A federal judge for the Northern District of Alabama has denied a plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunctive relief in a lawsuit brought against the Alabama High School Athletic Association, in which she claimed the AHSAA was allegedly in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Plaintiff Mallerie Badgett was a student at Oxford High School in Alabama. Although diagnosed with cerebral palsy, Badgett was an active competitor in track and field.
Before the 2007 season began, Badgett and Oxford High contacted the AHSAA concerning her participation in the track and field events. In response, the AHSAA implemented “Phase 1” of a new program. Under Phase 1, wheelchair athletes compete in a wheelchair division separate from the able-bodied division. The times of the athletes are recorded at each meet. The athletes with the eight fastest times throughout the entire season automatically advance to the state championship without having to compete in the section qualifying meet. At the state meet, the wheelchair athletes representing their respective school teams compete for the state championship in the wheelchair division.
Badgett was the only wheelchair competitor in the entire state for the 2007 season. For that reason, the AHSAA planed to allow her to participate in her section qualifying meet. Also, although the AHSAA originally limited Badgett to certain events, it decided to allow her to compete in four events of her choosing during the state championship meet.
However, Badgett felt competing in a separate division alone made her an “exhibition” rather than part of the team. She was also concerned with the effect competing in a separate division will have on her ability to receive college scholarships among other benefits. Therefore, Badgett requested that she be able to participate alongside able-bodied athletes as well as have her individual points count toward her team’s total.
The main controversy before the court is whether or not the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act require the AHSAA to accommodate Badgett’s specific requests.
Generally, both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit the discrimination against individuals with disabilities. The ADA provides that “subject to the provisions of this subchapter, 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 such entity.” The Rehabilitation Act provides that “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service.
The court added that in order to state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must show “(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participating in or denied the benefits of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (3) that the exclusion, denial of benefit, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.” And in order to state a claim under the Rehabilitation Act, the elements of prima facie are essentially the same except for the additional requirement that the plaintiff must show that the defendant is a recipient of federal funds.
The court wrote that “the ADA defines a ‘qualified individual with a disability” in part as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications…meets the essential eligibility requirements’ of the program at issue.”
“Here, Defendants contend that the essential eligibility requirements of able-bodied track and field include specific physical qualifications, such as the ability to run and jump, which Badgett does not possess and that cannot be achieved with a reasonable modification,” wrote the Court.
The court also found that the defendants met their obligations to reasonably modify the program under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by establishing a separate wheelchair division for track and field. The AHSAA also modified the program by giving athletes individual points, allowing them to establish state records, and earn state championship medals in their events. Schools are also eligible to win state championships in the wheelchair division.
The court also noted that “neither the ADA nor the Rehabilitation Act requires a public entity to adopt the “best” modification or the modification requested by a person with a disability; rather, these statutes require only a reasonable modification.” Therefore, the court found that Badgett’s are not reasonable.
The defendants presented substantial evidence proving that allowing Badgett to compete alongside able-bodied athletes would raise legitimate competitive, fairness and administrative concerns, as well as legitimate safety concerns that are inherent in having able-bodied athletes and wheelchair athletes competing in a mixed heats. Therefore, it found Badgett’s request to compete alongside able-bodied athletes “unreasonable.”
The defendants also presented substantial evidence that her participation in certain events when no other school in the entire state has a wheelchair athlete would be unfair and therefore unreasonable, according to the court.
The court noted with approval that, “prior to the scheduled hearing in this matter, the parties voluntarily reached a separate agreement to count Badgett’s individual points in a ‘combined division’ along the lines of the program utilized in the State of Washington rather than in a separate wheelchair division. The court further note[d] that the adoption of Washington’s ‘combined division’ program for the remainder of the 2007 track and field season is not binding on the defendants for future track and field seasons. Rather, both the combined division and the separate wheelchair division originally adopted by the defendants are reasonable modifications, and the defendants remain free to utilize either approach in the future.”
Therefore, the court found no violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or Title II of the ADA.
Mallerie Badgett, a minor by and through her father and next friend, Randall Badgett, v. Alabama High School Athletic Association, et al; N.D. Ala.; NO. 2:07-CV-00572-KOB; 5/3/2007
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Julia T Cochrun, R Gordon Pate, W Whitney Seals, Birmingham, Alabma. (for defendant) Aaron L Dettling, Birmingham, AL, David R Boyd, James E Williams, C Mark Bain, C Mark Bain, Montgomery, AL.
