In a stunning majority decision, the Oklahoma Supreme Court has reversed a trial court, finding that the judge erred when he denied a student athlete’s request for a permanent injunction, which would have prevented the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (OSSAA) from administering sanctions against the student athlete for violating the OSSAA’s rules and policies.
In so ruling, the high court determined that the OSSAA “applied the incorrect standard of review, and that under any standard, the OSSAA’s actions were arbitrary and capricious.”
Plaintiff Brayden Scott was a former student at Sequoyah School (Sequoyah) in Tahlequah, Oklahoma, a federal Indian boarding school operated by the Cherokee Nation. At the time the events occurred, Scott was a senior at Sequoyah and quarterback of the varsity football team. The OSSAA is an association that regulates interscholastic sports competition in Oklahoma.
In July of 2012, the OSSAA reportedly received a copy of a newspaper article concerning Sequoyah’s successes attracting the attention of college football recruiters. Based on comments made in the article, the OSSAA became concerned that Sequoyah might have violated what the OSSAA considered to be its long-standing prohibition on member schools paying for their student-athletes to attend individual athletic camps. The OSSAA notified the school of its concerns and asked for confirmation as to whether Sequoyah had paid for selected students to attend individual camps. The OSSAA claimed it received no response prior to September 10, 2012. At that point, it received a response from Coach Brent Scott “offering somewhat vague answers to its request for more information,” according to the court.
Concerned that multiple students might be ineligible due to violations and yet still participating in games during the season, the OSSAA sought specific details about which students might have attended camps and had their tuition paid by either Sequoyah or sources that were not their own family, such as parents of other students. Despite apparently stressing the urgency of its requests, the OSSAA did not receive any more information from the head coach until Sequoyah, in a letter dated September 27, 2012, instructed Coach Brent Scott to respond to the OSSAA’s request by the next morning.
October 16, 2012, appears to be the date on which the OSSAA was first able to confirm the identities of students for whom Sequoyah had paid tuition or fees for individual football camps and the camps that had been attended at school expense from 2009 to 2012.
On October 22, 2012, OSSAA Executive Director Sheakly spoke on the phone with Sequoyah’s athletic director about the possible ineligibility of several students, including Scott, as well as the head football coach. The exact details of the conversation are disputed. Scott alleged that the OSSAA declared him and other students ineligible at that point. The OSSAA alleged that it informed Sequoyah that it expected the players in question and the coach would be held out of competition in order to avoid possible future violations and attached sanctions. Regardless, on this date the OSSAA considered Scott and certain of his fellow players ineligible to play, and the head coach ineligible to coach, based on what it considered to be violations of its rules and policies concerning tuition payment for participation in individual camps. Sequoyah’s athletic director apparently conceded the violations and announced it was suspending the head coach, but he thought that the players should be allowed to continue to participate because they were blameless.
One of Scott’s teammates, through his parent and attorney, sought relief in the District Court of Cherokee County on October 25, 2012, by filing a verified petition and application for temporary restraining order and/or temporary injunction. The player argued that even though administrative remedies had not been exhausted, an administrative appeal would not take place until after the end of the player’s senior season and irreparable harm would result. In a temporary restraining order issued on October 25, 2012, the court ordered the OSSAA to refrain from enforcing its determination of ineligibility for not just the represented player, but for Scott and all other players as well as the head coach, so that they could finish the regular season. The day after the issuance of the temporary restraining order, Scott moved to intervene in the litigation as a plaintiff, and was permitted by the court to do so.
Meanwhile, the OSSAA continued its investigation, interviewing students and parents in an attempt to obtain more detailed information. After conducting the investigation, on November 3, 2012, the executive director of the OSSAA directed that Sequoyah forfeit each of the wins in the current season, instructed that Sequoyah was not to participate in the state football playoffs, and also directed that the head coach (already on suspension by Sequoyah) not participate in coaching until reinstated by the OSSAA’s board of directors. Sequoyah and the head coach were notified that the determinations could be appealed at the upcoming board of director’s meeting on November 7, 2012. On November 6, 2012, OSSAA staff issued a 20-page report concerning its investigation, its findings regarding the student-athletes’ participation in camps, and recommended sanctions. The OSSAA board adopted the findings and all but one of the proposed penalties.
