Title: MORGAN v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION

State: oklahoma

Issuer: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Document:

MORGAN v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION  MORGAN v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION 2009 OK 21 207 P.3d 362 Case Number: 106747 Decided: 03/31/2009 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA JOE MORGAN AND DARLA MORGAN as husband and wife, as Parents and Next Friends of SHELBY JO MORGAN, a minor, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. OKLAHOMA SECONDARY SCHOOL ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATION, Defendants/Appellants. ¶0 Appeal from the District Court of Sequoyah County, Honorable Jeff Payton, District Judge. In proceeding brought by student and her parents the trial court entered temporary injunction against Association enjoining it from enforcing its determination that student was ineligible under Association rule to participate in interscholastic varsity sports following transfer to another school. INJUNCTION VACATED AND CAUSE REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS TO ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF ASSOCIATION Mark S. Grossman, Nkem A. Houseworth, Crowe & Dunlevy, Oklahoma City, OK, Susan Elizabeth Huntsman, Crowe & Dunlevy, Tulsa, OK, for defendant/appellant. Frank Sullivan, Jr., Sallisaw, OK, for plaintiffs/appellees. EDMONDSON, C.J. ¶1 The Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (Association) appeals from an order of the trial court restraining the enforcement of Association's "transfer rule" under which high school student-athlete, Shelby Jo Morgan, was declared ineligible to play on the varsity basketball team at Sallisaw High School to which she had transferred. Shelby and her parents, Joe and Darla Morgan (Morgans) sought and were granted injunctive relief from the trial court after the Board of Directors of the Association denied their application for a hardship exception to the rule. The dispositive issue before us is whether the trial court erroneously granted the temporary injunction. We find that it did and we reverse and vacate the order. ¶2 In light of the upcoming state basketball tournament, this Court granted the Association's motions to retain and expedite this appeal as the participation of an ineligible student may result in forfeiture of games, therefore risking harm to other schools as well as to Sallisaw High School, if the injunction were to be reversed. ¶3 The Association is a voluntary unincorporated association comprised of 483 secondary schools within Oklahoma; all public schools, including Sallisaw High School, are members as are many nonpublic schools, both private and religious. The Association was established for the primary purpose of providing effective coordination, leadership, supervision and regulation for secondary school activities, including athletics, for its member schools. The Association has a constitution, and extensive rules and regulations to which all member schools have agreed to be bound. In order to become a member of the Association, a school must file a resolution adopted by the board of education for its district which authorizes the membership and directs the administrative head of that school to comply with the rules, regulations and requirements of the Association. Article VI, Section 4(g) of the Association's Constitution provides that the Board of Directors "shall have the authority to interpret the provisions of the Constitution and the Rules of the Association, as well as the Policies and Procedures adopted by the Board, investigate alleged violations and shall be the final judge as to whether a violation has occurred." ¶4 For athletics, the Association regulates interscholastic competition between schools and, among other things, it sets eligibility rules, establishes athletic divisions and holds state play-offs and championships. The rules of the Association governing athletic eligibility are intended to avoid disruption of academic progress, discourage an overemphasis on athletics to the detriment of other educational concerns, preserve athletic participation opportunities, prevent recruitment of students, and protect students from exploitation. Hardship Manual, IV, p.68. In addition to age and academic requirements, athletic eligibility is established and maintained by residence, which is generally determined by the bona fide residence of the student's parents or legal guardian. Rule 8, at issue here, provides that a student who has established athletic eligibility at a secondary school and then transfers to another school is ineligible for one full school year at the new school. ¶5 In recognition of the fact that some students will be compelled to transfer to other schools by reason of hardships beyond the control of the student or parent, the rules of the Association authorize the Board of Directors to grant exceptions to the application of Rule 8 and to reinstate a student's eligibility upon a finding that circumstances exist where application of the rule would "work an undue hardship on the student, or that the application