Law & Policy: Rules & Regulations
- HS Player Ejections Overturned Following Appeal
by Jami Frankenberry September 2016
Norview star quarterback Darriel Mack Jr. will play in Saturday’s big game against Lake Taylor after the Virginia High School League ruled he and a teammate were erroneously ejected from last week’s game against Maury.
- What Constitutes Reasonable Para-Athlete Accommodation?
by John Wolohan September 2016
This article appeared in the September issue of Athletic Business. Athletic Business is a free magazine for professionals in the athletic, fitness and recreation industry. Click here to subscribe.
Twenty-five years after the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), high school athletic associations and individual schools are still grappling with the law and its impact on prep sports. A good example of the dilemmas these groups face when addressing the issue of para-athletes competing in high school sports is K.L. v. Missouri State High School Activities Association, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47621.
K.L., a student at Troy-Buchanan High School (TBHS) in Troy, Mo., was born with a venous malformation involving her left leg — a condition, known as "Bockenheimer's Syndrome," that required the surgical removal of her left leg above the knee in 2011. This has not slowed her down, however. K.L. is still very active in athletics and is returning for her fourth year as a member of the TBHS track team, using a racing chair in 100-, 200- and 400-meter events. In addition, she competes in sled hockey and triathlon at the regional and national levels with other para-athletes.
Despite K.L.'s active participation in high school track, Missouri State High School Activities Association (MSHSAA) rules do not allow K.L. or her team to earn any team points for her results. K.L. petitioned the MSHSAA to award her and her team points when she competes against all high schools — with and without para-athletes — arguing that her inability to earn team points "sometimes" made her feel that she is "not a part of the team" and "excluded."
SEVEN IN 25,000
In rejecting her request, the MSHSAA argued that adoption of K.L.'s demands to create new district, sectional and state championship competition for adaptive events in which para-athletes compete head-to-head — including creation of new operating standards, new qualifying standards, new point scoring against teams without para-athletes and new meet management requirements — would fundamentally alter the MSHSAA track and field program. In support of this conclusion, MSHSAA stated that approximately 25,000 students currently participate in MSHSAA track and field competition. Of this number, only seven students statewide — four females and three males — sought participation in adaptive events for para-athletes for the 2015-16 track and field season.
In seeking a court order forcing the MSHSAA to change its current rules and scoring system, K.L. claimed that the current rules and system violated both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA. Because the rights under the ADA are the same as under the Rehabilitation Act, the courts apply the same principles to both laws. The Rehabilitation Act states that: "No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, ... shall solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance ..." (29 U.S.C. § 794).
In determining if someone is otherwise qualified for an activity, the courts have held that while an organization is not required to make fundamental or substantial modifications to accommodate an individual's disability, it may be required to make reasonable ones. K.L. alleged that MSHSAA denied her benefits of its programs and activities "by refusing to make reasonable modifications to its track and field program."
WHAT IS REASONABLE?
In rejecting K.L.'s arguments, the court found that by definition, accommodations are not reasonable if they impose undue financial and administrative burdens or if they require a fundamental alteration in the nature of the program. Not only was K.L. seeking to earn team points, but to have those points assessed against teams that do not have any para-athletes in their school or on their team. The court held that K.L.'s requested modifications would constitute "affirmative action" relief — not cognizable under Section 504 or Title II of the ADA — to create new operating standards, new qualifying standards, new point scoring and new state championship competition for K.L. that do not currently exist.
In particular, the court found that K.L. and her team would be afforded unequal and preferential treatment against teams without para-athletes who will have their accomplishments altered by an unfair and inequitable distribution of points they have no chance to earn without para-athletes. The court found that if K.L's high school team had been advantaged with 40 points from four first-place finishes as the only competitor in four events during these state track meets, her team would have been advantaged over teams without para-athletes and elevated from 50th to 5th place in 2013, from 23rd to 3rd place in 2014 and from 34th to 6th place in 2015.
As more para-athletes seek to compete in high school sports, the court's decision in K.L. v. Missouri State High School Activities Association provides a number of important lessons to schools and state athletic associations. First, it is important to note that under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act organizations must make reasonable modifications to their rules to accommodate individuals with disabilities. What is reasonable is a question for the courts, but as long as the requested accommodations do not require fundamental modifications, organizations should be willing to alter programs to accommodate individuals with disabilities.
Second, what might seem unreasonable in one situation today might be reasonable in another. For example, if instead of seven para-athletes, there were 700 statewide, the court would more than likely have found the modifications requested to be reasonable. Therefore, it is essential that organizations conduct a case-by-case review when developing and operating fair and equitable statewide programs.
