was taking two classes.
In so ruling, the court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success and that the defendant would not have enough time to prepare its defense.
Shonda Chapman, individually, and as the parent and natural guardian of J.D.C., was the plaintiff in the case.
J.D.C. is a full-time home-schooled student, reporting to the Susquehanna Township School District (STSD). In September 2013, his parents also enrolled him in two classes at Covenant Christian Academy, a private school, for which they paid $500 tuition and a $75 activity fee.
Chapman claimed in her suit that she enrolled the boy at the Academy because she and her husband “sought out a God-centered environment in which their son could play competitive sports.” At Covenant, the coach prays with the players and members of both teams pray before and after games.
Although Covenant Christian agreed to allow J.D.C. to play on its sports teams, the PIAA ruled that J.D.C. was ineligible. It explained that a home-schooled student with less than full-time enrollment in a private school is ineligible to play at that school. The PIAA by-laws provide that a home-schooled student is only eligible to play sports at the public school he would otherwise attend by virtue of his residence, which would have been the STSD. While J.D.C. was allowed to practice with Christian Covenant, he was not permitted to play in games.
On January 31, 2014, Chapman sued the PIAA in the Court of Common Pleas of Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. She argued that the defendants’ interpretation of the relevant policies and rules prohibiting him from competing with the Covenant Christian basketball team violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Specifically, she claimed that it violated her fundamental right to direct the education of her son. She further alleged that she had a protected liberty interest in the benefits of paying an activity fee to further her child’s education without arbitrary and irrational government interference.
On February 4, 2014, the defendants removed the action to federal court. The plaintiff then filed a motion for an expedited hearing regarding her request for a preliminary injunction, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 65(b)(3) and 6(c)(1)(C).
The court found that “no good cause exists” that would mandate holding an expedited hearing.
“’A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’ Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S. Ct. 365, 172 L. Ed. 2d 249 (2008). As the plaintiff has not yet provided the court with any reason to believe that the plaintiff will suffer an irreparable harm, there is no reason for the court to conclude that a failure to expedite the preliminary injunction hearing will in turn add to any irreparable harm. The defendant cites ample case law for the proposition that missing school sporting events is not an irreparable harm justifying a preliminary injunction. See, e.g., Dziewa v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, Inc., No. 08-5792, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3062, 2009 WL 113419, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2009) (‘This Court, as well as all other federal courts, have previously and consistently held that ineligibility for participation in interscholastic athletic competitions alone does not constitute irreparable harm. Further, Pennsylvania courts have made similar determinations, finding that the loss of an opportunity to play interscholastic athletics for one year does not constitute irreparable harm.’). In contrast, the plaintiff has not provided the court any legal support for her argument that the defendants’ adverse ruling on J.D.C.’s eligibility for upcoming basketball games constitutes an irreparable harm.
“Moreover, the court finds that holding an expedited hearing would prejudice the defendants by depriving them of adequate time to prepare briefing and argument on the preliminary injunction motion, or the opportunity to engage in discovery. To date, the plaintiff has not yet filed a brief in support of its preliminary injunction for which the defendants may prepare a response.”
Shonda Chapman v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association et al.; M.D. Pa.; No. 1:14-cv-00192, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17702; 2/12/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) David Joseph Chapman, LEAD ATTORNEY, Schmidt Kramer PC, Harrisburg, PA. (for defendants) Alan R. Boynton, Jr., LEAD ATTORNEY, McNees, Wallace & Nurick, Harrisburg, PA; Geoffrey B. Fehling, LEAD ATTORNEY, McNees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Harrisburg, PA.