of the rule would otherwise fail to accomplish the purposes for which it is intended." Rule 8, Sec. 3(a). The rules provide for the Board's establishment of written criteria and procedures for the evaluation and determination of applications submitted for approval of this hardship exception. The particular written criteria established by the Board for granting a hardship exception or waiver to a student-athlete are set out in the Association's Hardship Waiver Manual, Sec. VI (D)(2), pp. 69-70, as follows: (1) A legitimate need to care for seriously ill or infirm relatives. (2) An unstable home environment in which the physical and/or emotional health of the student is at serious risk. (3) A substantial negative change in the financial condition of the parents, or custodial parent or court-appointed guardian with legal custody of the student. (4)Remaining in a school district where the student is established. (5) Placement in a different residence by order of court or a supervising government agency. (6) A professional staff member's recommendation that the student who is undergoing chemical abuse rehabilitation transfer to another school because a program necessary to the student's health or rehabilitation is not available at the student's current school. (7) A sincere desire to continue a course of study, program, or activity in which the student was already actively involved which is not available at any school in the district or area in which the parents, or . . . guardian . . . have established a bona fide residence, or which is no longer available at the student's previous school. (8) An annexation, redistricting, or school closing affecting that student. ¶6 Following each stated criterion, the Manual sets forth a detailed description of the type of documentation and information describing and verifying the student's situation which must be submitted by the student in support of the request based thereon. The Manual additionally provides for the possibility of a hardship waiver to be granted by reason of: (9) Any other circumstance beyond the control of the student which creates an unavoidable hardship for that student. ¶7 Again, the burden is expressly placed on the student and his or her family to demonstrate the existence of a hardship within the intention of the rules, as follows: "Documentation verifying the relevant facts and explaining the impact upon the student in question must be submitted. Consideration will be given only if special circumstances beyond the control of the student create an unavoidable hardship. Exceptions will be a rarity." Id. at 70. ¶8 Additionally, the Hardship Manual expressly provides that a hardship waiver request "will not be considered or approved" where the circumstances are that there is "discontentment with [the] school in which the student's eligibility has been established." Id., Sec. VI(D)(2), at p.71. ¶9 The material facts are not in dispute. In 2008, Shelby Morgan was a junior at Central High School where she played varsity softball and varsity basketball. On February 1, an altercation between her father and a member of the School Board of the Central Public Schools occurred following a game played at another school. Officials from Central High School, including the Superintendent, Max Tanner, as well as officials from the host school district and security officers from that community, ultimately intervened and Mr. and Mrs. Morgan were asked to leave the school. The dispute arose from comments about the basketball coach that Mr. Morgan made to another parent. Shelby was not present during this altercation and she did not cause the problem which arose between the adults that evening. ¶10 As a result of that event, Mr. Tanner asked the Morgans to come to the school for a meeting so they could all discuss the situation and establish standards of conduct that would be required for their attendance at future games, but the Morgans refused to attend the meeting. Mr. Tanner then sent them a letter ordering them to stay off school property and away from school activities, including athletic events. They were advised that they could appeal the superintendent's decision to the school board, but they did not appeal. They followed the directive of the letter and did not attend the next basketball game which was held on February 5. ¶11 At that game, Shelby suited up, but during pregame warm- ups she decided that playing without the support and encouragement of her parents in attendance was too upsetting, and she quit the team before the game started. Although she did not participate in any varsity sports, Shelby continued to attend Central High School for another two months, until she withdrew and transferred to Sallisaw High School on April 4, 2008. At that time, a Hardship Waiver Application was submitted on Shelby's behalf to the Association for reinstatement of her athletic eligibility, which relied on the general provision of section VI(A)(9) in the Hardship Manual of a "circumstance beyond the control of the student which creates an unavoidable hardship for that student." ¶12 While those material facts set forth above are not controverted, the underlying factual