A judge in the New Jersey Office of Administrative Law (OAL) has denied the petition of a group of student athletes, who had asked the OAL to lift a suspension issued by the school board, which prevented them from playing in the state championship football game.
In so ruling, the judge found that the nine seniors had not demonstrated that the law was settled in their favor or that there was a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim.
The student athletes in the case were members of the Wayne Hills High School football team. Last fall, they were involved in an off-campus fight at a party. The boys were subsequently charged by the police with aggravated assault. On November 16, 2011, Interim Superintendent of Schools Michael Roth advised the petitioners that because of the charges, they were being suspended from participation in all extracurricular activities, including football. However, the Wayne Township School Board (WTSB) stayed the suspensions, pending a further hearing on the matter. This allowed the student athletes to participate in a playoff game.
Shortly thereafter, the WTSB, in consultation with the local prosecutor, decided that it would be inappropriate to conduct any further evidentiary hearings, since they might prejudice the “criminal.” On November 25, 2011, the Board reinstated the suspensions. The suspended players responded by filing a petition that sought to lift their suspension and allow them to play in the state championship game.
In considering the appeal, the judge noted that his decision would be based on the standard set forth in Crowe v. DeGioia, 102 N.J. 50 (1986), which provides that the judge may order emergency relief…if the judge determines from the evidence that:
• “The petitioner will suffer irreparable harm if the requested relief is not granted;
• “The legal right underlying the petitioner’s claim is settled;
• “The petitioner has a likelihood of success on the merits of the underlying claim; and
• “When the equities and interests of the parties are balanced, the petitioner will suffer greater harm than the respondent will suffer if the relief is not granted.
“The moving party must satisfy all four prongs of the Crowe standard to establish an entitlement to emergent relief.”
While the petitioners cleared the first hurdle, the judge found that they could not “demonstrate that the law is settled in their favor, or that they have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their claims. In fact, the law is well-settled in favor of the Board, which has broad discretion to take the actions needed to effectively operate its public schools. The Commissioner will not overturn the decision of a local board in the absence of a finding that the action below was arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable. T.B.M. v. Moorestown Bd. of Educ., EDU 2780-07, Initial Decision (February 6, 2008)
Further, “these petitioners have not met their burden of demonstrating that the actions of Roth or his Board were induced by improper motives, or were taken in utter disregard of the circumstances before them.”
Finally, the judge turned to the off-cited legal truth that “participating in sports is a privilege,” not a right.
“Petitioners have no right to play football for Wayne Hills, and for this reason the Commissioner has noted that applications such as this one frequently fail because a petitioner cannot demonstrate a harm weighty enough to tip the balance in favor of a grant of extraordinary relief,” wrote the court. “Conversely, the Board has a strong and valid interest in the effective and orderly operation of its schools.”
As an aside, the Wayne Hills football team won the state championship without the nine suspended players.
L.A. v. Board of Educ. of Twp. of Wayne; N.J. O.A.L.; No. 14241-11; Dec. 1, 2012.
Attorneys of Record: (for petitioners) Ronald J. Ricci, Esq., Ricci and Fava; Darren J. Del Sardo, Esq., Damico, Del Sardo & Montanari; George Abdy, Esq. Abdy and Kane. (for respondents) Nathanya Simon, Esq. and John E. Croot, Esq. Schwartz, Simon, Edelstein and Kessler.
