A federal judge from the Northern District of Illinois has denied the Illinois High School Association’s (IHSA) motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a disabled student, who wants the association to adopt policies and procedures to allow her and other student athletes with disabilities the chance to compete in IHSA-sanctioned events and competitions.
The plaintiffs, including the student athlete Mary Kate Callahan, sought injunctive relief to prevent unlawful discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12132 & 12182.
They argued that because the IHSA includes 98 percent of Illinois public and private high schools, and these schools rely on IHSA to organize and administer their state championship meets, the association should accommodate disabled individuals.
The IHSA is also a recipient of federal financial assistance under the Rehabilitation Act. Furthermore, its membership, the public high schools, is supported by public taxation.
“IHSA has not promulgated rules that would permit athletes with disabilities to score points in interscholastic meets—in fact, according to the plaintiffs, IHSA has explicitly refused to do so—and its regulations prohibit member schools from setting their own standards or scoring systems for athletes with disabilities,” wrote the court. “As a result, students who have disabilities that prevent them from meeting existing state qualifying standards are denied the opportunity to compete in IHSA-run state championship meets. Yet IHSA itself has provided different qualifying standards for state championship meets based on gender, school size, and geography, which has resulted in multiple qualifying standards for state championship meets in every event within a sport.”
Callahan is a 16-year-old student at Fenwick High School (FHS), who has physical disabilities, including lower-limb paralysis, according to the court. She is substantially limited in one or more major life activities, including walking, bending, and standing. As a result, she requires the full-time use of a wheelchair. Callahan has been swimming with her high school team since her freshman year, and her high school permits her to participate in local interscholastic track and swim meets. Her swimming times place her among the top adaptive high school swimmers in the state. But Callahan’s disability prevents her from meeting the qualifying standards that IHSA has set for students without disabilities, and so she is presently unable to earn points for her team in these competitions. As a result, Callahan is excluded from participating in championship meets on behalf of FHS. She wants the opportunity to qualify for the state championship meets in swimming and track and to earn points for her team during the 2012-2013 sports season.
This ultimately led to the plaintiff’s lawsuit under the aforementioned grounds.
IHSA countered with a motion to dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “arguing that IHSA (1) does not receive any federal funding as required under the Rehabilitation Act, (2) is not a ‘public entity’ as required under Title II of the ADA, and (3) is not a ‘place of public accommodation’ as required under Title III of the ADA.”
With regard to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the court restated the plaintiff’s argument “that IHSA receives federal funding indirectly via its member schools. And even if IHSA is correct in arguing that indirect funding is not sufficient to state a claim for relief under the Rehabilitation Act—an issue which this court need not decide, and which does not appear to have been decided in the Seventh Circuit—the plaintiffs have also alleged that IHSA directly receives such funds. (citing Icehouse Inc. v. Amateur Hockey Ass’n, 134 F. Supp. 2d 965 (N.D. Ill. 2001) and Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n v. Smith, 525 U.S. 459, 119 S. Ct. 924, 142 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1999).) These facts are sufficient to allege that IHSA is subject to the Rehabilitation Act.”
The court next turned to the second count, which centers on Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, or the juxtaposition that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.”
The court again sided with the plaintiffs, which “alleged facts that plausibly suggest that IHSA is a public entity. Specifically, they have alleged that about 98 percent of Illinois schools are members of IHSA, that all Illinois public high schools are supported by public taxation and are recognized by the Illinois State Board of Education, and that IHSA oversees those schools’ interscholastic high school sports programs in a very detailed manner. These facts suggest that IHSA is an ‘instrument of a State or States or local government.’”
Lastly, the court considered the plaintiffs allegation that IHSA violated Title III of the ADA, which provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
IHSA’s central argument was that it is not a “place of public accommodation” and therefore is not subject to Title III. “It argues that this phrase refers only to a physical structure, and not an organization that promotes athletic events,” wrote the court.
The court disagreed, agreeing with the plaintiff “that IHSA operates a place of public accommodation such that it could be subjected to liability in the event that it violates Title III” since it “regulates all of the interscholastic activities in which its member schools engage, establishes the eligibility criteria for student athletes, determines which member schools can compete in competitions, sets the times and dates during which interscholastic activities can be held, establishes scoring rules and qualifying standards for student athletes, and regulates the qualifications of coaches and officials.”
The People of the State Of Illinois Ex Rel. Lisa Madigan, Attorney General and M.K., by her Parent and Next Friend, Joanne Callahan v. Illinois High School Association, an unincorporated association; N.D. Ill.; Case No. 12 C 3758, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116417; 8/17/12
Attorneys of Record (for plaintiffs) Polly A Hayes, LEAD ATTORNEY, Judith Nisenbaum Levitan, Rachel Faye Margolis, Sarah Angela Smith, Office Of The Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL; Carl Thomas Bergetz, Chief, Special Litigation Bureau., Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Chicago, IL; Jennifer Marie Zlotow, Office of the Illinois Attorney General, Special Litigation Bureau, Chicago, IL. Alan Mark Goldstein, LEAD ATTORNEY, Amy F. Peterson, Lauren Mackenzie Lowe, Equip for Equality, Chicago, IL. (for defendant) Matthew S. Hefflefinger, Patrick E Poston, Heyl, Royster, Voelker & Allen, Peoria, IL.