circumstances surrounding the February 1 altercation and its aftermath - who was at fault, who said what to whom and when, who did what during and after the arguments, who did or did not try to resolve this matter before it got out of hand, etc., - are disputed and that dispute has been the focus and substance of the Morgans' efforts before the Association and of this subsequent judicial action. ¶13 In a letter submitted in support of Shelby's Hardship Application, Mr. Morgan contended that the situation involving the administration of Central High School and himself and his wife came within the rule because it was a circumstance "beyond the student's control." In regard to that situation, he complained that the administration had overreacted and acted beyond its authority in issuing its letter banning them from school property and athletic events, and he stated that the letter had caused Shelby emotional turmoil and stressful hardships which had affected her academically and athletically, resulting in her nonparticipation in athletics at Central High School. ¶14 The Association denied the hardship waiver by letter dated May 14, 2008, for failure to submit information which met the criteria for eligibility, and Shelby was advised that she could participate only in non-varsity athletics until the one-year ineligibility period was over. In September, 2008, the Morgans appealed to the Board of Directors and hearing was held before the Board on September 10, 2008, in which Shelby and her parents testified and offered evidence in support of their position that the altercation was not started by the fault of Mr. Morgan and that the superintendent acted unfairly in his resolution of the situation. Additionally, Mr. Morgan and Shelby testified that they had been unhappy previously with the Central High School basketball coach who was the also the softball coach. The Board denied their appeal. ¶15 The Morgans then sought an order from the District Court of Sequoyah County restraining the Association from enforcing of its ruling that Shelby was ineligible to participate in varsity athletics at Sallisaw High School. That court issued a temporary restraining order and, after subsequent hearing, issued the temporary injunction against the Association which is on appeal here. ¶16 The Association maintains that a student's participation in interscholastic athletics is not a right but a mere privilege which is subject to the eligibility rules promulgated by the Association , and that the determination of the proper application and enforcement of those rules and their exceptions should be made by the Association, not the courts. ¶17 We agree. It is fundamental that voluntary unincorporated associations such as the Oklahoma Secondary School Association, through their members, are free to adopt rules that govern their interaction and that they are free to enforce those rules without undue interference by the courts. It is provided at 6 Am. Jur. 2nd , Associations and Clubs, sec. 27, that: "As a general rule, courts refrain from interfering in the internal affairs of voluntary associations, and unless the property or pecuniary rights of member are involved, the decisions of the tribunals of an association with respect to its internal affairs will, in the absence of mistake, fraud, illegality, collusion, or arbitrariness, be accepted by the courts as conclusive. " ¶18 We have long upheld the requirement of judicial deference to the actions of the Association in the exercise of its authority to establish and enforce its rules controlling students' athletic eligibility. See Morrison v. Roberts, ¶19 In Brown, we stated: "Regarding judicial interference with a voluntary association, we have long abided by the general rule that the courts should not intervene except to ascertain whether association proceedings are conducted pursuant to the rules and laws of the organization, in good faith and lawfully. Absent fraudulent, collusive, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious behavior, this Court may not overturn a voluntary association's enforcement of its rules. We may not interject ourselves into the Association's internal affairs if the rules are reasonable, lawful, in keeping with public policy and are interpreted fairly and reasonably and enforced uniformly and not arbitrarily." Id. at 1224. ¶20 In Morrison v. Roberts, The courts generally should leave the final authority in the athletic official or board, with whom that authority is placed by those who had authority to make the rules and authorize the method of application and enforcement. The plaintiff has many rights as a citizen and as a high school student, but he has no vested right in "eligibility" as dealt with at such great length in the rules of the Oklahoma High School Athletic Association. The defendant board of control was clothed with ample authority to so construe, apply, and enforce this rule, with its specific provision for "ineligibility" for one year. These rules are subject to change if the member schools desire a change. This may be done at the annual meeting or by referendum vote according to specific provision. But so long as these