Lyon v. Illinois High School Association

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Harry D. Leinenweber on 1/25/2013:Mailed notice(wp, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MATTHEW LYON,
Plaintiff,
Case NO. 13 C 173
v.
Hon. Harry D. Leinenweber
ILLINOIS
ASSOCIATION,

HIGH

SCHOOL

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court after Plaintiff’s Preliminary
Injunction Hearing.

Plaintiff seeks to enjoin Defendant Illinois

High School Association (the “IHSA”) from enforcing two of its bylaws which prohibit a student from participating in a sport for
more than eight semesters and prohibit a student from participating
in a sport for more than four years.

Plaintiff asserts that

because he is disabled he should be entitled to a reasonable
accommodation of those by-laws.

For the reasons stated herein,

Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is denied.
I.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Matthew Lyon (hereinafter, “Plaintiff” or “Matthew”)
is a fifth year senior at Gordon Tech College Prep School (“Gordon
Tech”) in Chicago, Illinois.

In 2008, he began high school in San

Diego, California where he attended Torrey Pines High School
(“Torrey Pines”).

While at Torrey Pines, Matthew was a member of

the wrestling team during his freshman, sophomore, and junior
years.
When Plaintiff was in grade school, he was diagnosed with
Attention
disorder.

Deficit Hyperactivity
After

treatments

and

Education

Plan

was

being

diagnosed,

educated

(“IEP”)

Disorder

(“ADHD”)

Matthew

according

pursuant

to

to
the

and

bipolar

received

various

an

Individualized

Individuals

with

Disabilities Education Act.
At his preliminary injunction hearing, Matthew testified that
he received decent grades at Torrey Pines his freshman year, and
the beginning of his sophomore year.

However, shortly after his

sophomore year began, Matthew’s grades started to decline. Matthew
explained that around this time his home life started to become
unstable.

He testified that his mother was struggling financially

and constantly changing jobs, some of which required long travel
hours.
drug

He also testified that his sister began to suffer from a
and

alcohol

addiction.

Matthew

stated

that

these

circumstances made it more difficult for him to manage his ADHD
which in turn made it more difficult for him to concentrate in his
classes.
In the second semester of his junior year (around February
2011), Matthew became academically ineligible to wrestle at Torrey
Pines. His ineligibility prevented him from competing in the state
tournament which took place in March 2011.

(While schools vary

with respect to their semester start dates, and vary with respect
- 2 -

to the exact dates that a sport’s season begins and ends, the
testimony

revealed

that

Matthew

wrestled

from

approximately

November 2010 to February 2011 during his junior year at Torrey
Pines.)
In late March or early April 2011, Matthew dropped out of
Torrey

Pines

and

moved

to

completing his junior year.

Chicago

with

his

mother

without

He did not immediately enroll in any

school and instead struggled to figure out where he could live.
Ultimately, it was decided that Matthew would live with his halfsister, Megan, who is a non-practicing attorney.

At this time,

Megan began to look for high schools in Chicago that Matthew could
attend.
Eventually, Matthew decided to apply to Gordon Tech.
applying,

he met

with Gordon

education counselor.

Tech’s

principal

and

a

After
special

At the meeting, it was determined that in

light of Matthew’s poor grades and incomplete junior year, he would
be accepted to Gordon Tech on the condition that he repeat his
junior year.

Matthew agreed and enrolled in Gordon Tech for the

2011-2012 school year.

Shortly after school began, Matthew joined

Gordon Tech’s wrestling team. (The wrestling season at Gordon Tech
begins around the middle of first semester and ends in or around
the middle of second semester.)
Matthew testified that after he joined the wrestling team at
Gordon Tech he was able to meet new friends, and was more attentive
and focused in class.

His grades also started to improve.
- 3 -

Matthew

attributed

some

of

his

academic

success

to

the

structured

environment that coincides with being a member of the wrestling tam
and also credited the structured environment Megan was providing
him at home.

Matthew wrestled for his entire junior year at Gordon

Tech.
After wrestling for four years, (three at Torrey Pines and one
at Gordon Tech), Matthew became ineligible to wrestle his senior
year at Gordon Tech pursuant to the rules of the IHSA.

In November

2012, Matthew wrote the IHSA requesting that it waive the by-laws
that made Matthew ineligible.

In his initial request, Matthew

argued that his family’s financial and personal problems entitled
him to a waiver.

His first letter did not mention his ADHD or

bipolar disorder and did not claim this to be a reason for a
waiver.
On November 30, 2012, the IHSA denied Matthew’s request.
Subsequently, in early December 2012, Matthew sent the IHSA a
second letter requesting that it reconsider its decision.

This

letter informed the IHSA that Matthew has ADHD and that this
disability combined with his family problems made him academically
ineligible at Torrey Pines.

In the second letter, Matthew argued

his ineligibility was due to his disability.
The IHSA denied Plaintiff’s request for reconsideration.

In

its denial, it cited IHSA by-laws 3.051 and 3.053 as reasons to
support.

