After spending a year at a parochial school during the pandemic, where there was significant remote learning, John Doe’s parents enrolled him in an out-of-state boarding school, and opted for him to repeat his freshman year. While at boarding school, John’s academic performance and social and physical health took a steep decline. John was diagnosed with anxiety, depression, and ADHD, among other learning disabilities. John’s pediatrician prescribed him medication and regular therapy sessions, and John received medical advice to continue participating in competitive sports.
John returned home to Rhode Island and enrolled in a private school, where he received academic accommodations, an individualized learning plan, and other support to address his learning disabilities. John also began playing competitive football and basketball, which had a positive impact on his mental health and well-being.
John will be a senior next year and wants to continue playing on his respective teams. However, under the Rhode Island Interscholastic League (RIIL), the organization that administers competitive sports in the state, there is an Eight-Semester Rule (Rule). Under the Rule, a student is automatically ineligible to play competitive sports eight semesters from when he enrolls in ninth grade. Since John repeated freshman year at the boarding school, he will be entering his ninth and tenth semesters of high school next year.
Students may seek a waiver from the Rule, which involves submitting a Waiver Request Form and accompanying documents, such as transcripts, letters of support, medical documents, and documents relating to a student’s individualized education plan. The request is then reviewed by a committee.
John applied for a waiver, asserting that he needed to play competitive sports for a fifth year to maintain his positive self-esteem, emotional well-being, and ability to engage in the classroom. The application included letters of support from his parents, psychiatrist, and family attorney. The waiver committee heard testimony from John, his parents, the private school’s athletic director, and his family attorney.
The committee unanimously denied the request, which was then upheld on appeal. The committee reasoned that it was John’s parents “personal choice” to have John transfer to the boarding school and repeat freshman year.
John sued, alleging RIIL violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and moved for a permanent injunction to stop RIIL from enforcing the Rule against John.
To obtain a permanent injunction, the plaintiff must first show actual success on the merits. To show actual success on the merits, John needed to establish: (1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some entity’s services, programs, or activities or was otherwise discriminated against; and (3) that such exclusion, denial of benefits, or discrimination was by reason of the plaintiff’s disability.
The Court concluded that John was a qualified individual with a disability–his learning impairments clearly fell within the definition of a disability.
The Court concluded that John’s disability caused his exclusion from competitive sports. Had John not left the boarding school, he would have been eligible to play sports for the remainder of his time there; it was only when John returned to Rhode Island to enroll in a private school that John fell under RIIL’s jurisdiction and that the Rule went into effect. The record also supported that John transferred from the boarding school to the private school due to his disability. After enrolling at the boarding school, John experienced a decline in academic performance and deterioration of his physical and psychological health—he became isolated and anti-social, lost about sixty pounds, acted out, and failed to maintain routines for academic success. This led to a decline in John’s grades. At the same time, the boarding school did not provide the personalized attention or services to address John’s needs. The Court found that this required John to return to Rhode Island and enroll in a school that could adequately address his needs, for example, with an individualized support plan and counseling.
The Court also concluded that RIIL failed to reasonably accommodate John. Under the ADA, an organization must provide reasonable accommodations to qualified individuals with disabilities. A determination of whether an accommodation is reasonable is a fact-specific inquiry and before denying an accommodation, the defendant must show that the accommodation would fundamentally alter the nature of the program or pose a direct threat to the health and safety of others. Here, waiving the Rule was a reasonable accommodation because doing so was necessary to afford John access to competitive sports.
RIIL argued that waiving the Rule would alter the nature of the program because John would take the starting place of other students and cause unfairness among student athletes. The Court disagreed with RIIL because John would not give his team an unfair advantage over non-disabled students. John did not plan on playing sports in college. John also would not be taking the place of another student, as every non-freshman makes the varsity team at the private school.
In light of these findings, the Court determined that John demonstrated actual success on the merits—John’s disability caused him exclusion under the Rule, and a waiver would have been a reasonable accommodation that would not fundamentally alter the nature of high school athletic competition in Rhode Island.
Following a showing of actual success on the merits, the Court considered four additional factors to determine whether a permanent injunction was appropriate. These factors were: (1) that the plaintiff has suffered (or will suffer) an irreparable injury absent relief; (2) that remedies available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, the injunction is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
The parties agreed that there were no other remedies that would adequately compensate John for his future injury—John wants to play competitive sports during his senior year and monetary damages will not address that.
In considering the remaining factors, the Court found that John would be irreparably harmed if he was barred from playing sports during his senior year because doctors recommended interscholastic sports to help his diagnoses and sports were proving successful for John’s well-being.
In balancing the harm imposed on John versus RIIL, the Court concluded that the harm imposed on John was greater. John could lose out on athletic programs that have had a substantial benefit on his overall well-being and his efforts to overcome his learning disabilities. RIIL cited administrative burdens of granting similar requests, but the Court was not convinced by this argument. RIIL is obligated under the law to provide accommodations to individuals with disabilities, meaning the harm imposed on them is relatively minor.
Finally, the permanent injunction would not negatively impact the public interest, in fact it would serve the public interest by including disabled individuals in economic and social life.
The Court granted the permanent injunction.
Note: This case shows the fact-intensive analysis that is required of schools when considering reasonable accommodations for students.
Doe v. League (D.R.I. May 28, 2024) 2024 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 94423.