member schools . . . desire to attach all of these many conditions, limitations, and restrictions on their "eligibles," then surely they should be permitted to do it, so far as the courts are concerned. There is nothing unlawful or evil in any of those rules nor in the provision resting final authority in the board of control. Surely the schools themselves should know better than anyone else the rules under which they want to compete with each other in athletic events. And doubtless every one of these rules is founded upon reasons wholly satisfactory to the member schools. And if the officials of the various high schools desire to maintain membership in the association, and to vest final rule enforcement authority in the board of control, then, so far as affects the affairs of the association, the courts should not interfere. Id. at 1025. ¶21 The standard of review for the issuance of a temporary injunction is whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a decision against the evidence. Brown, 125 P.2d at 1225. There is no evidence of fraud or collusion or of action by the Association that was unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious. The Morgans were not entitled to injunctive relief and the trial court abused its discretion by intruding into the affairs of the Association. The trial court erred in granting the injunction. Under the above authorities, the Association must be allowed to enforce its rules and orders without undue interference by the courts. The injunction is vacated and the matter is reversed with instructions to enter judgment for the Association. ¶22 EDMONDSON, C.J., TAYLOR, V.C.J., OPALA, WATT, WINCHESTER, COLBERT, JJ. - Concur ¶23 HARGRAVE, KAUGER, REIF, JJ. - Dissent OPALA, J., with whom Taylor, V.C.J. and Winchester, J., join, concurring ¶1 At issue here is the correctness of the trial court's action by temporarily enjoining the defendant (a school association) from enforcing against a high school student athlete its rule under whose terms the athlete became ineligible to play on the Sallisaw High School's basketball team. ¶2 The legal propriety of a district court decision that either sustains or sets aside a ruling by a voluntary school association is reviewed in an appellate court by applying the standard most recently announced in Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Assn., KAUGER, J., with whom Hargrave, Reif, JJ., join, dissenting: ¶1 The issue presented is whether the trial court abused its discretion in granting a temporary injunction precluding the Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association (the OSSAA) from denying an athlete the opportunity to play varsity basketball and softball her senior year. Because, under the facts presented, FACTS ¶2 The majority neglects to start from the very beginning with the catalyst which precipitated this lawsuit. While some of the precise details of the events are presented in a "he said, he said, she said" fashion, the majority of the facts are undisputed -- at least to the extent that a clear picture of what happened is presented. ¶3 On Friday, February 1, 2008, Shelby Jo Morgan (Shelby), a high school junior at Central High School in Sequoyah County, was playing basketball at the Boynton High School gymnasium. Her parents, the appellees, Joe and Darla Morgan (father/mother, collectively parents), attended that game just as they had attended every other game of her career. ¶4 The father expressed disappointment both in the outcome of the game and with the performance of the coach. In his own words, he said, "(O)ur coach sucks." ¶5 This is the event which precipitated this entire dispute. Nowhere in the record are these facts disputed. They are argued to be unknown by some, or irrelevant by others, but not disputed. It is, however, at this point that the Rashomon effect kicked in ¶6 Apparently, the situation did not rise to the level of a physical altercation because no punches were thrown. Nevertheless, it is undisputed that fingers were pointed and arms were grabbed. ¶7 On Monday, February 4, 2008, the superintendent phoned the father and directed him to come to his office to discuss the Friday night events. The superintendent also informed the father that he had "terms" regarding both parents ability to attend any future games. Once again, differing versions of exactly what was said during the conversation are presented. According to the father, he refused to meet with the superintendent unless five school board members and his attorney or a witness were present -- and the superintendent told him "that ain't going to happen." ¶8 The next day, the father received a letter from the superintendent dated February 4, 2008, which informed him that because he and his wife interfered with the peaceful conduct of activities at the school district, they were banned from all school premises including all activities and all sanctioned events. The next day Shelby suited up for another ball game, but after deciding she could not stand to watch the superintendent walk up and down the sidelines if her parents could not be there to support her, she turned in her uniform and quit the team. ¶9 