FindLaw | Legal News & Information

In another case involving the court which handed down the Casey Martin decision (found in You Make the Call. . ., Vol. 1, Iss. 1), the United States District Court for the District of Oregon was met with a challenge by a disabled high school student-athlete who claimed that an association age limitation rule violated the ADA.

Adam Bingham was an eighteen year old student who was forced to repeat tenth grade as a result of his disability, Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). An Oregon School Activities Association (OSAA) eight semester rule barred him from playing on the football team in his ninth and tenth semester in school. As a result, Bingham sued for an injunction allowing him to participate, claiming that the rule violated the ADA by barring him from participation due to his disabled status.

The court initially found it clear that he was disabled and that his disability "substantially limits" his ability to fulfill the "major life activity" of learning. Id. at 1115. The court then pointed out that the OSAA, as made up of public and private schools, was expressly subject to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a), as a place of public accommodation under Title III. The court also noted that athletics and other extracurricular activities were part of the goods and accommodations offered by such schools to their students, therefore, the OSAA rule could not be used to discriminate against a disabled student-athlete. Id.

As to Bingham's claim that giving him a fifth year of eligibility was a "reasonable" accommodation by OSAA, taking into account his disability, the court initially noted that the OSAA had granted such waivers in the past. The court then explained that the purpose of the rule, encouraging students to graduate in four years, would not be frustrated if the student's failure to graduate in this time was caused by his disabled status. Id. at 1116.

The court then shifted to OSAA's arguments as to why the rule would fundamentally alter the athletics' programs provided. The court admitted that a true analysis of this argument could only take place at trial and did not want to address the issue at the motion stage. Id. at 1116-1117.

OSAA focused on the possible penalties Bingham's high school would suffer if OSAA were forced to punish the school, after a subsequent court addressing the issue had determined that the rule was valid and that a waiver of the rule for Bingham was not proper. In response to this possible problem the court enjoined OSAA from ever penalizing Bingham's high school as a result of such a waiver. And in its ruling the court granted Bingham a preliminary injunction prohibiting OSAA from applying the rule to him, as a reasonable accommodation under Title III of the ADA.

Top of Page

You Make the Call. . . Index

Copyright © 1999 -- All rights reserved.