Grube v. Grube v. Bethlehem Area Bethlehem Area School DistrictSchool District

United States District Court, Eastern District of United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 1982 550 F.Supp 418Pennsylvania, 1982 550 F.Supp 418

Nicola MoxeyNicola Moxey

MED 6490MED 6490

February 23, 2010February 23, 2010

FactsFacts

Student has one kidney and has Student has one kidney and has been denied participation on school been denied participation on school football teamfootball team

Plaintiff asserts he has been Plaintiff asserts he has been discriminated against in violation of discriminated against in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Plaintiff asserts he has also been Plaintiff asserts he has also been deprived his Fourteenth Amendment deprived his Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protectionright to equal protection

Section 504Section 504

As amended provides: “No otherwise As amended provides: “No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in qualified handicapped individual in the U.S. shall, solely by reason of his the U.S. shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial activity receiving Federal financial assistance”assistance”

HoldingHolding

Plaintiff has been deprived and Plaintiff has been deprived and important right guaranteed by federal important right guaranteed by federal legislation.legislation.

Court concluded that no injury is likely Court concluded that no injury is likely to result to defendant or public interest to result to defendant or public interest by granting relief. The plaintiff’s are by granting relief. The plaintiff’s are willing to take responsibility for the willing to take responsibility for the decision they have reached. decision they have reached.

The motion for preliminary injunction The motion for preliminary injunction will be granted.will be granted.

Kampmeier v. NyquistKampmeier v. Nyquist

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit considered an appeal from the preliminary considered an appeal from the preliminary injunction sought on the behalf of children injunction sought on the behalf of children with one eye who were barred from with one eye who were barred from participation in their school’s contact participation in their school’s contact sports program. Decision was based on sports program. Decision was based on school physician’s opinion. The plaintiff’s school physician’s opinion. The plaintiff’s presented little evidence and therefore the presented little evidence and therefore the court concluded that the lack of evidence court concluded that the lack of evidence was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. The was fatal to the plaintiff’s claim. The school district’s action could NOT be said school district’s action could NOT be said to lack “substantial justification”!to lack “substantial justification”!

Poole v. South Plainfield BOEPoole v. South Plainfield BOE

Plaintiff was a high school student with Plaintiff was a high school student with one kidney who was barred from his one kidney who was barred from his school’s wrestling team. The school school’s wrestling team. The school system’s medical director advised that it system’s medical director advised that it was inadvisable to permit a student with was inadvisable to permit a student with one kidney to participate in contact one kidney to participate in contact sports. The student refuted with his own sports. The student refuted with his own medical expert witnesses. The student medical expert witnesses. The student was permitted to wrestle….LIFE HAS was permitted to wrestle….LIFE HAS RISKS! RISKS!

SignificanceSignificance

Case by case basis Case by case basis