By John Miller, Ph.D.
A high school senior, who had repeated his junior year, petitioned the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) for a fifth-year eligibility to play sports. The MIAA denied his request to do so. The student-athlete, parents of the student-athlete, and representatives of the second high school he was attending then challenged the MIAA’s eligibility requirements to the Superior Court. The judge on the Superior Court allowed an injunction which permitted the student-athlete to participate on the school’s football team.
The MIAA took the case to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the state’s highest court. According to the SJC, a Superior Court judge made a mistake by granting an injunction against a decision by the MIAA to prevent a student-athlete from playing in high school sports during his fifth year (Hohler, 2022). While the SJC ruled in favor of the MIAA, this case brings some interesting insights into future high school student-athletes pursuing a fifth year of eligibility.
Case Information
Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) is “an association that regulates competitive interschool athletic programs as the authorized representative of its member school committees” (Mancuso v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2009, p. 120). While membership to the MIAA is voluntary, the majority, if not all, of the high schools in the state belong to it and it is perceived as a ‘state actor’ for legal purposes (Mancuso v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2009). As such, the MIAA has the authority to ascertain under what conditions, including student eligibility, the high schools may compete against other high schools.
The plaintiff attended and played on the football and basketball teams for a public high school for three school years. As a member of the football team, the plaintiff contended that the coach and some teammates repeatedly bullied him and treated him unjustly. Due to such actions, the plaintiff incurred a diagnosis of anxiety and depression. Even though the student-athlete’s parents met with the school administration to discuss their concerns regarding the coach’s behavior, the asserted bullying endured. Additionally, the student-athlete’s anxiety and depression conditions allegedly caused by bullying were complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic which also may have been an underlying aspect of the student-athlete’s mental health.
It is important to note that COVID-19 pandemic occurred while the student-athlete was petitioning for a fifth year of eligibility. As such, many high school student-athletes were not able to participate in sports for at least one year. For example, when the pandemic first occurred a large number of high schools either cancelled or postponed their sport programs entirely due to concerns of transmitting the coronavirus among spectators and players for the 2020 fall semester and beyond (McGuine et al., 2022). Furthermore, McGuine et al. (2022) reported that high school athletes who did not participate in sports during the COVID-19 pandemic had higher levels of anxiety and depression. As a result, many high school female and male student-athletes were deprived of playing for at least one additional year while possibly incurring bouts of anxiety and depression. Thus, it may be speculated that an increase of petitions of fifth-year high school athletes may occur nationally.
To best alleviate the situation, the student-athlete and his parents thought that the best course of action would be to transfer to another high school. After enrolling into to a new, private high school, the plaintiff and his parents felt that he should repeat his junior year due to the anxiety and depression issues he endured at the previous high school. Thus, the plaintiff would be entering his fourth year of high school, but his first one at his new school.
During the first year at his new school, the student-athlete competed on football and basketball teams. Additionally, the student-athlete’s mental state, physical health, and grades all improved. Although the student-athlete was entering only his second year at his new school, overall it was his fifth year of high school. Due to his desire to continue participate in sports, he applied to the MIAA for an exception to the eligibility requirements. However, his application was denied by the Assistant Executive Director of the MIAA following MIAA Rule 59.1 which limits the eligibility of student-athletes in Massachusetts to four years from the time they were in the ninth grade.
After the plaintiff’s application was denied by the MIAA representative, the student-athlete, his parents, and representatives from his new school disputed the rejection under MIAA Rule 87. MIAA Rule 87 offers measures whereby student-athletes may appeal through the eligibility appeal board (EAB) if the student-athletes felt the verdict was unjust. Employing MIAA Rule 87.5, the EAB weighed four items describing four factors for consideration when evaluating if it should approve a request for an appeal waiver. The first item is to determine if the rule has an unnecessary hardship on the student. Second, the MIAA must assess if an unfair advantage would be realized by granting the waiver. A third consideration is whether the waiver would influence the student body of the plaintiff. The last consideration addresses whether the issue presents a conflict with the MIAA interscholastic athletic objectives.
On September 7, 2021, the EAB heard testimony from the plaintiff school’s athletic director and from the student’s father. On September 9, 2021, citing MIAA Rule 87.5, the EAB unanimously voted to deny the waiver request, and it issued a decision briefly explaining its reasoning. First, the EAB determined that denying the waiver would “not result in an undue hardship since the student-athlete previously had the opportunity to participate in four consecutive years of interscholastic competition, including four years of high school football and basketball” (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022, p. 549).
The EAB also ruled that unfair competitive advantage would exist since the student was a starter and potential impact player in football and basketball. Additionally, the EAB noted that the majority of high school student-athletes did not have the advantage of competing in a fifth year. Finally, the EAB found that allowing a waiver would negatively impact the school student body because, as an impact player, the student in this case would be taking playing time away from a teammate (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022).
Injunctive Relief Granted
On September 10, 2021, within hours of the start of a football game, the high school and the student together asked the Superior Court to grant injunctive relief. Such an action prevented the MIAA from enforcing its decision to make the student-athlete ineligible to play interscholastic high school sports during his fifth academic year (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022). The student contended that his mental health would be adversely affected if he was deemed unable to play during his fifth year.
Subsequently, on September 10, 2021, a Superior Court judge permitted the emergency motion, after concluding that the student-athlete and his parents had shown enough evidence to be entitled to an injunction. Furthermore, a temporary restraining order, effective for ten days, was issued by the judge. On September 20, 2021, a second hearing was slated to resolve whether a preliminary injunction should be delivered before the hearing. However, the Superior Court judge rejected the MIAA’s motion for reconsideration and permitted the motion for a preliminary injunction, thereby allowing the temporary restraining order to continue (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022).
