A federal judge from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has denied a former high school wrestling coach’s bid for a preliminary injunction in a case in which the coach sued the Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, Inc. (PIAA) after the body instituted sanctions against him. Plaintiff Omar Porrata was sanctioned when he decided to forfeit matches in all ten weight-classes in a contest against another school.
The court ruled for the PIAA because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate “irreparable harm.”
The incident in question occurred on January 30, 2014 when Porrata’s Palisades High School (PHS) wrestling team was scheduled to wrestle against Bethlehem Catholic High School. As mentioned above, Porrata decided to forfeit all ten weight-classes for which Palisades had entered wrestlers, citing a stomach virus.
The district in which PHS belonged determined that Porrata had engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct and imposed sanctions on PHS and Porrata. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the PIAA Board of Appeal, which denied the appeal and levied an additional sanction, prohibiting any PIAA school employing Porrata as a coach from competing in the 2014-2015 postseason.
Porrata sued for violations of his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as well as defamation. He also filed a petition for preliminary injunctive relief.
The court began its analysis by noting that the PIAA is a non-profit, membership organization consisting of approximately 1420 public and private schools and that it oversees interscholastic athletic competitions between its member schools.
It then turned to Porrata and his “successful” efforts in rebuilding the program at PHS.
The Palisades School District and the plaintiff had a contract, which would “terminate in the event that the employee (violates) School District Policy(ies) or for cause as set forth by Statute in the School Laws of Pennsylvania.”
Returning the incident leading to the lawsuit, the court noted that “although some of the Palisades H.S. wrestlers were injured or ill at the time of the Bethlehem Catholic match, Porrata’s statement that he forfeited the match in the manner that he did because his team was injured or ill lacks credibility.”
The district in which Palisades belonged held a hearing about the incident and subsequently issued a letter of “findings and determinations relating to Porrata’s conduct on January 30, 2014,” wrote the court. “The Committee voted 17-0 that Palisades H.S. and Porrata engaged in ‘unsportsmanlike actions in direct violation of the purposes of PIAA.’” It sanctioned both the school and the coach.
Porrata appealed the sanctions.
In a hearing held on March 20, 2014, the appeals committee found that “there is no dispute that the Palisades wrestling team did not compete in a scheduled contest, willfully and without good cause, which is contrary to the requirements of ARTICLE XII, Section 5,” according to the court..
“Coach Porrata’s attempted justification on the grounds that his wrestlers were ill and/or injured is hollow and lacks credibility, particularly where those same wrestlers competed, victoriously, an hour and a half earlier, and again competed within 48 hours thereafter.
“Coach Porrata’s failure to inform any persons of authority of his unilateral decision to not compete is equally abhorrent.
“For its part, Palisades has taken the position that it does not support Mr. Porrata’s appeal, and did not offer any defense of his actions at this appeal.
“On the basis of the foregoing, the PIAA Board of Appeal, by unanimous vote (8-0), determined to sustain, with modification, the decision of the District XI Committee as to the two appealed sanctions. The modification is to extend the terms of suspension, as set forth in Item 5 of the District XI decision, to the entirety of PIAA members schools and with regard to all PIAA sanctioned sports.”
Porrata then sought a preliminary injunction.
The court was unpersuaded. “After considering the applicable factual record in this matter, the court finds that Porrata is not entitled to preliminary injunctive relief because he failed to demonstrate that he will suffer immediate irreparable harm if the court denies the motion. A party’s failure to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of success in the litigation or an irreparable injury ‘must necessarily result in the denial of a preliminary injunction.’ In re Arthur Treacher’s Franchisee Litig., 689 F.2d 1137, 1143 (3d Cir. 1982). Since the plaintiff failed to demonstrate immediate irreparable injury, the court finds it unnecessary to address the other requirements for an injunction, including Porrata’s likelihood of success on the merits of his due process and equal protection claims.
“Concerning a showing of irreparable harm, ‘the plaintiff must demonstrate potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or equitable remedy following a trial. The preliminary injunction must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.’ Instant Air Freight Co. v. C. F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797, 801 (3d Cir. 1989).”
Omar Porrata v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, INC.,; E.D. Pa.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-2309; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113428; 8/14/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Matthew J. Deschler, Lead Attorney, Littner Deschler & Littner, Bethlehem, PA. (for defendant) Alan R. Boynton, Jr., Carol A. Steinour, Mcnees Wallace & Nurick LLC, Harrisburg, PA.
