Lawsuit- Interscholastic athletics are an integral part of the public education system and programs of South Carolina. Interscholastic athletics promote, support, and enrich the educational experience of public school students and foster positive relationships within the local school communities. Every public high school receives and expends public funds and resources to provide and support interscholastic athletic programs within their schools.
Response- Answering Paragraph 1 of the Complaint, the SCHSL, would assert that no response is required given that none of the allegations specifically address the South Carolina High School League. To the extent a response is required, the SCHSL would respond that interscholastic athletics are integral parts of the educational experience of students in public and private schools in South Carolina, but the SCHSL would note that participation in interscholastic activities is a privilege, not a right. Furthermore, the privilege to participate in interscholastic activities does not bestow schools with an absolute right to approve of or object to other schools that may be placed in their region. Finally, upon information and belief, there are public high schools that do not expend resources for interscholastic athletic programs. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- The South Carolina High School League (including its commissioner, Executive Committee, Appellate Panel, and all other officers and governing bodies, all collectively referred to herein as the “League”) is the recognized state authority on interscholastic athletic programs in the State of South Carolina. The public schools in South Carolina have delegated to the League the authority to organize and regulate interscholastic athletic competition among public schools statewide. There is no other organization or entity in South Carolina that regulates interscholastic athletics among the state’s public schools. Response- Answering Paragraph 2 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that it is a voluntary association comprised of various public and private schools throughout the State of South Carolina that promulgates standards for athletic competition and that no other organization regulates interscholastic athletics among the State’s public schools. Further, the SCHSL denies the allegation that “public schools in South Carolina have delegated to the League the authority to organize and regulate interscholastic athletic competition among public schools statewide” to the extent it implies anything other than the fact that member schools, whether public or private, agree to abide by the League’s constitution, bylaws, and rules and regulations when they become a member. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- Plaintiffs’ public high schools are members of the League. Plaintiffs bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to protect the rights and interests of their schools and their students under the League’s constitution, bylaws, rules and regulations, as well as those rights and interests afforded by principles of fundamental fairness and due process. Response- Answering Paragraph 3 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that plaintiffs’ public high schools are members of the League. Further responding, the SCHSL denies that its constitution, bylaws, rules and regulations, nor the United States Constitution or the South Carolina Constitution, bestow upon plaintiffs the right to approve of or object to other schools being placed in their respective region and demands strict proof thereof. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief arising out of and concerning the League’s classification and realignment of schools for competition purposes. This action presents a real and justiciable controversy concerning the rights of League members to notice and an opportunity to be heard in response to reclassification and realignment appeals prior to final action Response- Answering Paragraph 4 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that this action presents a real and justiciable controversy, as plaintiffs have not sufficiently plead or presented any evidence of harm or damage, given that the action complained of has only resulted in the co-defendant, Union County Schools (Union High School), being placed in the same region with three of the plaintiffs’ schools for the 2018-2019 school year and the 2019-2020 school year. More specifically, the plaintiff, Spartanburg School District 4, will now have a school (Woodruff High School) in a region with a school that is 337 students larger; the plaintiff, Greenwood School District 50, will now have a school (Emerald High School) in a region with a school that is 221 students larger; and the plaintiff, Laurens County School District 56, will now have a school (Clinton High School) in a region with a school that is 226 students larger. Accordingly, the SCHSL denies that this action presents a real and justiciable controversy. Lawsuit- Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. Response- Answering Paragraph 5 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. Lawsuit- Defendant League is a nonprofit membership corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina with its principal office located at 121 Westpark Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina. The League governs and controls interscholastic athletic programs and competition throughout the State of South Carolina. Response- Answering Paragraph 6 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that it is a voluntary association comprised of various public and private schools throughout the State of South Carolina and that it promulgates standards for athletic competition among member schools. Further, the SCHSL would also admit that its principal office is located at 121 Westpark Boulevard, Columbia, South Carolina. