By Gary Chester, Senior Writer
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), while successful in protecting disabled athletes and others from discrimination, sometimes overshadows the protections of state statutes.
In fact, the ADA was essential in preventing discrimination for the former professional golfer, Casey Martin (PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001)). But a recent case involving youth hockey reminds us that state laws may also apply and encompass more than just physical disabilities (M.U. v. Team Illinois Hockey Club, Inc., 2011 IL App (2d) 210568 (August 19, 2022)).
The Facts
The plaintiff, M.U., is a high school student and long-time player of hockey in organized leagues. She suffers from anxiety and depression. M.U.’s medical and mental health professionals encouraged her to continue playing hockey as a means to support her mental health. According to M.U.’s verified complaint, the physical activity, structure, and social connections that come with playing on a hockey team have benefited her mental health.
In 2019, M.U. tried out for and made a girls hockey team operated by Team Illinois, an Illinois nonprofit corporation that operates youth hockey teams as part of the Amateur Hockey Association of Illinois (AHAI), the governing body in Illinois for USA Hockey. On November 13, 2019, just prior to hockey practice, Plaintiff and her mother informed her coach, Larry Pedrie, that Plaintiff struggled with mental health and suicidal thoughts. Plaintiff’s mother also informed Pedrie that M.U. had the support of mental health providers, and she expressed that hockey was an important and supportive aspect of M.U.’s life.
Pedrie immediately contacted Mike Mullally, a member of AHAI’s board of directors. They agreed to bar M.U. from Team Illinois and from contacting her teammates until she could “take part 100% in all team activities.”
Team Illinois reinstated M.U. about four weeks later, but only after her parents obtained legal counsel and threatened litigation. M.U. completed the season with Team Illinois and subsequently joined another hockey team under AHAI’s purview.
M.U., through her parents, filed an administrative claim for discrimination which was denied. On April 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint at the circuit court level against Team Illinois and AHAI for disability discrimination under the Illinois Human Rights Act, 775 ILCS 5/1-101 et seq. The Act prohibits discrimination with respect to employment, financial credit, public accommodations, and other areas.
Plaintiff alleged that Team Illinois violated the Act by denying her the full and equal enjoyment of its facilities (including the hockey rink it leased) and services because of her disability. She also alleged that AHAI, through Mullally, “aided, abetted and/or conspired” with Team Illinois to violate the Act.
On July 7, 2021, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint because Team Illinois is not a “place of public accommodation” under the Act and because the permanent injunctive relief sought in the complaint was unavailable under the Act. AHAI also argued that any alleged misconduct did not constitute aiding and abetting.
The Case is Dismissed
The circuit court considered the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Martin but distinguished the two cases and dismissed M.U.’s lawsuit. The judge held that leasing an ice rink does not convert a private organization into a place of public accommodation.
In Martin, the Professional Golf Association (PGA) had denied the request from the disabled golfer Casey Martin to use a golf cart in its qualifying tournament. Golfers are normally required to walk the course. Martin claimed a golf cart was a reasonable accommodation, and the PGA violated the ADA when it refused to permit him to use one. The Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling in favor of Martin, holding that a golf course constitutes a place of public accommodation under the ADA.
M.U. filed an appeal, arguing that the circuit court erred in dismissing her complaint because she pleaded facts sufficient to allege a violation of the Act. M.U. argued that Team Illinois cannot deny her equal enjoyment of playing in a public hockey arena and playing in public hockey games. She claimed that both the team and the leased arena constituted places of public accommodation under the Act.
Defendants argued that Team Illinois is an organization and not a place. It provides an activity that is not a place of public accommodation, and that while Plaintiff was “deprived…of her association with her coaches and teammates,” she was not barred from using the ice rink.
The Appeal
The Appellate Court of Illinois noted that the Illinois Human Rights Act does not expressly define “place of public accommodation,” but provides a list of examples. These include hotels, restaurants, theaters, grocery stores, museums, parks, golf courses, and other places of exercise or recreation. The court stated the obvious: unlike the examples set forth in the Act, Team Illinois is not a physical, tangible place of accommodation.
The discussion did not end there, however. The Act prohibits “persons” ─ including organizations ─ from improperly denying others equal enjoyment of any place of public accommodation. The court asked whether Team Illinois, as an organization that was separate from the ice rink, could nonetheless violate the law. The issue was novel because there had been no cases involving the Act “where the defendant was not also the place of public accommodation whose facilities, goods, or services were allegedly denied to the plaintiff.”
The court recognized that there is persuasive federal authority finding that athletic organizations may be subject to civil rights laws if they exercise sufficient control over a place of public accommodation by leasing or operating the venue where its public sporting events are held. The court discussed PGA v. Martin at length and found it analogous to the present case. “Similar to the PGA Tour,” the court wrote, “Team Illinois…barred plaintiff on the basis of her disability from participating in Team Illinois events, like hockey games and tournaments, that were held at a place of public accommodation that it leased or operated.”
Defendants argued that Team Illinois is different from the PGA Tour because it has no profit motive, but the court rejected the argument. The court stated that the trial court in Martin had discussed the PGA’s profit motive in the context of considering whether it was exempt from the ADA as a private club. Neither the Ninth Circuit nor the Supreme Court, however, considered the business aspects of the PGA.
The court cited other cases in which athletic organizations that were open to the public and tied to places of public accommodation were subject to the ADA. The court concluded that M.U. had adequately pleaded that Team Illinois discriminated against her in violation of the Act.
The next issue was whether it was proper to dismiss the allegation that AHAI aided and abetted Team Illinois in its discrimination. M.U. was required to plead the following: (1) Team Illinois performed a wrongful act that caused injury; (2) AHAI was aware of the tortious activity when it assisted Team Illinois; and (3) AHAI knowingly and substantially assisted the principal violation.
The court held that M.U. had adequately alleged facts to support that AHAI, through its board member Mullally, aided and abetted Team Illinois in violating the Act. Rejecting AHAI’s argument that Mullally merely agreed with Coach Pedrie’s decision and told M.U.’s parents, the court stated that the facts may also be construed as a joint decision to exclude M.U. from participating in Team Illinois activities. Thus, the appellate court reversed the circuit court’s ruling in its entirety and remanded the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.
The Takeaway
The attitude of Americans towards mental health has changed for the better. The case of M.U. shows that some still stigmatize those with mental health conditions. Instead of trying to assist M.U. by integrating her into the youth hockey community, the defendants excluded her. Those in similar positions should lean towards inclusion. If they are concerned with the welfare or safety of other participants, they should consult with their legal counsel. The case serves as a reminder that state and federal civil rights laws have firmly established mental disability as a protected class.
