Taking its cue for the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a federal judge from the Middle District of Louisiana has blocked the bid of a student athlete, who sought a permanent injunction against Louisiana High School Athletic Association (LHSAA), which would have allowed him to play football in the fall of 2012.
At the same time, the lower court held its ground on the restitution rule, which retroactively punishes a school that uses a player, if the courts affirm that the LHSAA acted within the law in deeming a player ineligible.
By way of background, A.M. was a high school student in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. He suffered from an anxiety disorder and transferred to a school (Dunham) where he would receive individualized instruction and other academic accommodations tailored to his specific needs, some of which were unavailable at his previous school. Both schools were members of LHSAA.
Because A.M. transferred from one school to another within the same residence zone, he became subject to LHSAA’s “transfer rule,” which renders a student ineligible for athletics for one year from the date of transfer. A.M. filed for an exemption from the transfer rule, which was denied. John Mann, on behalf of his son, then brought suit in state court. After a motion for a temporary restraining order in the state suit was denied, Mann dismissed that suit without prejudice. A.M. then sat out the last six games of the 2011 football season because he was ineligible under the transfer rule.
On May 2, 2012, before the beginning of the 2012 football season, Mann, on behalf of A.M., filed a complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and requesting declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting LHSAA from continuing to treat A.M. as ineligible to participate in athletics under its transfer rule. Mann filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin LHSAA from imposing on A.M. the additional time remaining in the ineligibility period, which made up the first four games of the 2012 football season. Mann argued that A.M.’s transfer was due to a disability, because Dunham provides academic services and accommodations more tailored to his son’s learning needs, and that imposing the transfer rule in this situation violated the ADA.
The federal judge agreed, and granted the preliminary injunction. The LHSAA appealed that order. Over the course of the appeal, A.M. was able to participate in the 2012 football season, pursuant to the lower court’s ruling.
The 5th Circuit reversed the ruling last summer, finding that A.M.’s anxiety disorder did not qualify as a disability under the ADA.
“We reverse the district court’s finding that Mann has shown that he is substantially likely to prevail on the merits of his claim that A.M. is disabled under the ADA,” a federal judge from the Middle court found. “Of course, we do not hold that anxiety disorders can never be a disability under the ADA, and it could still be possible for Mann to prove that A.M. is disabled at trial on a fuller record. We conclude only that on the record before us, Mann did not meet his burden to show that he is substantially likely to succeed on the merits of A.M.’s ADA claim.”
It also reversed the district court’s finding that the restitution rule was inapplicable. “Though at times professing to contest the general validity of the restitution rule, Mann did not brief any specific challenge to the restitution rule beyond stating that it is retaliatory because it allows penalties to be imposed against a student or school who challenges an eligibility decision of the LHSAA in court.”
Revisiting the Arguments on Remand
On remand, the district court summarized the question before it as follows: “Whether A.M. was substantially limited in a major life activity as a result of his diagnosed anxiety disorder?
“At the outset, several things are clear to the court based upon the evidence adduced during these proceedings. It is evident from the record that A.M. suffers from an anxiety disorder that at the time he transferred had a negative impact on his academic performance. Based upon this finding, it is clear to the court that A.M. did not transfer to Dunham for the purpose of playing football. Rather, he transferred to receive the individualized instruction necessary for him to excel academically that Dunham could provide. Finally, it is clear that A.M. is a young man that is dedicated to his family, academics, and athletics, in that order. For that, he should be commended. However, after reviewing the full record before it, the court holds that the plaintiff did not produce enough evidence to demonstrate that a major life activity was substantially limited by A.M.’s anxiety disorder.”
The district court turned to the 5th Circuit’s positions on the restitution ruling.
As a refresher, LHSAA Rule 5.7.2 states:
If a student is ineligible according to LHSAA rules but is permitted to participate in interscholastic competition contrary to such LHSAA rules but in accordance with the terms of a court order of any kind including but not limited to a declaratory judgment, temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction, against his/her school and/or the LHSAA and said court order is subsequently voluntarily vacated, stayed, reversed or [it is] finally determined by the court that the court order including any injunctive relief is not or was not justified, any one or more of the following actions shall be taken against such school in the interest of restitution and fairness to the competing schools:
Require that individual or team records and performance achieved during participation by such ineligible student shall be vacated or stricken.
Require that team victories shall be forfeited to the opponent.
Require that team or individual awards earned by such ineligible student be returned to the Association.
The district court noted that the plaintiff did not want the school “penalized … for following this court’s order and allowing A.M. to participate in football games. The court will honor that request and reiterate that LHSAA may not apply the restitution rule against Dunham.”
John Gray Mann v. Louisiana High School Athletic Association, Inc.; M.D. La.; CIVIL ACTION NO. 12-264-JJB, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131104; 9/13/13
Attorney of Record: (for plaintiff) Karl J. Koch, LEAD ATTORNEY, Baton Rouge, LA; Rusty M. Messer, Baton Rouge, LA. (for defendant) Robert Bradley Lewis, LEAD ATTORNEY, R. Bradley Lewis, Attorney at Law, Bogalusa, LA; Angelique Patrice Provenzano-Walgamotte, Mandeville, LA.
