By Eric G. Kramer and Michael S. Carroll
A private school in the state of Alabama sued the state athletic association and sought a preliminary injunction against athletic classification rules passed by the designed to better serve competitive balance in the state. This article will discuss the case background and decision.
Background
The Alabama High School Athletic Association (AHSAA) is a voluntary association comprised of public, private, and parochial schools in the State of Alabama. Founded in 1921, the stated purpose of the AHSAA is to regulate, coordinate, and promote its member schools’ interscholastic athletic programs. Currently, the AHSAA oversees 373 public schools and 51 non-public schools. Within the AHSAA, high schools are divided into seven classifications (1A-7A) for competition in championship programs. Classification is determined by enrollment, with higher enrollment schools designated at the top range (e.g., 6A, 7A).
St. Paul’s Episcopal School is a private high school in Mobile, AL and a member of the AHSAA. With an enrollment of 310 high school students, the school would typically slot into a 4A classification level in the state, per AHSAA guidelines. However, St. Paul’s was classified as a 5A school by the AHSAA in 2000, following a rule change by the Association in 1999. In 1999, five public-school members of the AHSAA requested that non-public schools be excluded from competing in playoffs and/or state championship games. The proposal was to split public schools and private schools into two separate postseason competitions. The rationale provided was that private schools could pick and choose their enrollment, thus recruiting talent for their teams, whereas public schools could not. Survey results confirmed that 70% of public-school members in the AHSAA agreed with the proposal. In response to these competitive balance concerns, and as a way to keep from having a split in the postseason, the AHSAA Board approved an alternate proposal under which a 1.35 multiplier would be used to calculate adjusted enrollment at private schools for classification purposes. The “Multiplier Rule” would effectively reconfigure the school’s placement within the classification system. Upon implementation of the Multiplier Rule in 2000, 15 of the AHSAA’s 29 non-public school members moved up at least one classification level. Despite its elevation to 5A, St. Paul’s has been a consistent powerhouse in Alabama high school athletics, especially in the sport of football. Since its ascension to class 5A in 2000, the St. Paul’s football program has compiled a record of 165-61 and have achieved even greater success in recent years. Between 2011 and 2017, the St. Paul’s football team amassed a record of 63-9 against other 5A competition, and 8-3 versus 6A and 7A schools. Additionally, non-public schools continued to win state championships at a much higher rate than their approximately 13% membership percentage within the AHSAA. As such, concerns regarding competitive balance lingered, and in 2016 a bill was introduced in the Alabama Legislature that would effectively segregate public schools and private schools with respect to state championship participation. Although the AHSAA was not in support of the bill, it had recognized the competitive balance issue and AHSAA formed a committee in April of 2015 to examine the potential impact of various systems to address it. In June of 2017, the Classification Committee unanimously voted to recommend a plan called the Competitive Balance Factor (CBF) to the AHSAA Central Board.
The committee determined that the CBF was the most fair and effective method to addressing the issue. The CBF was designed to alter the high school athletic classification landscape by factoring in the recent and consistent athletic success of a private school’s sports teams into classification placement. The AHSAA developed a point system to determine the relative athletic success of all private schools in the state. Should any of those schools exceed the predetermined points threshold over the previous three seasons, they would automatically be elevated one classification for the next three-year cycle. Based upon the rules of the CBF, each private school would be re-evaluated after each three-year cycle, thus being eligible for an additional step up in classification.
Following adoption of the CBF in November of 2017, St. Paul’s Head of School requested that they have the opportunity to address the AHSAA Board at their January 2018 meeting. While the CBF would only affect a small number of non-public member schools’ teams (approximately 10%), it would affect teams at St. Paul’s on a much larger level, as 15 teams would be elevated form 5A to 6A classification. Their request was granted, and the Head of School and Athletic Director of St. Paul’s made a presentation to the AHSAA Board regarding their concerns about the CBF. At the conclusion of their presentation, St. Paul’s requested that the CBF be vacated or to delay implementation until a more thorough analysis could be conducted. The AHSAA responded by allowing St. Paul’s to file a formal appeal to the AHSAA in March of 2018. St. Paul’s appeal offered alternative proposals to the CBF. Upon consideration, the AHSAA Board unanimously decided to deny the appeal, and thus move forward with the CBF for the 2018-19 academic year.