The Oklahoma Secondary Schools Activities Association (the Association/ OSSAA), an association in which both Central Schools and Sallisaw Schools are members, provides rules which govern student transfers from one school to another. Under the rules, when an athletically eligible student transfers to another school, the student is prohibited from playing varsity sports for one year after the transfer -- unless a hardship waiver is obtained. (9) Any other circumstances beyond the control of the student which create an unavoidable hardship for that student. The rule also requires that: Documentation verifying the relevant facts and explaining the impact upon the student in question must be submitted. Consideration will be given only if special circumstances beyond the control of the student create an unavoidable hardship. Exceptions will be a rarity. ¶10 The Hardship Manual provides that a hardship waiver request "will not be considered or approved" where the circumstances are that there is "discontentment with the schools in which the student's eligibility has been established. ¶11 The hardship waiver process clearly adopts the due process provisions of the OSSAA's Constitution because the "Request for OSSAA Hardship Eligibility Clarification" form provides in bold lettering that "SHOULD THIS HARDSHIP BE DENIED, DUE PROCESS RIGHTS AND PROCEDURES CAN BE FOUND BY REFERRING TO THE OSSAA ADMINISTRATORS' HANDBOOK UNDER CONSTITUTION SECTION 6." ¶12 The school, the parents, and Shelby requested a hardship waiver from the OSSAA when Shelby transferred to Sallisaw. On the waiver form, they checked "yes" to the question: "Were you suspended, expelled, or under discipline at the previous school attend, or were you or your parents having a conflict with a coach, teacher, or administrator at the time you left your previous school?" They also included documentation explaining that a "situation" had taken place at the ball game on February 1, 2008, between the parents and the Central School administration in which the student was not present or involved, and which was beyond the student's control. They also explained that the "situation" resulted in the parents being banned from the school. ¶13 On May 14, 2008, the application for hardship was denied with no reason for the denial given to either the school, the parents, or to Shelby. The parents were notified that Shelby was ineligible to play varsity sports at Sallisaw, but that she could play junior varsity sports at Sallisaw. Because colleges had expressed interest in Shelby's athletic abilities, the parents appealed to the OSSAA's Board of Directors. ¶14 A hearing was held at the Board's monthly meeting on September 10, 2008. After the hearing ended, the Board denied the parents' appeal without explanation. The parents' attorney was not able to attend the hearing due to a scheduling conflict, but the attorney did call Danny Rennels, the Executive Secretary of the OSSAA (Executive Secretary), before the hearing. He also sent follow up letters and a statement from Sutherland, the other man present in the restroom, who corroborated the father's story that he did not initiate or cause the February 1, 2008, confrontation. There is no transcript of that hearing included in the record. ¶15 On October 1, 2008, the parents filed a petition in the District Court of Sequyah County seeking a temporary restraining order and/or temporary injunction to preclude the OSSAA from enforcing its decision regarding Shelby. The district judge issued a temporary restraining order on October 2, 2008, to restrain the OSSAA from enforcing its decision. A hearing on the temporary injunction was held on October 20, 2008. After the hearing, the trial judge ordered that Shelby be allowed to play ball. The order was filed on January 22, 2009, and the OSSAA appealed the matter to this Court on January 22, 2009. ¶16 THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE ITS DISCRETION IN OVERTURNING THE OSSAA'S DECISION UNDER THE FACTS PRESENTED BECAUSE: 1) THE OSSAA'S INTERPRETATION OF ITS HARDSHIP EXCEPTION IS UNREASONABLE; 2) THE OSSAA'S DECISION WAS ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS; AND 3) THE OSSAA ACTED IN VIOLATION OF ITS OWN DUE PROCESS RULES AND PROCEDURES. ¶17 The OSSAA argues that the decision to deny Shelby's hardship request was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious and thus, the trial court was without authority to interfere with the enforcement of its own rules. The parents counter that: 1) the OSSAA failed to reasonably interpret its own rules; 2) the proceedings were fraught with injustice; and 3) the decision was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. A. The "voluntary" Oklahoma School Secondary Athletics Association. ¶18 The OSSAA refers to itself as a "voluntary association responsible for regulating interscholastic competition between public and certain private secondary schools in Oklahoma." The majority characterizes the OSSAA as "voluntary" as well. This Court has previously referred to the OSSAA as "voluntary." In Brown v. Oklahoma Secondary School Activities Association, The Association is made up of schools who