A federal judge from the Northern District of New York has dismissed the claim of a high school field hockey player, who alleged that the school district violated several federal laws, including Title IX and failed to respond in a timely manner to the head coach’s refusal to put the player on the varsity or junior varsity team.
The player’s claim was doomed shortly after the case was removed to federal court because her parents, plaintiffs Todd and Christine Haven, failed to respond in a timely manner to the Whitney Point School District’s motion to dismiss for insufficient service of process. Thus, the court considered the case on the available submissions without oral argument and found for the defendant.
The district serves the Village of Whitney Point, New York, where the Havens and their daughter (G.H.), an avid field hockey player, reside. At the time of the events giving rise to plaintiffs’ suit, G.H. played field hockey on the defendant’s “modified” team. In the spring of 2018, G.H. “was invited to play in several field hockey games with junior varsity and varsity players.” However, during the selection process for the 2018-2019 season, G.H. was not selected for either team. According to plaintiffs, this snubbing resulted from ongoing “abuses and issues that the parents and the child” were experiencing with Nicole Huston (Huston), defendant’s head field hockey coach.
On Aug. 2, 2018, the Havens met with Huston and other district officials to discuss why G.H. had not been permitted to move up to defendant’s junior varsity field hockey team. The plaintiffs allegedly used this meeting to air their grievances with the defendant’s athletics department employees in general and with Huston in particular. Although the defendant’s athletics director acknowledged that defendant was not strictly following certain internal policies, the school sided with Huston and refused to move G.H. up to the junior varsity team.
After the meeting, the older players stopped inviting G.H. to play field hockey with them, according to the complaint. The Havens filed a complaint with the New York State Public High School Athletic Association (NYSPHSAA), the governing body for high school sports, but claim the organization refused to investigate the matter.
In considering the case on its merits, the court considered the plaintiffs’ claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, and related state law.
After determining that the Havens “have not offered any excuse, let alone a reasonable one, for the ongoing delay” in responding to the defendant, it began “an independent review of the facts alleged in the summons.
“As the district points out, the Havens’ federal claims seem to be based on Huston’s refusal to move G.H. up to the school’s junior varsity or varsity field hockey teams. But the plaintiffs cannot vindicate this dispute using § 1983, since there is no constitutional due process right to participate in interscholastic athletics. See, e.g., Immaculate Heart Cent. Sch. V. N.Y. State Public High Sch. Athletic Assoc., 797 F. Supp. 2d 204, 217 (N.D.N.Y. 2011) (collecting cases).
“And the Havens cannot rely on the Equal Protection Clause, either, since they have not alleged that other, similarly situated students were treated more favorably than G.H. See, e.g., McSweeney v. Bayport Bluepoint Cent. Sch. Dist., 864 F. Supp. 2d 240, 251-52 (E.D.N.Y. 2012). Nor can plaintiffs invoke Title IX to make an end-run around these deficient constitutional claims. Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S. 246, 257, 129 S. Ct. 788, 172 L. Ed. 2d 582 (2009). Plaintiffs’ invocation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 also fails since that provision of law is concerned with race discrimination. See, e.g., Andrews v. Fremantlemedia, N.A., Inc., 613 F. App’x 67, 69 (2d Cir. 2015) (summary order). In sum, plaintiffs have offered no reasonable excuse for their failure to serve a complaint in response to the district’s timely demand and there is no indication of any potentially meritorious federal claims.”
Haven v. Whitney Point Sch. Dist.; N.D.N.Y.; 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124565; 7/15/20
Attorneys: (for plaintiffs) Ronald J. Lanouette, Jr., ESQ., Lanouette Law Offices, PLLC, Binghamton, NY. (for defendant) Frank W. Miller, ESQ., Giancarlo Facciponte, ESQ., Office of Frank W. Miller, East Syracuse, NY.
