A federal judge from the District of Minnesota denied a motion for a preliminary injunction in a case where a student athlete (H.R.) and his parents asked the court to prevent the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) from making him ineligible for one year, pursuant to the MSHSL Bylaw 111.00.
The court found specifically that H.R. did not satisfy the necessary criteria for a waiver of the bylaw.
As a 10th grader transferring to Holy Family Catholic High School (HFCHS) in Victoria, Minn., H.R. sought immediate eligibility to compete in varsity interscholastic athletics during the 2012-2013 school year.
For background purposes, H.R. attended Hutchinson (Minn.) Middle School (HMS) from grades six through eight. There, he alleged that he was assaulted, threatened and harassed by his classmates. As a result, he moved to his grandparents’ home in Woodbury, Minn., and attended ninth grade at Woodbury High School (WHS).
Due to his grandmother’s poor health, H.R. returned to Hutchinson to live with his parents after his ninth-grade year. In the fall of 2012, instead of attending Hutchinson High School with his former classmates, H.R. enrolled at HFCHS. H.R. joined the hockey team at HFCHS and earned a spot on the varsity roster.
Soon thereafter, HFCHS Associate Director Craig Perry ruled that H.R. was ineligible for varsity competition for the 2012-2013 school year.
On November 28, 2012, plaintiffs applied for leave from the MSHSL to appeal HFCHS’s eligibility determination.
The court noted the following criteria can lead to a waiver of the transfer rule:
Documented internal Board of Education policies regarding the movement of students within the school district.
Adoption, abandonment, or death of a parent.
A documented negative change in the economic status of the student’s parents which requires the student to return to the public school located in the attendance area where the student’s parents reside.
Intolerable conditions at the Sending School as affirmed in writing by the Sending School. When situations arise that the student or parents believe have created an intolerable condition, the acts complained of must first be reported to the appropriate administrators at the school so they have the opportunity to investigate and take any action they deem necessary to resolve the problem … . In general, allegations alone are not sufficient. There must be some reasonable and believable substantiation presented to indicate an incident or incidents actually occurred. As well, the perpetrators must be identified.
Enrollment in an Advance Placement program, an International Baccalaureate program or similar advanced academic program not offered at the school the student attends.
Administrative error in addressing a student’s initial eligibility.
Completion of a licensed program for treatment of alcohol or substance abuse, mental illness or emotional disturbance[,] provided all other eligibility rules are followed.
Other conditions not covered above but which may be agreed [*5] to by both the Sending and Receiving Schools.
On December 19, 2012, a hearing was held before an Independent Hearing Officer, who determined that no exception to the transfer rule applied and recommended that the MSHSL affirm its decision that H.R. is ineligible for varsity competition.
On January 2, 2013, the plaintiffs filed suit, alleging due process and equal protection violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a claim under Minnesota Statutes § 128C.03. On that same day, the plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction.
In considering the motion, the court took into account the following factors:
“(1) the likelihood of the movant’s ultimate success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant in the absence of relief, (3) the balance between the harm alleged and the harm that the relief may cause the non-moving party and (4) the public interest. Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981) (en banc).”
Examining the “merits” factor first, the court evaluated the plaintiffs’ argument that “(1) they did not receive the MSHSL eligibility brochure prior to H.R. transferring to HFCHS, (2) the Bylaws are unconstitutionally vague and (3) H.R.’s substantive due process rights were infringed by an arbitrary and capricious appeal process.”
First, the court noted that MSHSL “was not required to distribute the eligibility brochure and H.R. had access to the eligibility requirements before his transfer,” meaning that “allegations of a due process violation based on a lack of personal notice are unlikely to succeed on the merits.”
Second, the court wrote that H.R. relies on the “including, but not limited to” and “other conditions not covered above” language in Bylaw 300.3A to argue that H.R. should be reinstated because the bylaws are vague. “H.R. could not have had a reasonable expectation of eligibility based on these discretionary, catch-all provisions. As a result, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success based on the allegations of vagueness within the Bylaws.”
Third, regarding “substantive due process rights” claim, the court wrote that “while the plaintiffs may disagree with the appeal decision, it was not irrational. The MSHSL and the independent hearing officer both considered — and ultimately denied — H.R.’s argument that an exception to the transfer rule applied.”
The court summarized that the plaintiffs “have not shown a likelihood of success on any facet of their due process claim. Therefore, this Dataphase factor weighs against injunctive relief.”
As for the irreparable harm claim, the court noted that the plaintiffs have “demonstrated” such a “possibility.” Thus, that “Dataphase factor weighs in favor of injunctive relief.”
Turning to the balance of harms, the court wrote that while the “plaintiffs have demonstrated the possibility of irreparable harm, (t)his harm is balanced by the defendants’ interests in the uniform application of eligibility rules and the need to enforce the Bylaws. In balancing the harms, the court also notes that H.R. is still eligible to practice with the team and participate in junior-varsity competition. Therefore, the court concludes that the balance of harms does not strongly favor either party, and that this Dataphase factor is neutral.”
Addressing the plaintiffs’ final argument that “the public interest weighs in favor of protecting the deprivation of constitutional rights,” the court restated the fact that the plaintiffs have not established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.” Moreover, the public is served by the uniform and predictable application of the MSHSL’s eligibility requirements. Therefore, this Dataphase factor weighs against entry of injunctive relief. Accordingly, based upon a balancing of the Dataphase factors, a preliminary injunction is not warranted.”
H.R., a minor child, by and through his Parents and Natural Guardians S.R. and C.R., v. The Minnesota State High School League and Craig Perry; D. Minn.; Civil No. 13-16(DSD/JJK), 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5215; 1/14/13
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Matthew Berner, Esq. and Droel PLLC, Bloomington, MN. (for defendants) Kevin M. Beck, Esq. and Kelly & Lemmons, PA, St. Paul, MN.