voluntarily apply for membership. One of its purposes is to promote high standards of good sportsmanship. With member input, the Association adopts rules governing the interaction between the Association and the membership. Member schools are presumed to acquiesce in the rules and in the constitutional provision vesting final authority as to whether a rule violation occurs in the Board of Directors. ¶19 While the term "voluntary" is used in our prior decisions -- for students --the term is a misnomer. A school is required be a member of the OSSAA to participate in state-wide interscholastic athletic events. Students who want to be involved in athletics and who might even choose athletics as a career are required to be bound by the OSSAA rules and procedures if their school is a member and if they want to play sports. In this sense, it is not truly "voluntary" as the term suggests. ¶20 Nevertheless, the general rule is that the courts should not intervene in the affairs of such associations, except to ascertain whether association proceedings are conducted pursuant to the rules and laws of the organization, in good faith and lawfully. Absent fraudulent, collusive, unreasonable, arbitrary or capricious behavior, this Court may not overturn a voluntary association's enforcement of its rules. ¶21 The standard of review imposed for the issuance of a temporary injunction is similar -- whether the trial court abused its discretion or entered a decision against the evidence. B. The OSSAA violated its own Due Process Rules and Procedure and effectively admitted that the decision regarding Shelby was arbitrary and capricious. ¶22 We need not address the nature of Shelby's minimal due process rights as a student in these proceedings. Although the OSSAA guarantees due process in hardship proceedings, it failed to follow its constitutional provision. The Request for OSSAA Hardship Eligibility Clarification requires the application of the OSSAA's constitutional due process provisions which provide for: 1) an impartial investigation; 2) proper notification; and 3) an opportunity for the students and parents to meet with the investigator. ¶23 Here, Amy Cassell, an assistant at the OSSAA who processed Shelby's request (assistant), testified that she routinely reads the waiver documentation, asks questions of either school, if necessary, and then recommends to her superiors whether the waiver should be denied. In Shelby's case, because the form indicated that the parents had been involved in a dispute at the school, the assistant contacted the superintendent from Central High School -- Mr. Tanner, the one who was directly involved in the altercation -- to further inquire as to the nature of the dispute. After learning that the parents would not meet one-on-one with the superintendent, she recommended denial of the waiver. ¶24 The assistant did not contact Shelby or the parents because, as she testified, she does not work for the parents -- she works for schools. ¶25 The assistant forwarded her recommendation to her superior, who in turn, forwarded the recommendation to Executive Secretary. The Executive Secretary denied the application for the same reason as the assistant -- because the father did not meet one-on-one with the superintendent. That was the only reason for the denial, which had nothing to do with Shelby directly. ¶26 Nowhere in the OSSAA's rules is it stated that a reason to deny a hardship application is because the student quit the team or solely because of the parent's neglect in seeking a resolution of a conflict in a certain manner. ¶27 According to the testimony of the Executive Secretary, the purposes of the transfer rule and the objectives of the OSSAA are not to place an overemphasis on athletics or to have students move merely to seek a better coach, better opportunity, or better team. The rule serves two purposes: 1) to prevent recruitment of athletes; ¶28 In violation of its own due process guarantees provided by §6 of its Constitution, CONCLUSION ¶29 Shelby played by the rules. The OSSAA did not. The rules require an impartial investigation. No such investigation was done. [Only one phone call was made -- to the Superintendent who was involved in the dispute.] The OSSAA did not learn that the Superintendent was involved in the dispute until the matter came before the board hearing. The rules require proper notification. No notice was given. The parents did not learn the actual reason for the denial of the hardship application until the matter came before the trial court. The rules require an opportunity to meet with the investigator. This never happened. ¶30 It is disturbing that an association which sets forth rules to promote good sportsmanship totally ignored the rules it adopted -- the rules of the game. The trial judge was right when he said to Shelby at the conclusion of the hearing: "The reality of it is, though, you didn't do anything wrong. You need to play ball. They should be ashamed of themselves because you're not playing ball where you want to play ball." An arbitrary and capricious decision was reached, not by the trial court, but by the OSSAA. I would affirm the trial court. FOOT