By-Law 3.051 states, “. . . students shall be eligible

for no more than eight semesters.”
- 4 -

Pl. Ex. 46 at 1.

By-Law 3.053

reads, “. . . [students] shall not be eligible for more than four
school years of competition in any sport.”

Id.

On December 18, 2012, Matthew filed an appeal to the IHSA’s
Board of Directors (“the Board”).

Pursuant to IHSA procedures, on

January 7, 2013, the Board held a hearing for Matthew’s appeal.

At

the hearing, Matthew, along with Megan and her husband, provided a
statement to the Board and answered any questions Board members
asked.

After the hearing, the Board voted unanimously to affirm

the denial of Matthew’s waiver request.
On January 9, 2013, Matthew filed his Complaint with this
Court.

On the same date, he filed an Emergency Motion for a

Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”).

In the Complaint, Matthew

sought relief under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C.
§ 794) and Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”) (42 U.S.C. §§ 12132, 12182).
On January 10, 2013, Matthew’s TRO was heard by Judge John W.
Darrah, the designated emergency judge. After a hearing where both
parties were present, Judge Darrah granted Matthew’s TRO, and
ordered the case be continued until this Court could hold a
preliminary injunction hearing.

The issuance of the TRO allowed

Matthew to wrestle in meets that occurred between January 10, 2013
and January 23, 2013.
On January 23, 2013, this Court held Matthew’s preliminary
injunction

hearing.

Both

Plaintiff

and

the

IHSA

presented

extensive witness testimony for this Court’s consideration.
- 5 -

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A party seeking a preliminary injunction is required to
demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, that it has no
adequate remedy at law, and that it will suffer irreparable harm if
the relief is not granted.”

Promatek Industries, Ltd. v. Equitrac

Corp., 300 F.3d 808, 811 (7th Cir. 2002).

If it meets that

standard, the Court then also must consider whether and to what
extent the injunction would harm the enjoined party and/or the
public.

Id.

These factors are evaluated on a sliding scale; the

more likely a movant is to prevail on the merits, the less heavily
the balance of harms needs to tip in its favor.
III.

Id.

ANALYSIS

Matthew seeks to enjoin the IHSA from enforcing its by-laws
which make him ineligible to wrestle. Matthew argues that the IHSA
failed to grant him reasonable accommodations pursuant to the ADA.
At

the

preliminary

injunction

hearing,

Plaintiff

voluntarily

dismissed his Rehabilitation Act claim (Count I) against the IHSA,
leaving only his ADA claims.
A.

Likelihood of Success on the Merits

The ADA prohibits discrimination against the disabled.

It

provides that “no otherwise qualified individual with a disability
. . . shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded
from the participation in, be denied benefits of the services,
programs, or activities or a public entity or be subjected to

- 6 -

discrimination by any such entity.”

42 U.S.C. § 12132.

The IHSA

does not dispute it is an entity subject to the ADA.
To state a valid cause of action under the ADA Matthew must
show that:

(1) he suffers from a disability; (2) he is “otherwise

qualified”

to

excluding

from

handicap.”

participate

in

participating

wrestling;
in

and

wrestling

(3) he

“by

is being

reason

of

his

Washington v. Indiana High School Athletic Assoc., 181

F.3d 840 (7th Cir. 1999).

While the IHSA argues that ADHD does not

constitute a disability for purposes of the ADA, the Court assumes
without deciding that ADHD qualifies as a disability. Accordingly,
the

Court’s

inquiry

focuses

on

whether

Matthew

is

otherwise

qualified to participate in wrestling and whether is ineligible
because of his disability.
Plaintiff argues that he can state a valid cause of action
under the ADA and can establish a likelihood of success on the
merits.

He

contends that

Washington

Athletic Association supports his claim.
and

claims

that

Matthew’s case.

Washington

is

v.

Indiana

High

School

The IHSA disputes this,

factually

distinguishable

from

After hearing extensive witness testimony, the

Court agrees with the IHSA.
In Washington, the Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court’s
grant of a preliminary injunction which prevented the Indiana High
School Athletic Association (“IHSAA”) from enforcing its “eight
semester rule” against a plaintiff who suffered from a learning
disability and dropped out of school for a year.
- 7 -

Id. at 843.

(The

IHSAA’s eight semester rule is similar to the IHSA’s eight semester
rule (3.051) and essentially prevents a student from competing in
a sport for more than eight semesters.) In determining whether the
preliminary injunction was appropriate, the Seventh Circuit first
turned to the issue of whether the plaintiff had established a
likelihood of success on the merits (or in other words, whether he
had established that he was entitled to protection under Title II
of the ADA). It determined that in order for the plaintiff to make
this showing, he had to “establish that the IHSAA rendered Mr.
Washington

[plaintiff]

disability.”

ineligible

Id. at 846.

to

play

by

reason

of

his

The Seventh Circuit explained that the

““by reason of” language merely indicates that the plaintiff must
demonstrate

that

but

for

his

disability,

he

eligible to play sports in his junior year.”

would

have

Id. at 849.

been
When

determining whether the plaintiff could make this showing, the
Seventh

Circuit

examined

the

circumstances

surrounding

his

ineligibility.
In Washington, the plaintiff dropped out of high school for
one year after a school counselor suggested that he drop out
because of his failing grades.

