12 Feb Contrast the antitrust issues found in professional sport decisions with those found in the collegiate sport decisions

CASE STUDIES

Case 9.1 After three years of coaching on the field from a wheelchair, Coach Smith was distressed when the Little League Baseball administration adopted a new policy banning wheelchair-bound coaches from on-field coaching. Although the Little League did not offer any evidence of the presence of an on-field wheelchair-bound coach creating a danger to players, the Little League made that claim. Although the ADA does not require a public accommodation (Title III) such as the Little League to permit a disabled person to participate when their participa-tion poses a direct threat to the health or safety of others, the Court rejected the Little League’s unsupported argument about the danger. Do you agree with the court’s decision? Why? Cre-ate a more compelling argument on the side of the Little League and then create a compelling argument on the side of the coach. [Adapted from Anderson v. Little League Baseball, Inc. 794 F. Supp. 342 (1992)]

Case 9.2 Jan was an exceptional basketball player. Several Division I colleges offered Jan “full-ride” scholarships, including Best Big Time Sport Public University (BBTSPU). Jan accepted BBTSPU’s offer and moved to campus. Just before the season started, all of BBTSPU’s var-sity athletes underwent an annual physical examination. Because there was a medical school on campus, the examination was quite rigorous. Jan’s examination discovered a serious heart defect that did not affect Jan’s day-to-day life but which might be a life-threatening problem during strenuous exertion such as might occur in a Division I basketball program. The director of athletics, fearful that Jan’s health might be compromised, refused to allow

Jan to join the basketball team and instead proposed that Jan serve as the official scorekeeper for the team. After reading Knapp v. Northwestern University, 101 F 3d 473 (7th Cir. 1996), which dealt with a similar case but which was based on the Rehabilitation Act rather than the ADA, Jan sued under Title II of the ADA. Title II of the ADA is based on section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. In order to be successful, Jan would need to show the elements required for an ADA Title II claim that are:

Jan was a qualified individual with a disability,

Jan was “otherwise qualified” (qualified except for the disability) for the activity of Divi-sion I basketball,

Jan was denied participation on the team solely because of the heart defect (disability), and

that the athletic program at BBTSPU is a public entity.

Which of the four elements would be most difficult for Jan to prove? (Hint: Is Jan actu-ally disabled?) Consider whether playing basketball is a major life function compared with walking, breathing, eating, etc. See Chapter 5 for more details.

Case 9.3 Samantha had more education, experience, and success than Sam, the coach of the boys’ high school basketball team. Sam arrived at the program with a higher salary than Samantha’s from his prior employer and Sam demanded his prior salary, plus an increase of $5,000 be-cause he and his wife had just adopted twin boys. The school met Sam’s requests. Additionally, the school gave Sam the title of assistant athletics director in addition to his job as basketball coach, but Sam has no duties to perform relating to his assistant AD title. Samantha feels frus-trated and cheated. There are several male coaches of boys’ teams who make less than Saman-tha. What legal options does Samantha have?