Abner A. v. Mass. Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n

490 Mass. 538

192 N.E.3d 1066

ABNER A.¹ & another²

v.MASSACHUSETTS INTERSCHOLASTIC ATHLETIC ASSOCIATION.

SJC-13224

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Middlesex.

Argued April 6, 2022

Decided August 29, 2022

Kay H. Hodge, (John M. Simon also present) Boston, for the defendant.

Andrew R. Hamilton (Adam M. Hamel also present) Woburn, for the plaintiffs.

Present: Budd, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Cypher, Kafker, Wendlandt, & Georges, JJ.

GAZIANO, J.

The Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association (MIAA) declared a high school senior, who had repeated his junior year and had played a total of four prior years on his schools’ interscholastic teams, ineligible to play a fifth year of interscholastic football and basketball, and denied his request for an exception, as permitted under MIAA rules. The student then challenged the MIAA's eligibility determination through a complaint in the Superior Court in the nature of certiorari, posing the novel question of the standard of review courts should apply in reviewing such claims. We conclude that a reviewing court should examine a challenge to an MIAA eligibility determination only to determine whether the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Applying that standard of review to the facts of this case, we conclude that the MIAA's decision not to grant the student his requested exception was not arbitrary and capricious.

1. Background. We recite the facts based on the evidence presented to the MIAA at a hearing on the student's request for an exception to the four-year rule for eligibility to participate in the school's interscholastic football and basketball programs.

The plaintiff student attended a public high school in the Commonwealth for three school years; the public school was a member of the MIAA. Each year, the student played on that school's interscholastic football and basketball teams. During the football seasons, the football coach allegedly bullied him often and treated him unfairly. As a result of these interactions, the student developed anxiety and depression, challenges that were compounded by the circumstances of remote schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic. Having noticed their son's symptoms of emotional distress, his parents met with the school administration to express concerns about the coach's treatment, but the alleged bullying continued. The student and his parents then decided that it would be best for him to transfer to another school. When he enrolled in the new school at the age of seventeen, the student and his parents determined, based in part on the struggles he had had with learning at the public school, that the student should repeat his junior year at the new, private school. During his repeated junior year, the student played football and basketball on his new school's interscholastic teams. That school was at all relevant times a member of the MIAA. He also received treatment by a psychologist. The student's mental state and physical health improved, as did his grades.

As the student had participated in interscholastic team sports for four years, under MIAA Rule 59.1, which restricts student-athlete eligibility to four years, the student was ineligible to play a fifth year of interscholastic high school sports. The school sought an eligibility waiver from the MIAA, according to the procedures the MIAA has established for submission of requests for waivers. The request for a waiver was accompanied by a letter from the student's therapist, as well as one from the school's director of athletics. The MIAA's assistant executive director denied the application. The school challenged the denial under MIAA Rule 87, which establishes the procedures by which a student may appeal from an adverse eligibility determination to the MIAA's eligibility appeal board (EAB).

In August of 2021, at the beginning of the student's senior year, the EAB held a hearing with five panelists present. Because one of the panelists left during the course of the hearing, the EAB no longer had a quorum. The EAB subsequently held a second hearing on September 7, 2021, with a board composed of five different panelists. At that hearing, the EAB heard testimony from the plaintiff school's athletic director and from the student's father. The EAB also reviewed notes taken by the panelists who had been present at the first hearing, and it considered documentary evidence that had been submitted with the school's application for an exception; these documents included a letter by the school's athletic director and a report by the student's therapist. On September 9, 2021, the EAB unanimously voted to deny the waiver request, and it issued a decision briefly explaining its reasoning.