On November 7, 2012, the same day as the OSSAA’s board meeting, Scott petitioned the district court for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction, to prevent the OSSAA from enforcing its ruling and to allow Scott and his affected teammates to participate in the 2012 state football championships. Sequoyah announced it would not contest the OSSAA’s final decision and it did not join in Scott’s petition for a permanent injunction. The district court denied Scott’s request for a permanent injunction.
After several failed attempts, the plaintiffs made another appeal, long after the playoffs were over. They finally got traction that following summer, arguing that the district court erred when it denied his request for a permanent injunction against the OSSAA on November 8, 2012, because: “1) it exercised the improper standard of judicial review by giving absolute deference to the OSSAA’s decisions; and 2) it found he had no likelihood of succeeding on his claim that the OSSAA acted in an arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable manner.”
The OSSAA countered that the appeal should be dismissed as moot and unripe for appellate review.
The high court conceded that “it is undisputed that the playoffs are now over, and that by graduating and enrolling in college, Scott will never again attend an OSSAA-member school or be subject to its rules regarding eligibility. He can no longer benefit from the injunctive relief he originally sought.
“Oklahoma recognizes two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: 1) when the appeal presents a question of broad public interest; and 2) when the challenged event is capable of repetition, yet evading review. Exceptions to the mootness doctrine are not fixed, and their application depends on the facts presented and the policy considerations.”
The Supreme Court added that “questions regarding student eligibility to participate in sporting events occur often, but because of the short window between questions arising and the occurrence of the events in question, judicial review of the OSSAA’s decisions prior to the occurrence of those events can be difficult. That is precisely what occurred here. If controversies regarding the OSSAA’s decisions concerning eligibility were to become moot each time merely because the events in question had already occurred, all the OSSAA would need to do to perpetually evade review of its actions is to delay a decision until the event occurs. Clarification regarding the proper standard of review for decisions made by the OSSAA is necessary to avoid continuing confusion regarding disputes over student eligibility.”
Addressing the standard of review in the instant case, the high court noted that the record “contains copious evidence that the OSSAA acted in a manner that was arbitrary and capricious. Even applying the Morgan standard (Morgan v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Ass’n), the district court erred by entering a decision against the evidence in failing to grant a permanent injunction prohibiting the OSSAA from enforcing its determinations as to Scott.”
The high court elaborated on this point, noting how, on November 7, 2012, the OSSAA Board “adopted all of the sanctions recommended in the formal report drawn up by OSSAA staff, rubberstamping the Executive Director’s actions, with the exception of the recommendation that each student be required to reimburse the School for the camp expenses paid, and to sit out of one future game or contest in the student’s next activity for every camp attended at School expense. For several of the recommended sanctions in the report, the OSSAA staff referenced authorizing authority under the OSSAA Constitution, Rules, and Policies. However, some of the penalties imposed by the OSSAA upon Sequoyah and the students, including Scott, come with no explanation or authorization from the OSSAA’s own Constitution, Rules, or Policies. The two most disturbing examples are penalties 5) and 7), which state:
“5) that the School reimburse OSSAA for the attorney fees and other costs associated with the investigation of the above-referenced violations, up to a total of $25,000.00;
“7) that the school require all current students for whom individual camp expenses were paid in violation of OSSAA policies and rules to reimburse the School for all such expenses; if the students and families can demonstrate that they are financially unable to reimburse the School in full, a payment plan or a waiver of the requirements can be considered, but must be discussed with the OSSAA.
“No authorizing provision from the OSSAA’s Constitution, Rules, or Policies was provided for these penalties, and the parts of the OSSAA Constitution, Rules, and Policies included in the record do not anywhere authorize such penalties. Because this Court holds the OSSAA’s decision regarding payment of fees by Sequoyah for most of the individual camps in question to be arbitrary and capricious, it naturally follows that imposition of steep monetary penalties, without an apparent basis in the OSSAA’s Constitution, Rules, or Policies, is likewise arbitrary and capricious. It completely disregards the underlying facts and circumstances.”
Brayden Scott v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association; S.Ct. Okla.; Case Number: 111226, 2013 OK 84; 2013 Okla. LEXIS 111; 10/1/13
Attorneys of Record: (for Appellant) Chadwick Smith, Tahlequah, Oklahoma. (for Appellee) Mark S. Grossman, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Todd Hembree, Tahlequah, Oklahoma.
