68 F. Supp. 3d 768
S.D. Ohio2014Background
- Charles Steines, a Kentucky resident with diagnosed learning disabilities, has attended Ohio schools since 1st grade (Springer, then St. Ursula Villa) for specialized services and enrolled at The Summit Country Day School (Ohio) for high school.
- OHSAA Bylaw 4-6-3 bars students whose parents reside outside Ohio from interscholastic athletics, with ten listed exceptions; Springer is a standalone special school and does not fit existing exceptions.
- Summit requested an accommodation to allow Charles to play soccer; OHSAA denied the request because none of the express exceptions applied and staff claimed no authority to deviate from the bylaws.
- Plaintiffs sued under the ADA Title II (and Rehabilitation Act), seeking a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the residency rule against Charles so he may play on his high school team.
- The district court held a hearing, found Plaintiffs likely to succeed on their Title II claim, that Charles would suffer irreparable harm without participation, and that injunctive relief would not substantially harm others or the public interest.
- The court preliminarily enjoined OHSAA from enforcing Bylaw 4-6-3 against Charles and left the specific scope of any bylaw amendment to OHSAA discretion, requiring that Charles not be excluded on residency grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OHSAA is a "public entity" subject to ADA Title II | OHSAA functions as a state instrumentality (majority public membership, use of public facilities, delegated regulatory role) | OHSAA is a private nonprofit and not a public entity; factual dispute exists | Court finds Plaintiffs likely to prevail on showing OHSAA is a public entity for Title II purposes |
| Whether the residency bylaw violates Title II as applied to Charles | The neutral residency rule has a disparate effect because Charles attends Ohio school solely due to his disability; OHSAA failed to provide a reasonable modification (waiver) | The rule is facially neutral; Charles is ineligible due to residency, not disability; waiver would be a wholesale abandonment of an essential eligibility rule | Court holds Plaintiffs likely to succeed under the ADA failure-to-accommodate framework and that a narrowly tailored waiver would not fundamentally alter the program |
| Whether granting a waiver would impose undue administrative/financial burden or fundamental alteration | Waiver for Charles is narrow and administratively minimal given no evidence of a flood of similar requests | Granting waiver risks many similar requests, undermining competitive balance and program purpose | Court finds claimed burdens speculative and that granting a limited waiver would not fundamentally alter OHSAA athletics |
| Equitable factors for preliminary injunction (irreparable harm, harm to others, public interest) | Charles will suffer irreparable harm (social, educational, psychological) absent participation; public interest favors equal treatment of disabled students | Injunction could harm competitive fairness and other member schools | Court finds irreparable harm to Charles, no substantial harm to others, and public interest supports injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Friendship Materials, Inc. v. Michigan Brick, 679 F.2d 100 (6th Cir. 1982) (standard for district court’s discretion on preliminary injunctions)
- Leary v. Daeschner, 228 F.3d 729 (6th Cir. 2000) (four-factor preliminary injunction framework)
- McPherson v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 119 F.3d 453 (6th Cir. 1997) (ADA/Rehabilitation Act: failure-to-accommodate analysis for athletic eligibility rules)
- Sandison v. Michigan High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 64 F.3d 1026 (6th Cir. 1995) (analysis of neutral eligibility rules and whether waivers would fundamentally alter athletic programs)
- Washington v. Indiana High Sch. Ath. Ass’n, 181 F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 1999) (approach to reasonable modifications and individualized inquiry under ADA Title II)
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (necessity of individualized inquiry when assessing reasonable modifications under the ADA)