ETHS Runner With Disability Loses Appeal In IHSA Lawsuit

EVANSTON, IL — A federal appeals court upheld a judge's denial of an Evanston Township High School senior's request to create a para-ambulatory division for athletes at the state track meet. A panel of judges on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld last year's decision by U.S. John J. Tharp, Jr. to throw out a case brought by the father of a Paralympic athlete on behalf of his son.

Tharp's opinion, issued last April, found that Holzmueller "could not show that the alleged discrimination had occurred on the basis or by reason of his disability," the court wrote. Tharp also concluded that even if Holzmueller had presented evidence of such discrimination, he was asking for unreasonable accommodations, under the law, because they would "fundamentally alter the nature of the IHSA’s track and field competitions."

IHSA, the state's high school athletic association, has a para-ambulatory division at swim meets and a wheelchair division at its track and field meets, but it does not have a division for runners like Holzmueller at the two major track meets it operates — the Sectional meet and the State championship meet.

Keith Holzmueller had sought an injunction in federal court last February against the Illinois High School Association, saying the state athletic association had violated his son's federal disability and constitutional protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act.

His 17-year-old son, Aaron, has cerebral palsy. Referred to as "A.H." in court documents, he has competed at the U.S. Paralympic Trials he is "considered an elite athlete within the disabled athletic community," according to the court. But he has not been able to meet qualifying times for the State championship.

» Federal Judge Rejects ETHS Athlete's Requests For Disability Accommodations

Two of the three judges on the appellate court agreed that adjusting the qualifying times for the State championship by creating a new division of runners would "fundamentally alter the essential nature" of the meets.

The proposed times would "assure" that Holzmueller qualifies for State. He "clearly seeks an accommodation that would make him competitive and allow him to achieve results he currently cannot achieve," they wrote.

The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA do not require the IHSA to alter the fundamental nature of their track and field events. Therefore, A.H.'s accommodation requests are unreasonable as a matter of law.

A.H. currently has the opportunity to compete in the Sectionals meet in order to qualify for State, as well as an opportunity to compete for a medal in the Road Race. The IHSA guarantees A.H. this equality of opportunity, and by all accounts, A.H., his teammates, and coaches have benefitted tremendously from his participation on the track and field team. However, the IHSA is not required under federal law to guarantee A.H. the results he desires from those opportunities.

But one member of the three-judge panel, Ilana Rovner, disagreed. In her dissent, comparing Holzmueller's situation to that of a female athlete prior to the enaction of Title IX to ensure equal athletic opportunity:

I wholeheartedly reject the notion that allowing separate divisions for women and disabled persons somehow 'undermines the competitiveness' of a sporting event or denigrates the accomplishments of elite male athletes. This is akin to saying that allowing women to run in Olympic track events, where the qualifying times are lower, 'undermines the competitiveness' of the men’s Olympic track events.

As A.H. argued, 'under IHSA’s theory, allowing Serena Williams to play tennis at Wimbledon or Katie Ladecky to swim at the Olympics would somehow ‘strip’ those competitions of their identity and prestige, devaluing the achievements of Roger Federer and Michael Phelps.'

In response to the opinion, IHSA Executive Director Craig Anderson released the following statement:

The Illinois High School Association’s history is one of inclusion, as we have been successful in creating participation opportunities for millions of Illinois high school students, in both sports and activities, for over 100 years. The bedrock of the IHSA is that we are a member-governed Association, and we believe this ruling reinforces the foundation that our member schools, and not courts, should dictate the Association’s mission and offerings. This ruling does not summarily prevent the IHSA from considering adding any future participation opportunities, instead, it simply emphasizes that we have successful procedures and protocols in place for our member schools to enact change as they see fit.

The Holzmueller family said it was open to appealing again to the U.S. Supreme Court, even though it likely be decided too late to benefit Aaron, according to the Chicago Tribune. Their attorney told the paper the force of the dissenting opinion on the case suggested there was a chance of success.

Read the complete Feb. 2 opinion and dissent from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: