Federal Judiciary

Litigious Softball Parents Get Beaned by the Seventh

By Robert Loblaw

Springer v. Durflinger, 06-2168 (7^th Cir., Feb. 29, 2008)

I often criticize the Seventh Circuit for being harsh with its sanction power. But here?s one case where sanctions may well be deserved: two sets of parents who made a federal civil rights case out of their disagreement with a high school softball coach.

From the opinion:

The parents told the school officials that they suspected that Coach Whitcomb had been suppressing the skills and abilities of their daughters . . . in order to showcase Whitcomb?s younger sister, Sammi, a pitcher on the team. They accused Whitcomb of doctoring statistics to favor her sister, and complained that Whitcomb had been abusive to umpires, parents, team “boosters,” and players. They felt that Whitcomb was doing a poor job of coaching the team and that she was not a positive role model image for their children. Mr. and Mrs.Collins were particularly upset that their daughter, Katie?the team?s other pitcher?was not selected for Mid-Illini Conference honors, and they blamed Whitcomb for intentionally botching the nomination process.

So, after taking the obvious steps of hiring a lawyer and contacting local media, the parents brought their concerns to the school. But the school decided not to take action against the coach, and in the parents? view, began to retaliate against them. For example, the parents allege that administrators were told not to speak with them, they were not asked to volunteer at various team activities, and they were allegedly misinformed about the starting time for the annual team banquet. The injuries weren?t just psychological: one of their daughters got hit in the head with a softball, which they blamed on the coach.

The disgruntled parents then filed a § 1983 lawsuit, alleging that the coach, the principal, and other administrators violated their First Amendment and Equal Protection rights. They also claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, so the plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit. Bad move. Not only does the Seventh reject their claims as run-of-the-mill occurrences at high schools across the country, but it also orders them to show cause why their should not be required to pay the defendants’ costs and attorney fees. Judge Kanne writes,

[W]e are not at all sympathetic to the parents? appeal. They have never been able to point to one shred of evidence demonstrating retaliation. To insist that there is a genuine issue of material fact in this case is beyond the pale, and an appeal arguing as much is frivolous. The parents may have caught one break from the district court, but we are not inclined to give them another one.

Full post as published by Decision of the Day on February 29, 2008 (boomark / email).