ST. LOUIS _ The mother of a 16-year-old boy at Ladue Horton Watkins High School has sued the school district because her son didn't make the soccer team.
The woman, named in court papers as Jane Doe, filed suit in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. She and the boy's stepfather, who is a lawyer handling the case, wanted a judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the district and put the teen on the junior varsity soccer team.
The woman says her son, a junior who played JV soccer for Ladue last year, tried out for the soccer team in August. He didn't make varsity.
The family accepts that, but they are upset he wasn't then named to the junior varsity team. The family says they were told that juniors aren't put on JV; the district gives preference on JV to freshmen and sophomores who have more years to polish their talents.
The suit says that's age discrimination, and also claims sex discrimination, saying the district historically has let female juniors play on the girls JV team.
"We're not saying put him on varsity; we've never said that," the stepfather says. "We just say put him on junior varsity."
U.S. District Court Judge John A. Ross dealt the family a blow, declining to force the school to put the boy on the JV team this season.
Saying that courts have long held that participation in interscholastic athletics is not a right but a privilege, Ross' ruling adds that the student was not suffering any legal harm.
With the season half over, the student might not be able to play anyway until just before the final game, Ross wrote, because state rules require a minimum number of practices before a player is eligible to play in a game.
While the underlying lawsuit remains, Ross' ruling strikes at the heart of many of the family's arguments.
Ross said that the student's "mother and stepfather's advocacy on behalf of their son is admirable," but said forcing the player onto the team would undermine "the soccer program's legitimate philosophy of prioritizing the development of players with more years of eligibility," as well as invite future lawsuits from others "involving the Court in any of the District's innumerable other extracurricular activities."
The judge's ruling says that even if a student's grade level was used in policy decisions, it would not be unconstitutional. He said he saw no evidence of gender-based discrimination in the way the school's soccer program is run, citing testimony from Dave Aronberg, the head soccer coach.
Reached after Ross' ruling, Eddie Ernst, a Clayton lawyer who is working for the boy's family, said the underlying lawsuit will continue but take a back seat while the family tries to get the board to change its policy. The stepfather is meeting with the School Board, and they are also waiting for the outcome of a federal civil rights investigation, which could take six months.
Ernst said the judge's denial of the temporary restraining order means the player won't be on the team this year, but Ernst said "hopefully we can get the district to change its policy to help him make a team next year."
'WE TOLD HIM TO MAN UP'
In her court filing, the boy's mother asked the judge for permission to identify her son by the pseudonym John Doe because, in "challenging the actions of a popular coach," she feared her son would be subjected to bullying and harassment if people knew his real name. The Post-Dispatch is not naming his stepfather, a lawyer handling the suit, because it would identify the teen.
The boy didn't make any team as a freshman, the stepfather said. He said the family didn't complain then. "We told him to man up and up his game," the lawyer says. "He had to develop his game."
The family hired a private coach for the boy, he joined a St. Louis club team, and he improved, his stepfather said. He was one of the leading scorers on junior varsity last year. The stepfather said he is going to file court papers under seal naming other players who made varsity "with way worse stats" than the boy who was cut.
The coach told the boy's stepfather, in an email filed with the court, that there were 40 students trying out for 24 spots on varsity. The coach lauded John Doe's maturity and said the boy was "right on the bubble," and had some impressive soccer attributes such as "his attacking mentality and straight line speed."
However, the coach went on to say that the boy had a "few holes in his game," including technical ability, and that other kids had better skill and "soccer IQ."
The stepfather said the coach's decision has left the boy humiliated.
"Everyone is under the impression that he is a poor player, and we're a bunch of crybabies," the stepfather said. "But no. He had a successful season last year, and from the statistics, it appears he should have made varsity. This suit is about Ladue refusing to follow the law with respect to age discrimination."
The suit also alleges that the head soccer coach favored students who attended his summer soccer camps and paid him a fee _ something the suit alleges is a "pay-to-play" scheme.
The district says that not everyone who attended the coach's voluntary camp (18 sessions at $15 per session) made a soccer team, and seven students made a team without having attended summer camps.
The family first appealed the coach's ruling to district administrators, who sided with the coach. They then appealed to the superintendent, who also sided with the coach. The family filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights, but the office couldn't force the school to put the boy on a team. So the family turned to federal court.
The boy's stepfather said the problem goes beyond Ladue.
"There are many schools across the country that have this policy that you either make varsity as a junior or you're out of the program," he said. "And that's an illegal policy. If someone said 'Cut all the blacks,' that would be illegal. And it's illegal for age, too."
The stepfather said his firm has already racked up about $100,000 in attorney's fees, as he has been working on the case since August.