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- Defendant Union County Schools (“Union Schools”) is a public school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina and whose sole purpose is providing free public school education in Union County. Union Schools operates Union County High School “”UCHS”). UCHS is a member of the League…Plaintiff Spartanburg County School District 1 (“Spartanburg 1”) is a public school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina and whose sole purpose is providing free public school education in Spartanburg County. Spartanburg 1 operates Chapman High School (“Chapman”). Chapman is a member of the League…Plaintiff Spartanburg County School District 2 (“Spartanburg 2”) is a public school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina and whose sole purpose is providing free public school education in Spartanburg County. Spartanburg 2 operates Chesnee High School (“Chesnee”). Chesnee is a member of the League…Plaintiff Spartanburg County School District 4 (“Spartanburg 4”) is a public school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina and whose sole purpose is providing free public school education in Spartanburg County. Spartanburg 4 operates Woodruff High School (“Woodruff”). Woodruff is a member of the League…Plaintiff Greenwood School District 50 (“Greenwood 50”) is a public school district organized and existing under the laws of the State of South Carolina and whose sole purpose is providing free public school education in Greenwood County. Greenwood 50 operates Emerald High School (“Emerald”). Emerald is a member of the League…Plaintiff Laurens County School District 56 (“Laurens 56”) is a public school Plaintiff Laurens County School District 56 (“Laurens 56”) is a public school purpose is providing free public school education in Laurens County. Laurens 56 operates Clinton High School (“Clinton”). Clinton is a member of the League. Response- The SCHSL admits, upon information and belief, the allegations contained in Paragraphs 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 of the Complaint regarding the identity and organization of the plaintiffs and co-defendant. Lawsuit- Based on the foregoing, the Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants and subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted herein. Venue is proper in this Court. Response- Answering Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the defendant, SCHSL, would admit the allegations contained therein regarding personal jurisdiction and venue, but except as specifically admitted herein, the remaining allegations are hereby expressly denied. Lawsuit- Answering Paragraph 13 of the Complaint, the defendant, SCHSL, would admit the allegations contained therein regarding personal jurisdiction and venue, but except as specifically admitted herein, the remaining allegations are hereby expressly denied. Response- Answering Paragraph 14 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. Lawsuit- The League pervasively governs, regulates, and controls public high school athletics statewide, including, but not limited to, local and state competition (e.g., classifications, playoffs, and championships), contest rules, student eligibility, practices, coaches, and officials. The League also sanctions schools, coaches, and student-athletes for violations of League rules. Response- Answering Paragraph 15 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that it is promulgates rules and regulations for interscholastic competition among member schools, but the SCHSL would note that member schools, including those in the plaintiffs’ districts, create and adopt changes to the League’s constitution and bylaws on a yearly basis, and that member schools elect representatives to the League’s governing body, the Executive Committee, who creates and adopts changes to the League’s rules and regulations on a yearly basis. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL Lawsuit- The basic purpose of the League is to establish and enforce uniform rules for interscholastic sports competition. The League has adopted a constitution and bylaws. To be eligible for membership and participation in League events, schools must agree to conform to the League’s constitution, bylaws, and other rules and regulations. The League has a corresponding obligation to the membership to fairly and uniformly apply its rules and regulations. Response- Answering Paragraph 16 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit the allegations contained therein regarding the purpose of the League, the adoption of a constitution and bylaws, and the statement regarding eligibility of schools seeking membership. Further responding, the League would admit that it has an obligation to member schools to fairly and uniformly apply rules and regulations, but it would note the existence of bylaws that allow for rules and regulations to be set aside and that state a decision in one particular case is not binding precedent for future cases. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- Every public high school in South Carolina is a member of the League. Upon information and belief, at least 90% of the League’s membership is comprised of public schools. Response- Answering Paragraph 17 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that every public high school in South Carolina is a member of the League and demands strict proof thereof. Further responding, the SCHSL, admits, upon information and belief, the allegation regarding the percentage of member schools that are public schools. Lawsuit- League membership is a practical and economic necessity for public high schools, including Plaintiffs’ schools. The League’s bylaws prohibit its member schools from entering any contest with a South Carolina public school that is not a member of the League. This means that League membership is functionally required in order for a public high school to compete with any other public high schools in the state and to be eligible for League events, including, but not limited to, regional and state tournaments, playoffs and championship games. In exchange for joining the League, public high schools receive valuable consideration in the ability of their students to participate in interscholastic athletics with their peers at other schools. Response- Answering Paragraph 18 of the Complaint, the SCHSL is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the practical and economic necessities of public schools and, therefore, demands strict proof thereof. Further responding, the SCHSL would crave reference to all of its bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein and would note that rules and regulations regarding school eligibility for playoffs, tournaments, and championships does not prohibit students from participating in interscholastic activities with their peers. