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

plaintiffdefendantinjunctionmotionwilldiscrimination
plaintiffinjunctionmotiondiscrimination

Related Cases

Howley v. Town of Stratford, 217 F.3d 141, 83 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 293, 78 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 40,120
View Case »
Thomas v. University of Pittsburgh, Not Reported in F.Supp.3d, 2014 WL 3055361
View Case »
Bryant v. Gardner, 587 F.Supp.2d 951, 240 Ed. Law Rep. 147
View Case »
Doe v. TCI Cablevision of Missouri, Not Reported in S.W.3d, 2002 WL 1610972, 30 Media L. Rep. 2409
View Case »
Champions Golf Club, Inc. v. The Champions Golf Club, Inc., 78 F.3d 1111, 38 U.S.P.Q.2d 1161, 1996 Fed.App. 0094P
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Starego v. New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Ass’n, 970 F.Supp.2d 303, 302 Ed. Law Rep. 998

Facts

Anthony Starego, an autistic student-athlete, was denied a waiver by the New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association (NJSIAA) to play a fifth year of high school football due to age and eligibility rules. His parents filed an ADA action seeking to enjoin the NJSIAA's decision, arguing that Anthony's participation in football was crucial for his development. The NJSIAA concluded that granting the waiver would provide an unfair advantage and pose safety risks. The court had to determine whether the denial constituted discrimination under the ADA.

Issue

Did the NJSIAA's denial of a waiver for Anthony Starego to play a fifth year of high school football constitute discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Did the NJSIAA's denial of a waiver for Anthony Starego to play a fifth year of high school football constitute discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act?

Rule

To prevail on a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must demonstrate that they have a disability, are otherwise qualified to participate in the program, were denied benefits due to their disability, and that the defendant is a public entity. Additionally, a party seeking a preliminary injunction must show a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, that the relief will not harm the non-moving party, and that the public interest favors such relief.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the NJSIAA's decision to deny the waiver was discriminatory under the ADA. It found that while the NJSIAA's rules were intended to maintain fairness in competition, the individualized inquiry required by the ADA was not adequately applied. The court noted that Anthony's role as a place kicker posed minimal safety risks and that he had meaningfully participated in the football program for four years. The court concluded that the NJSIAA's findings did not warrant substantial deference, as they lacked the necessary expertise to determine Anthony's impact on the game.

The Association first noted that Anthony is six foot two inches and 190 pounds, and therefore his age and size may pose a safety risk to other players on the football field in the event that Anthony may be forced to recover fumbled snaps or blocked kicks, which would lead to unanticipated contact. First and foremost, as the record reflects, as a place kicker, Anthony is in a non-contact role in a contact sport; consequently, the likelihood that Anthony would be engaged in any type of contact would be minimal.

Conclusion

The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that Anthony had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of his ADA claim.

For the reasons set forth below, I reach the difficult decision to deny Plaintiffs' motion, because under the strictures of the ADA, Anthony has received the equal opportunity and access to play football, as he meaningfully participated in Brick's football program for four consecutive years.

Who won?

The New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association prevailed in this case as the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Anthony Starego did not meet the burden of proving that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his ADA claim, as he failed to show that his ineligibility was based on his disabilities. The court emphasized that the NJSIAA's rules were designed to ensure fair competition and that the denial of the waiver did not constitute discrimination under the ADA.

The New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association prevailed in this case as the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that Anthony Starego did not meet the burden of proving that he was likely to succeed on the merits of his ADA claim, as he failed to show that his ineligibility was based on his disabilities.

You must be