By Holt Hackney
Many state high school athletic associations impose penalties on athletes who transfer schools during their high school careers – sometimes costing them an entire year of participation. While intended to prevent improper recruiting (e.g., poaching) and maintain competitive balance, these rules also impose a heavy burden on young athletes and their families who might be seeking better academic environments or greater safety for students who have endured coaching abuse, bullying, or hazing.
Similarly, high school athletic associations often impose high evidentiary bars on athletes and their families demanding proof of documented extenuating circumstances to grant relief from transfer penalties.
From a lawyers’ perspective, when an association’s initial review denies an athlete’s petition, the athlete must then show that the denial was based on a clearly erroneous application of the rules – a high bar that makes reversal of these initial determinations on appeal before state associations exceptionally rare.
This was the situation confronted by Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick attorneys Bennett Speyer, Bart Lambergman and Robert Boland in representing Kayden Zoeller, a high school junior football player who transferred from Perrysburg (Ohio) High School, a public high school in January 2025 to St. John’s Jesuit, a private Catholic collegiate prep program in neighboring Toledo, Ohio.
The Case
Zoeller had begun his freshman year at Central Catholic High School. His family, who operate several personal training and fitness facilities in the Toledo area, struggled with the transportation demands and were encouraged by Perrysburg’s head football coach, also a close friend of Zoeller’s father, that returning to Perrysburg would offer a supportive environment. The coach assured them that the bullying Zoeller had endured during middle school would not continue in high school.
Despite these assurances, the bullying re-emerged quickly and took a significant emotional and personal toll on Zoeller during his sophomore season. Although some of the incidents appeared modest at first, the pattern deepened. Zoeller was repeatedly ostracized, mocked and excluded by teammates. His parents sought a variety of supportive mechanisms to help him, recognizing the signs of distress.
But on October 14, 2024, during a non-contact walk-through practice, matters escalated dramatically. Zoeller was hit from the blindside, knocked to the ground by another player, who then laid on top of him and celebrated. The assaultive hit – an act outside the scope of normal contact in a football – occurred in the full view of his coaches, teammates, and his father. No corrective action was taken.
The Shumaker attorneys suggested that the case of Hackbart v. Cincinnati Bengals, Inc., 601 F.2d 516, 4 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. (Callaghan) 1042 (10th Cir. Colo. June 11, 1979) as instructive. It establishes that an act on a playing field, even in a violent game, that exceeds the scope of consent, could constitute battery. Additionally, many jurisdictions recognize the possibility of criminal liability for assaultive conduct during sport, even if charges are rarely pursued.
By late fall, the cumulative stress became overwhelming. Zoeller’s parents made the difficult decision to withdraw him from Perrysburg, and transfer him mid-year to St. John’s Jesuit High School & Academy for his health and safety.
The OHSAA Transfer Consequence
Under OHSAA Bylaw 4-7-2, once a student transfers from one school to another the student is subject to this Transfer Consequence resulting in ineligibility as contained in the Bylaw.
“If a student transfers at any time after commencing the ninth-grade year, the student shall be ineligible for all OHSAA tournaments in those sports in which the student participated during the 12 months immediately preceding this transfer. In addition, the student shall be ineligible for all contests at all levels AFTER the first 50% of the maximum allowable varsity regular season contests have been competed in those sports in which the student participated during the 12 months immediately preceding this transfer. The transfer consequence shall remain in effect until the one-year anniversary of the date of enrollment in the school to which the student transferred, at which time the student is no longer considered a transfer student.”
OHSAA provides 12 exceptions for relief from the transfer consequence, including changes in residence, custody, school discontinuation of a sport, transfer out of a poor performing school, displacement, the death of a parent, and independent status.
Two exceptions were central to Zoeller’s case, the first for a student who is suffering bullying in the prior school (Exception #7 or transfer due to documented harassment) or when a student has been subjected to the criminal action of adults at the prior school district (Exception #12).
Both exceptions impose a multi-pronged evidentiary requirement. Families must present documentation, reports, investigations, timelines, and verification from school personnel. And when an initial reviewer denies relief, the family must meet the high burden of showing that denial was clearly erroneous.
Zoeller’s initial application for relief from the transfer consequence was denied, setting up the appeal.
Reliance on Reporting – And What Went Wrong
Zoeller’s father, Keith Zoeller, had a close personal relationship with the Perrysburg head coach. That trust understandably led the family to communicate concerns informally rather than through strict formal reporting channels. Their text messages with the coach documented distress, fear, and the October 14 incident, but lacked the formal complaint structure districts typically rely on to trigger investigations.
Because the family voiced their concerns cooperatively rather than adversarially, Perrysburg treated the complaints as informal and did not create documentation, open a report, or initiate an investigation. As a result, the bullying Zoeller endured – despite being real, repeated, and harmful, went unrecognized on paper.
This failure implicated both Exception 7 and 12, according to Shumaker attorney Robert Boland, who served as Athletics Integrity Officer at Penn State following Penn State’s failure to report serious child abuse, which led to a toughening of national laws around child abuse and adults as mandated reporters. Boland explained during the appeal hearing that Perrysburg’s failure to report the bullying under Exception 12 effectively prevented the Zoeller’s from satisfying the documentary requirement of Exception 7.
The appeals board ultimately agreed, unanimously concluding that Kayden had established a documented record of bullying, even if the district failed to properly memorialize it.
A High Standard, But Empathetic Panel, And Lessons Going Forward
Boland praised the OHSAA “for the fairness of the hearing process and the concern the appeals board showed for Kayden.” He suggested the panel of retired educators demonstrated great care for reaching an equitable outcome, hearing from multiple witnesses and considering all evidence.
As Boland noted, “An appeal like this is very difficult and rare to win, and we’re thrilled with the result,” further noting how “Kayden’s case reflects how these rules can impact young athletes.”
This case also highlights essential lessons:
- Document early. The transfer rules place a significant burden of proof on families to document their facts before undertaking a transfer, even an emergency one. Families should put every concern in writing – emails, reports, or formal notifications. In that regard, families should consider involving counsel early as attorneys can help illuminate the required evidence.
- Report early. Even informal conversations should be followed by written confirmation.
- Follow up. Maintain written records of efforts to ensure that the school logs the concern.
- Never rely solely on goodwill or informal assurances. Personal relationships, particularly with coaches, cannot substitute for written documentation.
Finally, and most importantly, Boland said Zoeller is now thriving academically and personally at St. John’s Jesuit. He returned to football practice the day after the hearing, played in the team’s final three games, and is “receiving early recruiting interest from multiple colleges.”