Two months following the denied appeal, St. Paul’s filed suit against the Association and the Association’s Executive Director, alleging three federal constitutional claims against the Association pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (equal protection, substantive due process, procedural due process) and a breach of duties within the ASHAA Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws. St. Paul’s concurrently filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction in an attempt to prevent the AHSAA from implementing the new CBF rule against any private schools for the 2018-19 academic year.
Count I: Equal Protection Violation of the 14th Amendment — 42 U.S.C. § 1983
St. Paul’s alleged that the motivation behind the adoption of the CBF by the AHSAA was “bare animus, and the classification (i.e., public vs. private) was not rationally related to any legitimate purpose.” They further claim that the AHSAA implemented the CBF to intentionally harm private schools to earn the favor of public school officials and lawmakers in order for the association to remain the only authority responsible for overseeing high school athletics in the state.
Count II: Substantive Due Process Violation of the 14th Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Through the express and/or implied understandings and contracts between school membership and the ASHAA, St. Paul’s believes they are entitled to constitutionally protected rights. Those rights include the AHSAA avoiding the formulation of rules that increase the risk to student-athletes, a classification system that does not unjustly harm private schools, “pure” competition, and the equal treatment of public and private schools.
Count III: Procedural Due Process Violation of the 14th Amendment – 42 U.S.C. § 1983
In addition to the rights listed in Count II, St. Paul’s asserts that they were deprived of their due process rights by not being allowed an opportunity to be heard in a “meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” St. Paul’s also claims that the AHSAA unjustly applied the CBF in an ex post facto manner.
Count IV: Breached Obligation of Rights, Interests, and Expectations Under the Association’s Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws
St. Paul’s claims that certain duties are required of the AHSAA through its Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws. Those duties include: treat all state high schools equally; avoid hurting one class of school to the benefit of another class of schools; adopt rules that advance the health and safety of its student-athletes; refrain from adopting rules that could substantially increase the likelihood of significant harm or injury to its student-athletes.
Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Request for Expedited Hearing
St. Paul’s requested injunctive relief in three separate forms. The first is an order that the AHSAA be prohibited from enforcing the CBF against any private school. The second is an order for the AHSAA to only use only the unadjusted enrollment figures to determine classification (thus, doing away with the Multiplier Rule). The last order would require the AHSAA to suspend all enforcement of the CBF until a thorough study has been conducted by medical experts, and be subsequently made available to all members for review and comment.
Conclusion
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama denied St. Paul’s request for a Preliminary Injunction in this case. The Court provided substantial reasoning regarding its decision. The claim of equal protection failed due to the plaintiff’s inability to show that the AHSAA was inherently motivated by opposition to private schools. In addition, the CBF seems to be in the interest of the AHSAA to provide a competitive playing field, which the Court determined is a reasonable and legitimate purpose for the association. The claim for substantive due process also did not prevail for much of the aforementioned reasons highlighted in the equal protection claim. In addition, an attempt to posit that the AHSAA was indifferent to the potential heightened risk of serious injury to student-athletes was not supported in this case. There was little evidence presented to show that the AHSAA adopted the CBF without consideration of the health and safety of its student-athletes. The due process claim also did not provide enough evidence to grant preliminary injunctive relief in this case. The assertion that the AHSAA did not provide St. Paul’s reasonable opportunity for a rebuttal to the CBF was not supported. Conversely, St. Paul’s was provided with two different opportunities to present its case to the AHSAA Board prior to the CBF being enacted. Lastly, no support was provided for the breach of obligations, interests, and expectations based upon the AHSAA’s Handbook, Constitution, and Bylaws. The Court found no evidence of explicit contracts or understandings that would require the AHSAA to meet the obligations outlined by St. Paul’s, nor would the implementation of the CBF breach any agreement between the two parties.
The court was clear about its hesitancy to meddle in the regulatory function of high school athletics. Provided there was no evidence of fraud, collusion, bias, or arbitrariness in this case, a decision to intervene in the affairs of the AHSAA was unlikely. Since it was clear that there was no evidence of those infringements, preliminary injunctive relief in this case was denied.
Eric G. Kramer is an Associate Director of Athletics for Compliance and Sport Administration at Missouri Western State University and PhD student at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation.
Michael S. Carroll is an Associate Professor of Sport Management at Troy University specializing in research related to sport law and risk management in sport and recreation. He has published over 30 articles and delivered over 50 presentations at professional conferences. He is currently serving as Past-President of the Sport and Recreation Law Association. He lives in Orlando, FL.
