A federal judge from the Western District of Virginia has declined to interfere in a decision by the Virginia High School League (VHSL), which held that a student athlete was ineligible to compete as a senior because he failed to meet the age requirements set forth by the association.
In so ruling, the court also found that plaintiff Steven Adam Sisson had failed to demonstrate that he would suffer “irreparable harm” if the court did not grant his motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.
Sisson, was a senior at Eastern Montgomery High School in Montgomery County, Virginia. VHSL rules dictated that he could not participate in League-sponsored athletic activities because he turned 19 on July 31, 2010.
After unsuccessfully attempting to obtain a waiver of the age rule, Sisson sued, alleging violations of his rights to due process and equal protection. To that end, he sought pre-emptive relief.
In reviewing the background, the court noted that when Sisson was in the third grade, he was identified as having a specific learning disability in reading and writing with an auditory processing deficit. Although his grades were average, his parents elected for him to repeat the third grade at the recommendation of his private elementary school. After Sisson completed the seventh grade, his parents moved him to a public school in Montgomery County that could better accommodate his particular academic needs.
During his freshman year at Eastern Montgomery High School, Sisson played football, baseball, and basketball at the junior varsity level. He then played the same sports at the varsity level during his sophomore and junior years. As early as his freshman year, Sisson learned that he might not be eligible to play high school sports during his senior year because of his age and date of birth.
After the association ruled him ineligible, the plaintiff pursued a waiver. Despite having the endorsement of his principal, the deputy director of the VHSL, Tom Zimorski, ruled against the plaintiff finding the facts “insufficient to support a waiver, and that no undue hardship had been identified.”
His additional appeals also failed.
On November 30, 2010, he sought intervention from the courts, claiming he was deprived of due process and equal protection as a result of being denied a waiver of the age rule.”
After dispatching the due process claim, the court zeroed in on the equal protection claim, which “is premised on the assertion that students like him, who apply for a waiver of the age rule on the basis of a disability, are treated less favorably than foreign students who apply for waivers. While this claim presents a closer question than Sisson’s due process claim, the court nonetheless has serious doubt as to its likelihood of success.”
“The court questions whether Sisson will be able to satisfy either of the first required elements — that he was treated differently from others with whom he was similarly situated or that any unequal treatment was the result of intentional discrimination. As the VHSL noted during the hearing on Sisson’s motion, eligibility decisions require an examination of facts and circumstances that are often unique to each student who applies for a waiver. In Sisson’s case, it is undisputed that he suffers from a learning disability. However, he was not required to repeat a grade as a result of the disability, or otherwise held back at the direction of school officials. Instead, Sisson’s parents elected for him to repeat the third grade to improve his chances of academic success, even though his grades would have permitted him to be promoted to the next grade. Given this distinguishing factor, it will be difficult for Sisson to establish that he was similarly situated, in all relevant respects, to students who were granted waivers of the age requirement, or that the denial of his application was the result of purposeful discrimination.”
The court continued, noting that it is “unable to conclude that Sisson will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief. As previously stated, Sisson has been aware of his eligibility problems since his freshman year of high school, and his last administrative appeal from the denial of his waiver application concluded on June 1, 2010. Nonetheless, Sisson waited until November 30, 2010 to file the instant action. The court agrees with the VHSL that such delay militates against a finding of irreparable harm.”
The court added that it “is not unsympathetic to Sisson’s plight and likely would have granted him a waiver if it had been responsible for making the decision. However, in light of the legal standards governing Sisson’s federal claims and the instant motion, the court is unable to conclude that he is entitled to the extraordinary remedy of preliminary injunctive relief.”
Steven Adam Sisson v. Virginia High School League, INC.; W.D. Va.; Civil Action No. 7:10CV00530, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132264; 12/14/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Kristopher Robert Olin, LEAD ATTORNEY, THE HAGA LAW FIRM PLC, CHRISTIANSBURG, VA; Donald Stephen Haga, Jr., HAGA & RHODES, PLC, CHRISTIANSBURG, VA. (for defendant) William David Paxton, LEAD ATTORNEY, James Joseph O’Keeffe, IV, Peter G Irot, GENTRY LOCKE RAKES & MOORE, ROANOKE, VA; Robert Craig Wood, MCGUIRE WOODS LLP, CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA.