Id. at 842.

During the year

plaintiff dropped out, he was not enrolled at any high school and
did not participate in any high school sports.

The next summer,

the plaintiff met a basketball coach and teacher at a Catholic high
school who urged the plaintiff to enroll at the school he coached
and recommended that plaintiff be tested for learning disabilities.
- 8 -

Id.

The plaintiff took the coach’s advice and discovered he had a

learning disability.

After receiving appropriate treatment, he

began to succeed both academically and athletically.

However,

because of the IHSAA’s eight semester rule, the plaintiff became
ineligible in his final year of high school even though he was not
enrolled at any school for two of the semesters which the IHSAA
counted toward his eight semesters of eligibility.

Id.

The

plaintiff claimed that but for his learning disability he would not
have dropped out of school and would be eligible.
After reviewing these facts and testimony from a school
psychologist, the Seventh Circuit found plaintiff’s allegations
persuasive.

Id. at 849.

It was particularly persuaded with

plaintiff’s claims because the IHSAA’s eight semester rule provided
that a student was only eligible for eight consecutive semesters
and those semesters started to run on the student’s first day of
ninth grade regardless of whether the student was actually enrolled
in school after that time.

Id. at 852.

Applying this rule to the

plaintiff’s situation in Washington, it was clear that plaintiff
established

that

but

for

his

disability

he

would

have

been

eligible.
Matthew’s case is different from Washington.

First, unlike

the plaintiff in Washington who dropped out of school for an entire
year and did not participate in any sports, here, Matthew wrestled
for four years in high school - three at Torrey Pines and one at
Gordon Tech.

While Matthew argues that he became academically
- 9 -

ineligible at Torrey Pines in February 2011 because of his ADHD,
this does not change the fact that he wrestled his junior year from
approximately November 2010 to February 2011.
This distinction is important because the IHSA determined that
Matthew was ineligible not only because of its eight semester rule
(3.051), but also because of its four year rule (3.053).

Thus,

even if the Court accepts as true Plaintiff’s claim that his
disability caused him to become academically ineligible in February
2011 and that but for this disability he would have been eligible
in February 2011, the Court cannot change the fact that Matthew
wrestled

that

Accordingly,

year
the

from

Court

November

cannot

find

2010
that

to

February

but

for

2011.

Matthew’s

disability he would be eligible.
Matthew also cannot establish that he would be “otherwise
qualified” to participate in wrestling if it were not for his
disability.

Simply put, Matthew’s participation in wrestling for

four years makes him ineligible under the IHSA by-laws regardless
of whether he has a disability.

If Matthew had dropped out of

school for his entire junior year or became academically ineligible
at the beginning of his junior year because of his disability,
perhaps this case would have a different result.

But, if the Court

were to allow Matthew to wrestle for a fifth year, despite the fact
that he has already wrestled for four years, this would in effect
be granting a privilege to Matthew that other students, disabled or
not, do not enjoy.

This belies the purpose of the ADA.
- 10 -

Therefore, while the Court is sympathetic to Matthew’s case
and the hardships he has already endured growing up, the Court
cannot find that Plaintiff can establish a likelihood of success on
the merits on his ADA claims.
B.

Irreparable Harm

Matthew claims that he will suffer irreparable harm because he
could lose

a

college

scholarship

or could

be

prevented

from

attending the college of his choice if he is unable to wrestle at
the state tournament in February.

The Court finds this allegation

speculative and therefore does not consider it when determining if
Matthew has established irreparable harm.

See Rademaker v. Blair,

No. 10-3332, 2010 WL 5376263 at *5 (C.D. Ill. Dec. 22, 2010).

The

Court finds Matthew’s argument that playing high school sports is
a once in lifetime opportunity more persuasive.

However, in light

of the Court’s finding that Matthew is unable to establish a
likelihood of success on the merits, the Court need not determine
whether his allegations are sufficient to establish irreparable
harm.
C.

No Adequate Remedy at Law

The Court does not deny that Matthew can demonstrate that no
other

remedy

compensation

at

law

cannot

exists.
be

a

It

is

substitute

apparent

that

for

experience

the

participating in the state wrestling tournament.

monetary
of

As such, the

Court finds Plaintiff has established that no other adequate remedy
is available to him.
- 11 -

D.

Balance of Harms and Public Interest

Due to the Court’s finding that Matthew cannot establish a
likelihood of success on the merits and thus cannot meet his
initial burden, the Court declines to weigh the harms each party
could suffer if a preliminary injunction were issued in this
matter.
interest.

Similarly, the Court declines to analyze the public’s
These inquiries would only be necessary if the Court

determined that Matthew demonstrated a likelihood of success on the
merits, irreparable harm, and no adequate remedy at law.

Promatek

Industries, Ltd., 300 F.3d at 811.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge
United States District Court
DATE:1/25/2013

- 12 -