Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

injunctionmotiondiscriminationcivil rightshuman rights
plaintifflitigationinjunctionmotionwillcivil rights

Related Cases

Bukowski v. Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 298 Wis.2d 246, 2007 WI App 1, 726 N.W.2d 356 (Table), 2006 WL 3437313
View Case »
State ex rel. Hewitt v. Kerr, 461 S.W.3d 798, 126 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1736
View Case »
Lafler v. Athletic Bd. of Control, 536 F.Supp. 104
View Case »
Washington v. Indiana High School Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 181 F.3d 840, 136 Ed. Law Rep. 713, 9 A.D. Cases 804, 15 NDLR P 247
View Case »
Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust, 487 U.S. 977, 108 S.Ct. 2777, 101 L.Ed.2d 827, 47 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 102, 46 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 38,065, 57 USLW 4922
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Neeld v. American Hockey League, 439 F.Supp. 459, 16 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 494, 15 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 7904

Facts

Gregory P. Neeld, who has sight in only one eye, sought a preliminary injunction to play professional hockey in the American Hockey League (AHL). He claimed that the AHL's by-law prohibiting players with such a visual impairment violated the federal Civil Rights Act and New York's Human Rights Law. The court found that denying him the opportunity to play could cause irreparable harm to his career, despite the possibility of monetary compensation if he were wronged. The court also noted that the involvement of municipalities in the AHL's operations was insufficient to establish a federal civil rights claim.

Issue

Whether the denial of an opportunity to play professional hockey due to a visual impairment constitutes a violation of federal and state civil rights laws.

Whether the denial of an opportunity to play professional hockey due to a visual impairment constitutes a violation of federal and state civil rights laws.

Rule

A party seeking a preliminary injunction must demonstrate a likelihood of irreparable harm and either a probability of success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits. Under New York Human Rights Law, blindness is considered a disability, and discrimination based on such a disability is prohibited unless it is shown to be a bona fide occupational qualification.

A party seeking a preliminary injunction, which is inherently an award of extraordinary relief, has a heavy burden to show clearly a possible irreparable harm and either probable success on the merits or sufficiently serious questions going to the merits to make them a fair ground for litigation and a balance of hardships tipping decidedly in his favor.

Analysis

The court analyzed the likelihood of irreparable harm to Neeld's professional career if he were denied the opportunity to play. It concluded that his visual impairment did not automatically disqualify him from playing, and the AHL had not justified its by-law as a bona fide occupational qualification. The court also determined that the state action requirement for a federal civil rights claim was not met, as the involvement of municipalities was insufficient.

The denial to plaintiff of an opportunity to play professional hockey in the AHL will result in the possibility of irreparable harm to plaintiff's professional hockey career. A young athlete's skills diminish and sometimes are irretrievably lost unless he is given an opportunity to practice and refine such skills at a certain level of proficiency.

Conclusion

The court granted the preliminary injunction, allowing Neeld to play in the AHL while the case was pending.

Preliminary injunction granted.

Who won?

Gregory P. Neeld prevailed in his motion for a preliminary injunction. The court recognized the potential irreparable harm to his career if he were not allowed to play, emphasizing that monetary compensation would not adequately remedy the situation. The court also found that Neeld had established a probability of success on the merits regarding his claim under New York's Human Rights Law, as the AHL had not sufficiently justified its discriminatory by-law.

Gregory P. Neeld prevailed in his motion for a preliminary injunction. The court recognized the potential irreparable harm to his career if he were not allowed to play, emphasizing that monetary compensation would not adequately remedy the situation.

You must be