Doe v. Marshall

459 F. Supp. 1190, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16005
CourtDistrict Court, S.D. Texas
DecidedAugust 16, 1978
DocketCiv. A. G-78-174
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 459 F. Supp. 1190 (Doe v. Marshall) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Doe v. Marshall, 459 F. Supp. 1190, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16005 (S.D. Tex. 1978).

Opinion

REASONS FOR GRANTING OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

COWAN, District Judge.

For the reasons stated herein, the Court has concluded that the plaintiff is entitled to a preliminary injunction restraining the *1191 defendants from barring plaintiff from interscholastic competition and restraining the defendant McKenzie from denying to the plaintiff the right to participate in interscholastic athletics, particularly football, during the school year 1978-79. The reasons for the granting of this relief are set forth herein.

Essential Facts

The parties have appeared, introduced evidence, and on the basis of this evidence the Court finds that the facts set forth in the plaintiff’s original complaint, a copy of which is appended hereto, are essentially correct, at least for purposes of determining the plaintiff’s right to a preliminary injunction.

The essential facts are:

1. John Doe is a “handicapped” individual within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 794.
2. John Doe, because of an unusual set of circumstances, has a legitimate, compelling necessity for living with his grandparents rather than his parents.
3. John Doe, because of his severe psychiatric difficulties, has a genuine, compelling need to participate in interscholastic football, and denying him this right, under the circumstances, would create irreparable harm. Participation in athletics during his senior year could mean the difference between John Doe’s growing up as a normal, productive adult, as distinguished from the possibility of his being institutionalized for the rest of his life.

Plaintiff has exhausted her apparent administrative remedies with the Alvin Independent School District (hereinafter AISD) and with the University Interscholastic League (hereinafter UIL), seeking relief from AISD, from the UIL, and from the District Executive Committee of the UIL which preliminarily determines eligibility.

Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 29 U.S.C. § 794. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 reads:

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.

29 U.S.C. § 794 reads:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in section 706(6) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

A review of the legislative history and the cases which illuminate § 794 reveal that this congressional enactment, for practical purposes, places upon school districts and agencies which receive federal funds, such as the defendants, the duty of analyzing individually the needs of each handicapped student and devising a program which will enable each individual handicapped student to receive an appropriate, free public education. The failure to perform this analysis and structure a program suited to the needs of each handicapped child, constitutes discrimination against that child and a failure to provide an appropriate, free public education for the handicapped child. Lau v. Nichols, 414 U.S. 563, 94 S.Ct. 786, 39 L.Ed.2d 1 (1973); Crawford v. University of North Carolina, 440 F.Supp. 1047 (N.D.N.C.1977); Hairston v. Drosick, 423 F.Supp. 180 (S.C.W.Va.1976); Camenisch v. University of Texas, 16 EPD P. 8336 (W.D.Tex.1978); Fialkowski v. Shapp, 405 F.Supp. 946 (E.D.Pa.1975).

In this particular case, AISD is willing to perform its legal duty. AISD has, however, in effect, delegated to the UIL the right to determine which students will participate in interscholastic athletics.

The challenged rule of the UIL would, as construed by UIL, prohibit John Doe’s playing football for AISD. There is apparently no structure within the organizational scheme of the UIL which provides a mechanism by which special and individual cases, such as John Doe’s, may be given special and individual handling.

*1192 A review of the facts and the authorities set forth above has persuaded this Court that there is a reasonable probability that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits.

The Court, in determining whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction, must also balance the harm which will be inflicted upon the plaintiff, if relief is not granted, against the harm which will be visited upon the defendants in the event relief is granted. In this case, as in the recent case of Kite v. Marshall, 454 F.Supp. 1347 (S.D.Tex.1978), the balancing task is easy. The harm which would be inflicted upon this young man were he denied the opportunity to play football in his senior year at Alvin may be enormous. Playing football in his senior year may make the difference between this young man’s growing up into a productive, happy individual, or, on the contrary, being institutionalized for the balance of his life. Denying this young man and his parents the right to the individualized treatment which 29 U.S.C. § 794 mandates, is a severe deprivation.

No harm is visited on the UIL, in this Court’s view, by the preliminary injunction. The UIL rule in question was designed to prevent recruiting abuses and to prevent an athlete from irresponsibly “shopping around” for a school or a coach. There is no suggestion or hint in the evidence that either of these evils is in any degree involved here, and the plaintiff has proved persuasively that there are compelling medical and psychiatric reasons why this young man needs to go to school in Alvin, and needs to play football on the Alvin team.

The Court needs to balance the questions involved here in the light of the public interest. This Court believes that 29 U.S.C. § 794 is a humane, and reasoned statute and that the public interest is served by its enforcement. In any event, regardless of this Court’s views concerning 29 U.S.C. § 794

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pottgen v. Missouri High School Activities Ass'n
857 F. Supp. 654 (E.D. Missouri, 1994)
University Interscholastic League v. Buchanan
848 S.W.2d 298 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1993)
Hayes v. Commission on State Mandates
11 Cal. App. 4th 1564 (California Court of Appeal, 1992)
CAVALLARO BY CAVALLARO v. Ambach
575 F. Supp. 171 (W.D. New York, 1983)
David H. v. Spring Branch Independent School District
569 F. Supp. 1324 (S.D. Texas, 1983)
Stacey G., Etc. v. Pasadena Independent Sch. Dist.
547 F. Supp. 61 (S.D. Texas, 1982)
Gary B. v. Cronin
542 F. Supp. 102 (N.D. Illinois, 1982)
Gladys J. v. Pearland Independent School District
520 F. Supp. 869 (S.D. Texas, 1981)
Georgia Ass'n of Retarded Citizens v. McDaniel
511 F. Supp. 1263 (N.D. Georgia, 1981)
Doe v. Syracuse School District
508 F. Supp. 333 (N.D. New York, 1981)
Zorick v. Tynes
372 So. 2d 133 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1979)
NEW YORK STATE ASS'N, ETC. v. Carey
466 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. New York, 1979)
New York State Ass'n for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Carey
466 F. Supp. 487 (E.D. New York, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F. Supp. 1190, 1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/doe-v-marshall-txsd-1978.