Illinois Supreme Court hears public accommodation sports case
(The Center Square) – The Illinois Supreme Court is reviewing a case involving a 15-year-old hockey player who was barred from competing on this ice due to her depression.
The case centers around Team Illinois Hockey, who was approached by a player that told the coaches she was dealing with depression. The team, in response, asked her parents to provide a doctor’s note and suspended her from competing until one was provided.
A circuit court ruled in favor of the team but was later overturned by an appellate court that said the team violated the state’s Human Rights Act and Public Discrimination Act.
Tim Elliott, who argued on behalf of the team, said the appellate court’s decision was incorrect because Team Illinois does not own the ice arena.
“The Schumacher School second grade party might have the ice from 5 to 6, then another team might come on from 6 to 8, then you might have some other organization,” Elliott argued. “There is no allegation, or could there be in this case, that Team Illinois controls access to 7 Bridges [Ice Arena]? It just doesn’t.”
Charlie Wysong, who represents the player and her family in this case, argued what happened to his client is discrimination.
“Team Illinois barred [the player] from skating on the ice rink at 7 Bridges because she had depression, while the other players were allowed to skate on the ice rink at 7 Bridges,” Wysong said. “That is the definition of discrimination.”
Elliott said requesting a doctor’s note is not discrimination.
“Simply asking to provide a doctor’s note to show that she can safely participate, if that is a discriminatory act, then [the player’s] remedy is to go to the General Assembly and get some new statute because it is not an act of public accommodations discrimination,” Elliott said.
In response, Wysong said this case is not a doctor’s note.
“If you look at the complaint, the problem with Team Illinois is they say that you need a doctor’s note that attests you can participate 100% in every game, every activity, every dinner, every part of this program and you can’t come back till you attest to that,” Wysong said. “That was an illegal standard which was never imposed on any other player. It is discrimination.”
The Supreme Court took the case under advisement.
