Private School Denies Transfer Student's Request to Participate in Athletics

If you have a question or concern about special education law, school administration, federal standards, or the overall rights of a student, please feel free to call the expert education law attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. in Westport today at (203) 221-3100 .

In the case of Wajnowski v. Connecticut Association of Schools, a student moved for an injunction to prevent his old school from applying the “student transfer rule” of the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference to prevent his from playing basketball for that school upon his transfer from a private school.

Plaintiff, upon transfer to a new school, applied for an exception to defendant's transfer rule, which precluded students transferring from one school to another from playing sports for their new school for 365 days. When plaintiff's request was denied, he sued. Because plaintiff failed to prove any constitutional or statutory violation, the court held that he was not entitled to an injunction. The evidence showed that defendant was a private corporation, not a state actor. Plaintiff had no fundamental right to participate in the basketball program, nor did plaintiff show why defendant's classification of "transfer student" was a suspect class. Under a rational basis review, the court held that defendant's rule restricting the eligibility of transfer students bore a rational relationship to the goals of the organization to promote good sportsmanship, fair competition, and cordial relations among its member schools, and to its specific concerns about recruitment. For clarity, an injunction is a court order that would keep the school from beginning or continuing an action threatening or invading the rights of the student. An injunction could also be used to compel the school to carry out a specific action. The student seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law.

The student, upon transfer to a new school, applied for an exception to the new school’s transfer rule, which precluded students transferring from one school to another from playing sports for their new school for 365 days. When the student’s request was denied, he sued. Because the student failed to prove any constitutional or statutory violation, the court held that he was not entitled to an injunction. The evidence showed that the school was a private corporation, not a state public school. The student had no fundamental right to participate in the basketball program, nor did the student show why the school’s classification of "transfer student" was a suspect class. Under a rational basis review, the court held that the school’s rule restricting the eligibility of transfer students bore a rational relationship to the goals of the organization to promote good sportsmanship, fair competition, and cordial relations among its member schools, and to its specific concerns about recruitment.

The application was denied and judgment was entered for the school, because the student failed to prove any constitutional or statutory violation since the private school was not a state public school, the student had no fundamental right to participate in the basketball program, and the school’s rule restricting the eligibility of transfer students was rationally related to its goals. “Rather than show that the CIAC acts in an arbitrary and capricious manner in applying the rules, it shows that the CIAC is surprisingly consistent in handling such applications” said the court. “Indeed, the review committee's interpretation of the hardship rule could be characterized as uniformly strict. There is simply no evidence that the [private school administrators] were other than conscientious and properly deliberative in arriving at their determinations.”

If you have a child with a disability and have questions about special education law, please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Wajnowski v. Connecticut Ass'n of Schs, 1999 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3448 (Conn. Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 1999)