A federal judge from the Central District of Illinois has denied a plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order, which would have allowed her son to remain eligible for athletics.
Anita Rademaker had claimed that her son had a disability, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), which caused him to be academically ineligible.
The court ultimately held that maintaining an academics-first “mission requires consistent application of effort by the students, as well as a bright-line rule by the Administration to keep everyone on equal footing. Relaxing the requirements of the activities code would not be consistent with the District’s mission, as it would elevate the importance of athletics and extra-curricular activities over education and result in a slippery slope that would further erode the District’s emphasis on academics.”
Rademaker’s son was a student at Midwest Central High School, who in the spring of 2010 received a failing grade in geometry. This made him ineligible to participate in athletics for the first nine weeks of the fall 2010 semester. At the end of the first nine weeks of the fall 2010 semester, the plaintiff’s son was failing Drama. This then made him ineligible to participate in athletics for the remainder of the semester pursuant to an academic guideline. “Since being diagnosed and receiving medical treatment, his ability to function academically has ‘markedly improved,’ and he is currently passing all of his courses for the semester,” wrote the court.
By “asking the School District to forego its own Academic Regulations and apply the non-mandatory provisions of IHSA Rule 3.022,” the plaintiff is “asking the school to refrain from applying eligibility standards to her son.”
To obtain a temporary restraining order, the plaintiff had to demonstrate a likelihood of success.
To make such a determination, the court turned to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which provides in relevant part that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the service, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.
“In order to maintain a claim under the ADA, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he suffers from a disability; (2) that he is ‘otherwise qualified’ to participate in athletics; and (3) that he is being excluded from playing basketball by reason of his disability,” wrote the court.
In looking at the instant case, the court noted that the son “completed five semesters of high school with all passing grades, some of which were even solid A’s and B’s. In his sixth semester, he received one failing grade and passing grades in all of his other six classes. Even in what the plaintiff describes as her son’s worst semester this fall, he received passing grades in all of his classes with the exception of Drama and was able to finish the semester with all passing grades. This points against a finding that any limitation is of sufficient magnitude to be deemed ‘substantial.’
“While it is clear that Plaintiff’s son has some limitations as a result of his ADHD, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that her son suffers from the kind of substantial or severe limitation in his ability to learn as compared to an average person that is required under the ADA.
“The Court must therefore conclude that Plaintiff does not have a likelihood of success on the merits of her claim.”
Next, the court looked at whether the plaintiff would “suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued.”
The plaintiff suggested that, “in the absence of relief, her son’s college athletic career will be damaged as a result of the loss of his opportunity to be observed by coaches and scouts during the holiday basketball tournaments. With all due respect, this alleged damage is simply too speculative to be given much weight in the analysis. However, Plaintiff testified that the denial of the ability to play basketball as a part of the team has had and continues to have a negative physical and emotional impact on her son. There is some evidence that this impact has worsened to the point of possible suicidal ideations requiring professional treatment. The Court concludes that these circumstances do present the possibility of irreparable harm.”
The final question, concerning “the balance of harms,” was addressed above and clearly weighs in favor of the school.
The court concluded that: “If the plaintiff had made a prima facie case and demonstrated an unreasonable failure to accommodate a disability under the ADA, then there would be a great public interest in making it right. In the absence of this showing, the public interest would tip in the opposite direction.”
Anita Rademaker v. Jay Blair et al.; C.D. Ill.; Case No. 10-3332, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135306; 12/22/10
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) James M Rochford, ROCHFORD & ASSOC, Peoria, IL. (for defendants) Robert B McCoy, LEAD ATTORNEY, Miller, Hall & Triggs, Peoria, IL.
