A federal judge from the Northern District of New York has dismissed the claim of a swimmer and her parents, who alleged that a school district and various officials failed to accommodate her mental disability during high school swim team practices and meets.
In so ruling, the court agreed with the defendants that the plaintiffs “failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that the defendants could have made reasonable accommodations for the plaintiff’s disability.”
The swimmer, who was diagnosed in 2005 with a mental disorder that causes her to suffer severe anxiety attacks in public, enrolled at Whitesboro Senior High School for the 2009-2010 school year. Upon enrollment, the parents informed the school about their daughter’s condition, and gave the school instructions regarding what to do when she suffered an anxiety attack. About a year later, the plaintiff joined the swim team.
During practice, the swim team coach would require the athletes to stay in the swimming pool for “extended periods of time,” according to the court. “However, severe onsets of anxiety would trigger in (the plaintiff’s) thoughts of drowning, which prevented her from being able to stay in the pool for such periods of time,” wrote the court, citing the complaint. “As a result, she would need to exit the pool during practice to ease her anxiety. On ‘numerous occasions,’ all defendants were ‘put on verbal notice’ that (the plaintiff) needed to exit the pool during practices in order to ease her anxiety. However, when (the plaintiff) exited the pool during practice, she was ‘verbally attacked’ by the (the coach), who told her on numerous occasions that, if she did not get back in the pool, she would be kicked off the swim team. One or more other swim team members with disabilities were able to exit the pool during practice, without being reprimanded and/or threatened of being kicked off the swim team.”
These attacks occurred at swim meets, too. “In particular, she experienced a severe anxiety attack at a time trial on or about September 10, 2009, which caused her to get out of the pool and run to the restroom to ease her anxiety,” wrote the court, citing the complaint.
“At no time did (the coach) attempt to accommodate (the plaintiff’s) mental disorder. Rather, (the coach) took actions that were wonton, deliberate and without justification.”
The swimmer and her parents ultimately sued, alleging:
“(1) Defendants violated her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) by failing, during high school swim team practices, to make proper accommodations for her mental disability, which caused her to experience severe unannounced anxiety attacks in public places; and
“(2) Defendants violated her rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) in the same manner.”
The defendants moved to dismiss the claim, arguing:
“(1) Plaintiffs’ claim under the ADA should be dismissed because they have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting (a) it was possible to make reasonable accommodations for (the swimmer’s) disability, and (b) Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference toward her disability;
“ (2) Plaintiffs’ claim under the Rehabilitation Act should be dismissed because they have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting (a) it was possible to make reasonable accommodation for (the swimmer’s) disability, (b) Defendants exhibited deliberate indifference toward her disability, and (c) Whitesboro Central School District receives federal funding sufficient to render it liable under the Rehabilitation Act;
“(3) Plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief should be denied because they have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that (the swimmer) is currently threatened with irreparable harm; and
“(4) Individually named Defendants should be dismissed from the case because (a) individuals may be sued only in their official capacity under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act when injunctive relief is sought and (b) holding individuals liable is redundant under the principle of vicarious liability.”
As mentioned above, the court agreed with the defendants that they could not have accommodated the swimmer. It cited three reasons.
“First, the plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that, regardless of (the swimmer’s) disability, she was otherwise qualified to meet all of the swim team program’s requirements. An essential requirement of a swim team participation is that the swimmer must be able to swim when called upon to do so. In the plaintiffs’ own amended complaint, they allege that (the swimmer) needed to exit the pool multiple times during swim practices. Further, the plaintiffs’ amended complaint alleges that (the swimmer) needed to exit the pool during two swim team events, a time trial and a swim meet. These incidents substantially interfered with (the swimmer’s) ability to swim when called upon to do so. According to the plaintiffs’ own factual allegations, although (the swimmer) was able to swim, she was unable to remain in the pool or enter the pool when called upon by the swim team coach.
“Second, the plaintiffs have failed to allege facts plausibly suggesting that the defendants could have made reasonable accommodations for (the swimmer’s) disability. The plaintiffs allege that the anxiety attacks that (the swimmer) experienced in swimming pools induced in her a fear of drowning. The plaintiffs further allege that, due to this fear, they requested the accommodation of permitting (the swimmer) to exit the pool for indeterminate periods of time—on unannounced occasions during practices and swim competitions—to calm her nerves, without being kicked off of the team. There is no reasonable accommodation that a swim team coach could make for an athlete who is suddenly and sporadically afraid of the water and thus has to exit the pool during practices and competitions. As stated above, one of the essential requirements of swim team members is the ability to enter, and remain in, the pool when required by the coach during practices and competitions. To require otherwise would fundamentally change the nature of the swim team and thus be unreasonable.
“Third, the accommodation that the plaintiffs request was already provided to (the swimmer) by the defendants. In their complaint, the plaintiffs allege that the accommodation they requested of the defendants was that (the swimmer) be permitted to exit the pool for indeterminate periods of time—on unannounced occasions during practices and swim competitions—to calm her nerves, without being kicked off of the team.”
The court also agreed with the defendants’ other arguments.
S.S., an Infant; LLOYD SCHOR, as legal guardian; and ANDREA SCHOR, as legal guardian v. Whitesboro Central School District et al.; N.D.N.Y.; 6:11-CV-0036 (GTS/GHL), 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11727; 1/31/12
Attorneys of Record (for plaintiffs) Anthony J. Lafache, ESQ., Gregg A. Starsczewski, ESQ., of counsel, Office of Anthony J. Lafache, Utica, NY. (for defendants) Frank W. Miller, ESQ., Bryan N. Georgiady, ESQ., of counsel, The Law Firm of Frank W. Miller, East Syracuse, NY.