MIAA Appeal to the State Supreme Judicial Court
The MIAA appealed the preliminary injunctive relief ruling to the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC), the highest court in the state. The MIAA contended that the Superior Court judge was incorrect by permitting the preliminary injunction that allowed the student-athlete to play interscholastic football and basketball for a fifth year (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022). Conversely, the plaintiffs argued that the MIAA acted in an arbitrary and capricious way in declining to approve the waiver application. Ultimately, the SJC found that the Superior Court had made a mistake by permitting the preliminary injunction. Furthermore, the SJC ruled that the MIAA’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious in preventing the student-athlete in this case to participate for a fifth year (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022).
Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions
While the SJC ruled that the MIAA appropriately declined the student-athlete’s request to participate in a fifth year of interscholastic athletics, it required the lower courts to assess whether the MIAA decision to grant a waiver could be based on being arbitrary and capricious (Hohler, 2022). According to Garrity v. Conservation Comm’n of Hingham (2012), arbitrary and capricious decisions occur when reasonable individuals do not support it. In other words, an arbitrary and capricious decision is one in which reasonable grounds or sufficient consideration are not apparent. Thus, the Massachusetts courts would mandate the MIAA to produce the evidence that led to grant a fifth-year participation waiver to a student-athlete (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022). To do so accurately, the MIAA requested that the SJC identify detailed parameters when there are challenges in the state of Massachusetts to the waiver decisions (Hohler, 2022).
History and Subsequent Actions
From a brief historical context, the MIAA has revealed that 70% of 155 waiver requests that had been granted from the beginning of the 2019-2020 academic year since the start of the 2019-2020 school year (Hohler, 2022). Furthermore, the MIAA approved fifth-year eligibility to 55% of waivers that cited mental health problems (Hohler, 2022). Additionally, since 2020-2021, eleven student-athletes in the state of Massachusetts have taken the MIAA to court after the denial of requests for waivers (Hohler, 2022). Such action resulted in judges deciding for the MIAA eight times. Furthermore, two cases have implemented injunctions to allow the student-athlete to continue to play. Finally, one case ruled that the student-athlete could participate in one sport but not another in the state of Massachusetts (Hohler, 2022).
The Abner case signified that lower courts may intercede only when the judge of the higher court determines that the state athletic association such as the MIAA acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner. In particular, the state athletic association must show evidence as to how the application of the four standards would 1) impose an undue hardship on the student, 2) create an unfair competitive advantage, 3) negatively impact the student’s schoolmates, or 4) be in conflict with the athletic association’s general interscholastic objectives (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022). A sufficient showing of evidence would therefore decrease the likelihood of future potential claims against the state athletic association of arbitrary and capricious decisions (Abner v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 2022).
Conclusion
At first blush, this case would appear to be a relatively simple one in which a high school student-athlete petitions to be eligible to participate in high school sports during his fifth year of high school. However, the circumstances surrounding it may complicate matters. For example, the student-athlete developed mental health issues due to the alleged bullying by his coach and some teammates. Furthermore, McGuine et al. (2022) reported that high school athletes who did not participate in sports during the COVID-19 pandemic similarly had mental health issues such as increase levels of anxiety and depression. As such, the SJC ruling in this case occurs as an increasing number of student-athletes may petition for a fifth year of eligibility to participate in high school sports due to personal reasons as well as the COVID-19 pandemic.
To avoid potential future claims of arbitrary and capricious decisions, state athletic organizations, such as the MIAA, would be wise to consider the same four items presented in this case. First, the athletic association should understand that the COVID-19 pandemic robbed many high school student-athletes the ability to participate in athletics. Second, high school athletes, as teenage students, may generally be vulnerable to increased anxiety and depression issues which may result in the student-athlete resulting being held back and repeating a grade. Third, the athletic association should gather and provide objective evidence supporting or rejecting the petitioner’s waiver request. Last, the state athletic association should ask their State Supreme Court to provide guidelines to follow for high school student-athlete fifth-year eligibility waiver requests.
References
Abner A. v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 490 Mass. 538, 192 N.E.3d 1066, 2022 Mass. LEXIS 424 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts August 29, 2022, Decided).
Garrity v. Conservation Comm’n of Hingham, 462 Mass. 779, 971 N.E.2d 748, 2012 Mass. LEXIS 660, 2012 WL 2866131 (Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts July 16, 2012, Decided).
Hohler, B. (2022, August 29). Massachusetts Supreme Court backs MIAA on fifth-year case. BostonGlobe.com.https://bostonglobe.com/2022/08/29/sports/sjc-backs-miaa-fifth-year- case/#:~:text=The%20state’s%20highest%20court%20ruled%20Monday%20that%20a,in %20the%20Woburn%20Memorial%20High%20School%20football%20program.
McGuine, T. A., Biese, K. M., Hetzel, S. J., Schwarz, A., Kliethermes, S., Reardon, C. L., Bell, D. R., Brooks, M. A. & Watson, A. M. (2022). High school sports during the COVID-19 pandemic: the effect of sport participation on the health of adolescents. Journal of Athletic Training, 57(1), 51-58.
Mancuso v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association, 453 Mass. 116, 118-119, 900 N.E.2d 518 (2009).
