A New Jersey appellate court has agreed with that state’s Commissioner of Education, who upheld the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association’s (the NJSIAA) denial of his petition for a waiver from the NJSIAA’s Eight Semester Rule. The rule prevents student athletes from participating in a secondary level sport for a fifth year.
In so ruling, the court disagreed with the petitioner, which had maintained that the Commissioner’s decision was “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable, particularly in light of waivers previously granted by the NJSIAA.”
On January 25 2012, the petitioner’s high school principal applied to the NJSIAA for a waiver of the rule. On February 1, 2012, the Association’s nine-person Eligibility Committee unanimously denied the waiver, concluding the petitioner had “not met the test of ‘truly extraordinary circumstances.'” The school then appealed to the NJSIAA’s Eligibility Appeals Committee (EAC), which held a hearing on March 7, 2012. The EAC issued a written decision on March 15, 2012, denying the waiver by a 5-0 vote.
The school appealed that decision to the Commissioner. In a written opinion issued on June 25, 2012, the Commissioner upheld the NJSIAA’s decision and dismissed the petition. The petitioner sough judicial relief, leading to the instant opinion.
In its analysis, the court examined the aforementioned rule, which restricts eligibility to four years – or in the words of the Rule — “eight consecutive semesters following his/her entrance into the 9th grade.” NJSIAA Handbook, Bylaws, Article V, Section 4.J. The intent of the rule is “to prohibit ‘red shirting,’ and is also aimed at preventing athletically gifted pupils who are not meeting academic standards from replacing other students who are maintaining their academic standards but who might not have the same athletic prowess. The rule is also aimed at maintaining a uniform progression among all member schools within a four-year cycle and equalizing competition within these schools.
“Unfortunately, despite its explicit terms and its obvious objectives, some member schools have interpreted this rule as applying to eight semesters of competition rather than eight semesters of attendance in a secondary school. The NJSIAA will not permit a student to participate in any sport for more than four seasons. Students below the 9th grade who participate on a high school team will be ineligible at the conclusion of eight consecutive semesters. The fact that a student has not participated for four seasons will not in itself justify allowing such a student to participate in interscholastic sports beyond the eighth semester after his or her entrance into the ninth grade.”
However, the Eight Semester Rule may be waived “when a student proves he or she cannot comply with the Rule due to circumstances beyond his or her control. Waivers are not granted when a student has repeated a year for academic reasons. The waiver provision is as follows:
“In appropriate cases, the Eligibility Committee or the Eligibility Appeals Committee may grant a waiver from the strict application of any eligibility rules, where the overall objectives of the Association and its member schools will not be undermined.
“Specifically, waivers of these provisions have been granted in the past where it was shown that a student could not maintain the required academic standards or that he or she had to continue secondary schooling beyond the eighth semester because of circumstances beyond that student’s control. By way of illustration, waivers have been granted because a student is a classified pupil who could not carry a full academic load. Correspondingly, waivers of the eight semester rule have been granted where a student has had to repeat a semester or more because he or she was absent from school because of medical or psychological reasons or because that student was required to be home with a parent or guardian who was ill, or to a classified student whose Individual Education Program mandated that student extend his or her schooling beyond the normal eight semester program.”
Petitioner Relocated from Maryland to New Jersey
Maintaining that the petitioner was deserving of a waiver, the assistant principal and athletic director appeared on his behalf at the hearing before the EAC. They relayed the facts that the petitioner “entered his freshman year at a public high school in Maryland in September 2008, at age 14. During that time he played freshman football and baseball. He was late developing, about five feet three inches and 95 pounds, and was struggling with his courses. He was an average student with about a 2.8 GPA.
“Petitioner relocated to North Jersey from Maryland with his family in September of 2009, when his father secured a new position in the area. After consulting with education professionals at the high school, petitioner’s family decided it would be in petitioner’s best interest to repeat ninth grade at the public high school, as it would afford him an additional opportunity to mature physically, emotionally, and academically. Petitioner’s parents were looking for an opportunity to have him repeat a year of his education as early as fifth grade but, for a variety of reasons, it was not effectuated until the move to North Jersey. Petitioner participated in football and baseball during his freshman, sophomore, and junior years at the high school. He passed his courses, though he continued to struggle. Petitioner developed physically and, at the time of the hearing, was approximately six feet tall and 140 pounds.”
The school officials “emphasized that petitioner was primarily held back for academic rather than athletic reasons.”
In its written decision denying the waiver, the EAC noted that the petitioner’s parents’ decision to retain him a year at the high school in New Jersey “may have been appropriate for his growth and development,” but there was nothing that distinguished his case from “traditional ‘red shirting,” which “gives a student an athletic advantage over students who were not intentionally held back.” Therefore, it denied the bid for a waiver.
After an appeal, the Commissioner rejected the school’s argument that the NJSIAA’s decision “was arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable.”
The appellate court agreed.
“We discern no legal basis upon which to second-guess the determination made by the Commissioner in this matter,” it wrote. “The appropriate process was followed. Petitioner was afforded due process every step of the way. He played two sports his freshman, sophomore, and junior years at the New Jersey high school. He then had the opportunity to seek a waiver of the Eight Semester Rule with the Eligibility Committee and, upon appeal, had his representatives present his position at a hearing before the EAC. The BOE presented his appeal to the Commissioner, and petitioner personally appealed the adverse decision to this court. We accelerated the appeal and have promptly rendered a decision.
“There is substantial and credible evidence in the record to support the Commissioner’s determination, which is a legitimate judgment call. Petitioner is not a special needs student, he did not have an illness that ruined one of his sports seasons, and he is not a classified student with an IEP. His parents made what they believed was a good decision for him so he could mature physically, socially, and academically. That, however, does not make the NJSIAA’s decision arbitrary and capricious. The NJSIAA or Commissioner did not attribute a nefarious purpose to the decision to retain petitioner in ninth grade; to the contrary, they found petitioner’s family decided it would be ‘in his best interests.’ Nonetheless, the legal result is the same – it is a voluntary decision and the resulting circumstances and impact are indistinguishable from ‘red-shirting.’
Board of Education of the City of S. v. New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association; Super. Ct. of New Jersey, Appellate Division; DOCKET NO. A-5771-11T1, 2012 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2384; 10/23/12
Attorneys of Record: Patricia Prezioso argued the cause for appellant (McCusker, Anselmi, Rosen & Carvelli, attorneys; Ms. Prezioso and Kathleen A. Hirce, on the briefs). Steven P. Goodell argued the cause for respondent (Herbert, Van Ness, Cayci & Goodell, attorneys; Mr. Goodell, of counsel and on the brief). Jeffrey S. Chiesa, Attorney General, attorney for respondent State Board of Education (Geoffrey N. Stark, Deputy Attorney General, on the statement in lieu of a brief).
