A federal judge from the Western District of New York has sided with a school district in a case where the parents of a student athlete sued the district after it required their son to get a vaccination in order to participate on the Lacrosse team.
In granting the defendant’s motion to dismiss, the court found that the school district had a “rational basis” for making the requirement, which was intended to “ensure student safety.”
Harry Hadley had competed on the Lacrosse team at Rush-Henrietta High School in Henrietta, New York for several years. Then, in the spring of 2005, he was informed by the Rush Henrietta Central School District that if he wanted to continue participating in lacrosse that he would be required to have a tetanus vaccination.
In support of its decision, the school district relied on a handbook issued to all student-athletes which stated that “it is strongly recommended that students have a tetanus vaccine every ten (10) years.” The handbook further noted that “the school physician may withhold sports clearance for a student whose tetanus is overdue.”
The parents balked at this, citing their religious beliefs. In fact, the school district had previously granted Hadley a waiver to attend school without undergoing immunizations required of all other students in the State of New York. The waiver was granted pursuant to Section 2164(9) n1 of the New York Public Health Law, which exempts persons who hold a sincere religious belief that requires abstinence from vaccinations from the immunization requirement. Pursuant to that waiver, Hadley had been permitted to attend school, including gym class, without undergoing all required immunizations.
Further, they argued that the aforementioned waiver applied not only to school attendance, but to participation in school-sponsored extra-curricular activities. The school district countered that the waiver applied only to attendance and does not give him the right to participate in extracurricular sports without first being immunized.
The plaintiffs sued, claiming that the defendant violated their Constitutional rights. Specifically, they argued that the defendant has violated their rights to freedom of religion by preventing their son from playing high school lacrosse because of his refusal, on religious grounds, to have a tetanus vaccination.
The defendant subsequently moved to dismiss their complaint on the grounds that the plaintiffs have failed to state a cause of action for the violation of a Constitutional right. Specifically, the School District argued that because there is no Constitutional right to participate in extra-curricular sports, plaintiffs failed to allege the deprivation of a constitutional right.
In considering the plaintiffs argument, the court wrote that “it is firmly established that there is no constitutional right to participate in extracurricular sporting activities. Mazevski v. Horseheads Central School District, 950 F.Supp. 69, 72 (W.D.N.Y. 1997)(Larimer, C.J.); Angstadt v. Midd-West School Dist., 377 F.3d 338, 344 n. 2 (3rd Cir. 2004). It is axiomatic, however, that once a school offers such activities to its students, it may not discriminate against participation in such activities on the basis of race, religion, gender, or any other impermissible classification. Palmer v. Merluzzi, 689 F.Supp. 400, 407 (D. N.J. 1988) (opportunity to participate in extracurricular activity may not be hampered by discriminatory selection of participants).”
Further, “when a law or rule that is neutral on its face is challenged because it allegedly has a discriminatory impact on a protected class of persons, courts will uphold the law as long as there is a ‘rational basis’ for the adoption of the law or rule. See Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452, 470-471, 111 S. Ct. 2395, 115 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1992)
“In establishing that there is a ‘rational basis’ for enacting a law or rule the government need only demonstrate that there is a ‘reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis’ for the law or rule at issue. Angstadt, 377 F.3d at 345.
“I find that the School District has established that there is a rational basis for requiring lacrosse players to undergo a tetanus immunization. The school has stated that out of its responsibility for ensuring student safety, if required students who participated in outdoor sporting activities where a risk of tetanus was present, to become immunized against the disease. That explanation constitutes a rational basis for adopting the policy of requiring tetanus immunizations, and therefore, I find that adoption of the policy did not violate Hadley’s constitutional rights to equal protection or free exercise of his religion.”
Howard Hadley et al. v. Rush Henrietta Central School District; W.D.N.Y.; 05-CV-6331T; 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30586; 4/25/07
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Patricia A. Finn, LEAD ATTORNEY, Patricia Finn, Attorney P.C., Piermont, NY. (for defendant) George DesMarteau, LEAD ATTORNEY, DesMarteau & Beale, Rochester, NY; Jeremy A. Colby, Webster Szanyi, LLP, Buffalo, NY.
