By Jarett L. Warner
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York has held that the New York City Council acted constitutionally in prohibiting the use of metal baseball bats by high school students in competitive baseball games.
In USA Baseball v. City of New York, the plaintiffs (which included coaches and parents of New York City high school baseball players, sporting goods manufacturers, the National High School Baseball Coaches Association and USA Baseball) sought an injunction against the enforcement of New York City Local Law 20 of 2007 (N.Y.C. Administrative Code §10-165) (known as the “Bat Ordinance”), which directed that high school students participating in competitive baseball games sponsored by public or private schools in New York City could only use wooden bats. Judge John G. Koeltl granted the City’s cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the lawsuit and denied the plaintiffs’ motion seeking both an injunction summary judgment.
In reaching his decision, Judge Koeltl noted:
• The legislative findings by the City Council “that the use of non-wood bats poses an unacceptable risk of injury to children, particularly those who play competitive high school baseball.”
• The legislative record, which comprised approximately 3,500 pages of testimony, statements, reports and other documents, concerning the high risk of injuries related to use of metal and aluminum bats, including testimony from parents of children who were killed or seriously injured as a result of non-wood bats.
• Non-wood bats are made of metal alloys and advanced technology which increase performance. This includes a larger “sweet spot,” enabling hitters to make solid contact without hitting a baseball perfectly.
The plaintiffs argued that the Bat Ordinance was unconstitutional under the U.S. and New York Constitutions, violated equal protection and due process rights and exceeded the City’s police powers. Noting that where a law does not interfere with a fundamental right or “proceed along suspect lines” it does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. or New York Constitution if there is a rational relationship between the disparity of treatment and a legitimate government purpose, Judge Koeltl found that the City had a rational basis for the Bat Ordinance, based upon the studies, testimony and reports analyzed. As such, he held that the City Council could constitutionally consider the safety of the high school players as paramount, when contrasted to the possible impact on the game (less offense with wooden bats) and that there was no claim under the Equal Protection Clause.
Judge Koeltl also dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under to the federal and state Due Process Clauses, since the Bat Ordinance did not affect a fundamental right.
The plaintiffs also claimed that the Bat Ordinance exceeded the City’s police power since it constituted a prohibition rather than a regulation, the former of which is beyond the City’s power “to regulate and license occupations and businesses” to “maintain order, enforce the laws, protect property and preserve and care for the safety, health, comfort and general welfare of the inhabitants of the city and visitors thereto.” N.Y. Gen. City Law §20(13). Judge Koeltl held that “[p]rotecting persons of high school age from baseball injuries plainly falls within the City’s police power to protect its residents’ health and safety, and the Court has already concluded as a matter of law that the Bat Ordinance reasonably relates to this legislative purpose.”
Next, the plaintiffs argued that the Bat Ordinance was an unconstitutional delegation of power to a non-state entity in violation of federal and state due process because it incorporated a the rules of a private entity (Major League Baseball) to determine which wood bats were acceptable. Judge Koeltl was not persuaded by this argument as the Bat Ordinance simply incorporated a set of rules established by Major League Baseball, which has extensive experience in adjudging the safety of bats.
Judge Koeltl rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the Bat Ordinance violates the Commerce Clause, finding that its local benefit (protecting the public health and safety of local high school student athletes) outweighed any burden on interstate commerce (i.e., creation of different rules for games played by teams out of State or by out-of-state teams in the City).
Analysis: New Standard of Care Could Emerge
In sum, the Court upheld the New York City Council’s Bat Ordinance prohibiting use of metal baseball bats during competitive high school baseball games played in the City. The Court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the Bat Ordinance violated the Equal Process, Due Process and Commerce clauses of the Constitution and held that the ordinance did not constitute an improper police power by the City of New York. Since the Court determined that each of the plaintiffs’ claims were without merit, it denied the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction and granted the City’s cross-motion for summary judgment.
This decision could set a significant precedent, should other municipalities, counties and/or states follow the lead of the City of New York. A trend in similar legislation could give rise to a new standard of care. Although the Bat Ordinance is not without its detractors (most notably, players and their parents concerned about the negative impact on performance, and sporting goods manufacturers concerned about the likely detrimental affect on the sale of aluminum bats), it is unlikely that a court would ignore the significant evidence that the use of non-wood bats creates an unnecessary risk and place performance over safety.
USA Baseball; The National High School Baseball Coaches Association; Dr. Peter Berg; Juan Hernandez; Dennis Canale; Mel Zitter; Michael Cruz; Tito Navarro; John Torres; Easton Sports, Inc.; Wilson Sporting Goods Co.; Rawlings Sporting Goods Company; and Hillerich & Bradsby Company, Inc., Plaintiffs v. City of New York, Defendant (S.D.N.Y.; No. 07 Civ. 3605 (JGK); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63234; August 27, 2007).
Attorneys of Records (for the plaintiffs): John F. Collins, Lead Attorney, Dewey Ballantine LLP; David A. Ettinger and Jeffrey H. Kuras, Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP; (for the defendant) Jerald Horowitz, Lead Attorney, New York City Law Department.
Jarett L. Warner is an associate at Havkins Rosenfeld Ritzert & Varriale, LLP in New York, New York. He has litigated several high profile cases for professional and minor league sports teams. He has also counseled risk managers, venue owners and operators, general counsels and clients with self-insured retentions to minimize liability and to develop successful litigation strategies. If you would like a copy of the Court’s decision, he can be reached at Jarett.Warner@hrrvlaw.com or (212) 488-1598.
