Federal Judiciary

Divided Tenth Rejects Suit to Treat Paralympians the Same as Olympians

By Robert Loblaw

Hollonbeck v. United States Olympic Committee, 07-1053 (10^th Cir., Jan. 16, 2008)

Seven years ago, the Supreme Court issued a highly controversial decision requiring the PGA to allow disabled golfers to use a cart to get from one shot to another. Now, disabled athletes have another battle to fight: they want the United States Olympic Committee to provide the same support and training to wheelchair bound athletes training for the Paralympics that it provides for Olympic hopefuls.

The USOC is a federally chartered corporation whose statutory mission is to “obtain . . . the most competent amateur representation” for our nation in the Olympics, the Paralympics, and the Pan American Games. To that end, the USOC provides a variety of grants and benefits as part of its Athlete Support Program, including tuition assistance and health insurance. But these benefits are only available to athletes who plan to compete in the Olympics or Pan-Am Games. The USOC does not provide this level of support to Paralympic prospects.

So a group of wheelchair racers sued, arguing that the USOC?s Athlete Support Program violated the Rehabilitation Act (a variation on the Americans With Disabilities Act that applies to the federal government). The district court dismissed this claim, and a divided Tenth Circuit affirms.

The plaintiffs argued that because the USOC is charged with providing support for athletes in all three games, it is discriminating against disabled athletes by excluding Paralympic prospects from the Athlete Support Program. But the majority rejects this argument, concluding that there is no requirement that the USOC provide the same opportunities for competitors in each of the three events. Instead, it finds that the USOC is acting within its discretion by limiting its benefits to competitors in the Olympics or Pan-Am Games, and this limitation does not on its face discriminate against disabled athletes. Moreover, the Rehabilitation Act only applies to individuals who are “otherwise qualified” for a benefit but for their disability. The plaintiffs are not “otherwise qualified” because they are not good enough to compete in the Olympics or Pan Am Games.

Judge Holloway dissents, arguing that this circular logic is masking a clearly discriminatory policy. He concludes that the USOC is treating disabled athletes as second class citizens in violation of its statutory mission and in violation of the Rehabilitation Act. But Holloway?s “emphatic” dissent is not enough to sway his former law clerk Jerome Holmes, who joins Judge Kelly?s majority opinion.

It is important to note that the USOC has a strong defense on the merits: 42% of our country?s parathletes won medals in the summer Paralympcs in 2000 and 75% won medals in the winter Paralympics in 2002, while only 16% of our Olympic athletes medaled during the same time period. Arguably, the USOC is doing a much better job of obtaining the most competent amateur representation when it comes to parathletes.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on January 19, 2008 (boomark / email).