Attorney John Wolohan is a professor of sports law in the David B. Falk College for Sport and Human Dynamics and College of Law at Syracuse University.
This article originally appeared in the September 2016 issue of Athletic Business with the title "Is high school para-athlete's accommodation request reasonable?"
- TSSAA Clarifies HS Transfer Rules
by Brandon Shields September 2016
TSSAA executive director Bernard Childress said there are two more provisions in a student-athlete’s transition process in addition to the aspect of making a bona fide change of address that affects the athlete’s eligibility.
- MLB Commissioner: Teams Obey Medical Records Rules
by USA Today September 2016
Commissioner Rob Manfred is confident Major League Baseball teams fully disclose medical records but said his office has demonstrated that it will use discipline as a way to discourage rules violations.
- Opinion: NJSIAA's Football 'Power Point' System Unfair
by Phil Anastasia September 2016
"Rewarding a team for losing, what sense does that make?" Bud Kowal, the athletic director at Ewing High School and the president of the West Jersey Football League, wondered aloud in a sentiment shared by more than a few folks south of the Raritan River.
- Opinion: Is College Football's Targeting Rule Practical?
by Deseret Morning News September 2016
I wasn't certain I completely understood college football's targeting rule, but then I read the college football rulebook and now I'm absolutely certain that I don't. I wouldn't know a targeting violation if I saw it, unless it was something obvious, like a decapitation. I read Rule 9-1-3 and thought I had a handle on this thing, and then I read Rule 9-1-4, which is where things got a little muddied. So I read "Note 1," which is referenced in Rule 9-1-3, which is basically an addendum to Rule 9-1-3 (or is it Rule 9-3-1?) and then I read "Note 2," which is referenced in Rule 9-1-4 and contains examples of what constitutes a "defenseless" player, as found in Rule 2-27-14 and 9-6, and my conclusion is that defensive backs should be allowed to play two-hand touch.
- Stanford Hit With NCAA Violations
by Josh Dubow September 2016
Stanford's football and softball teams were found guilty of NCAA violations, including more than $3,000 in impermissible benefits to a football player and excessive practice time by the softball team.
- No Punishment for HS Player Who Knelt During Anthem
by Telegram & Gazette September 2016
A Doherty Memorial High School football player who kneeled in protest during the playing of the national anthem at a game last Friday has not been suspended, despite the player’s initial claim on social media, according to the School Department. Superintendent Maureen Binienda said Monday morning that the student's coach told him school officials might meet to discuss the potential punishment of a one-game suspension. But Ms. Binienda said no such penalty will be given.
- End-of-Game Gaffe Earns Officials Suspensions
by The Boston Herald September 2016
The eight-man officiating crew that botched the end of the Central Michigan-Oklahoma State game has been suspended for two games, the Mid-American Conference announced yesterday. And the Big 12 announced that the two-person video replay crew that worked the game also has been suspended for two games. In addition, the replay crew will be prohibited from working postseason games this season. 'The crew missed an opportunity to advise the MAC officiating crew of the misapplication of the penalty giving CMU an untimed down that resulted in its game-winning touchdown,' Big 12 coordinator of officials Walt Anderson said in a statement. 'NCAA rules permit instant replay to correct egregious errors and it is unacceptable that it did not occur in this situation.'
- West Point Post-Game Prayer Draws 'Valid' Complaints
by Paul Steinbach September 2016
The U.S. Military Academy's top general says "valid concerns" have been raised over a team prayer after Army upset Temple in a Sept. 2 football game.
After Army produced and posted video of Army's head coach Jeff Monken instructing a staff member to lead the prayer, the Military Religious Freedom Foundation received approximately 90 complaints. The Foundation regularly raises questions about separation of church and state in the military. The video has since been removed from West Point's website. To leave it online would have been "like grinding salt into the wound," according to Lt. Gen. Robert Caslen, superintendent of West Point.
"Maybe 90 percent of the people who were out there supported the prayer,” Caslen told The Washington Post on Friday. "But, when you look at it from a legal basis and from a legal standpoint, and then you look at it from a leadership standpoint, there were some concerns, and I think they’re valid concerns."
Calsen said it was incorrect from a legal and leadership standpoint for Monken to direct or encourage a prayer while serving in a leadership position at a government-funded public institution, according to the Post.
“It creates an atmosphere where it is expected from everybody to say a prayer regardless of their faith or no faith,” Caslen said. “It’s like me as the superintendent of the Corps of Cadets saying, ‘Let’s take a knee and say a prayer together.’ I don’t have the authority to do that. I cannot use my position of authority — my public position of authority — to direct my subordinates to do something that is inconsistent with their rights. So, that’s probably where we crossed the line.”