On September 10, 2021, hours before the school's first football game that season, the school and the student jointly commenced this action in the nature of certiorari in the Superior Court, pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4 ; in their complaint, they also requested injunctive relief enjoining the MIAA from enforcing its decision declaring the student ineligible to participate in interscholastic high school sports for a fifth academic year. The student argued that, if he were unable to play, he would experience substantial harm to his mental health and risk the loss of the progress he had made in his junior year at the school. Following a hearing that day, a Superior Court judge allowed the emergency motion, after he concluded that the plaintiffs had met their burden to demonstrate they were entitled to such an injunction. The judge issued a temporary restraining order, effective for ten days, stating that "[t]he MIAA shall be temporarily restrained from enforcing its decisions denying the eligibility waiver appeal of [the plaintiffs]," and "[the plaintiff student] shall be temporarily allowed to participate in all practices and compete in all interscholastic competitions for the [plaintiff school] football team." A second hearing was held on September 20, 2021, to determine whether a preliminary injunction should issue; in advance of that hearing, the MIAA filed a motion for reconsideration of the issuance of the temporary restraining order. After the second hearing, the judge denied the MIAA's motion for reconsideration and allowed the motion for a preliminary injunction, permitting the temporary restraining order to remain in place. We allowed the MIAA's application for direct appellate review.

2. Discussion. a. Mootness. Because the student participated in his school's interscholastic team sports under the terms of the preliminary injunction while the MIAA's appeal was pending, and the student has now graduated from high school, the plaintiffs ask us to dismiss the matter as moot. Emphasizing a need for clarity concerning the proper standard of review for challenges pursuant to G. L. c. 249, § 4, of its eligibility determinations, the MIAA opposes the request for dismissal. As we do not agree that the matter is moot, and as mootness alone does not necessarily mean that a matter should be dismissed, because it may be "capable of repetition, yet evading review," Seney v. Morhy, 467 Mass. 58, 61, 3 N.E.3d 577 (2014), quoting Wolf v. Commissioner of Pub. Welfare, 367 Mass. 293, 298, 327 N.E.2d 885 (1975), we decline the request that the matter be dismissed as moot.

With respect to the school, MIAA rules allow the MIAA to impose retroactive penalties upon the school. Specifically, MIAA Rule 29.2 provides that "any contest in which an ineligible student or coach participates under court order will be forfeited if the order is dissolved or the plaintiff ultimately fails to prevail." Because enforcement of this rule (which is prohibited under the terms of the preliminary injunction) would have an impact on the school's record of wins and losses for its football and basketball seasons, the school retains a personal stake in the outcome of this litigation. See, e.g., Wiley v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 612 F.2d 473, 475-476 (10th Cir. 1979), cert. denied 446 U.S. 943, 100 S.Ct. 2168, 64 L.Ed.2d 798 (1980) (case was not moot where athletic association's rules allowed it to impose retroactive penalties on plaintiff); Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n., Inc. v. Cade, 51 N.E.3d 1225, 1234-1235 (Ind. App. 2016) (schools retained personal stake in litigation where association could require forfeiture of team records).

With respect to the student, he has completed his senior year in high school and will not be participating further in high school athletics. The record does not indicate that he received any awards or anything else tangible that retroactive enforcement might place at risk of forfeiture. See, e.g., Johnson v. Florida High Sch. Activities Ass'n, Inc., 102 F.3d 1172, 1173 (11th Cir. 1997) (case was moot because "football season and wrestling season [had] concluded with [the student] having participated in football, and he intend[ed] no further participation in high school athletics"; prospect of penalties for school were irrelevant because school was not party in case); Jordan v. Indiana High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc., 16 F.3d 785, 787-789 (7th Cir. 1994) (case dismissed as moot where school was no longer party to litigation, and nothing in record suggested athletic association could take action which "would have any adverse effect of substantial significance" on student); Paige v. Ohio High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, 2013-Ohio-4713, 999 N.E.2d 1211 ¶13 (Ohio App.) (case dismissed as moot as to student because there was "no indication in the record or the parties’ briefs that [the student] set any records or won any awards while participating under the injunction").

Nonetheless, although this student will have no further participation in interscholastic high school sports,³ similar requests for review of MIAA eligibility determinations have been made by other students, and are virtually certain to be filed in the future. See, e.g., Foskett v. Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Ass'n, Mass. Sup....