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- The League receives substantial support from public funds. In order to join and retain membership in the League, each public school member, including Plaintiffs’ high schools, pays initiation fees, annual dues, and other fees to the League from public school funds. In addition, under its bylaws, the League receives at least 20% of the gross gate receipts generated by athletic events involving public high schools and their students, such as, but not limited to, jamborees, tournaments, play-offs and championship games, and other post-season events. Events sanctioned by the League are held on public school grounds and in other public facilities. Response- Answering Paragraph 19 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that it receives substantial support from public funds and demands strict proof thereof. The SCHSL receives no direct funding from the South Carolina General Assembly, and most of its revenue comes from playoff gate receipts, private sponsorships, and private contracts. Further answering Paragraph 19, the SCHSL admits that member schools pay annual dues and fees, but there is no requirement that such dues and fees be paid with money schools received from public funds. The remaining allegations of Paragraph 19 of the Complaint are admitted, upon information and belief. Lawsuit- The League’s officers consist of a president, vice-president, and commissioner. Under the League’s constitution, the president and vice president must be superintendents, assistant superintendents, principals, assistant principals or other school administrators at the time of their election to office. The president and vice president sit on the League’s Executive Committee, and the president acts as speaker of the League’s Legislative Assembly. Response- Answering Paragraph 20 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the constitution and bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 20 are inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws, those allegations are denied. Lawsuit- The League’s commissioner is employed by the Executive Committee. The League also employs associate commissioners, assistant commissioners, and other staff. Upon information and belief, the commissioner and other League employees participate in the South Carolina Retirement System, just as if they were public school or state employees. Response- Answering Paragraph 21 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the constitution and bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 21 are inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws, those allegations are denied. Lawsuit- The League’s governing body is its Executive Committee. Under the League’s constitution, with the exception of five seats, all Executive Committee members must be employed at a member high school during their tenure in office. During their tenure, each member, who must be certified by the State Department of Education in order to hold their employment, must be employed with a member school or as an administrator over member schools. Upon information and belief, at least 80% of current Executive Committee members are public school employees. Response- Answering Paragraph 22 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the constitution and bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 22 are inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws, those allegations are denied. Further responding, the SCHSL admits, upon information and belief, the allegations contained in Paragraphs 22 regarding the employment status of current Executive Committee members. Lawsuit- The Leagues’ legislative power is vested in its Legislative Assembly. Under the League’s constitution, all delegates to the Legislative Assembly must be a superintendent, a principal, or other school administrator, and must have at least six years of experience certified by the State Department of Education, at the time of his or her election to office…Under the League’s constitution, the Appellate Panel acts as the final administrative authority in all appeals involving member schools, and it must provide the final ruling in any appeal brought against a decision of the Executive Committee. The Appellate Panel consists of seven members, each appointed by the legislative delegations of each congressional district. Response- Answering Paragraphs 23 and 24 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the constitution and bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraphs 23 and 24 are inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws, those allegations are denied. Lawsuit- Upon information and belief, the State Board of Education has adopted an interscholastic athletics policy establishing an official working relationship between the State Department of Education and the League. The State Superintendent of Education (or designee employed by the State Department of Education) is a voting member of the Executive Committee. Response- Answering Paragraph 25 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that the League’s constitution, as adopted and revised by member schools, calls for one member of the Executive Committee to be a representative of the State Board of Education. Further answering Paragraph 25, the SCHSL is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding the policy of the State Board of Education and, therefore, demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- The League is a public body subject to the South Carolina Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). The FOIA requires that the League, including its Executive Committee and Appellate Panel, conduct business in an open and public manner so that citizens of the state shall be advised of the performance of League officials and their decisions. Response- Answering Paragraph 26 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that it has agreed to follow the requirements of FOIA, but that no appellate court of this state has ever specifically addressed the applicability of FOIA to the South Carolina High School League. Further responding, the SCHSL would refer to all the provisions of FOIA as if set forth verbatim herein. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- A primary function of the League is to establish classifications for competition purposes. Under the League’s constitution, the membership is to be divided into classifications determined by enrollments in grades 9-12. Schools are to be divided among the classifications, numerically, as evenly as possible, based on school enrollment count. School enrollment count is determined by the “135 ADM,” which is a count of actively enrolled students as of the 135th day of the school year taken to satisfy local, state, and federal data collection needs. Response- Answering Paragraph 27 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that its primary function is to establish classifications for competition and demands strict proof thereof. Answering the remaining allegations of Paragraph 27, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the constitution and bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 27 are inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws, those allegations are denied. Lawsuit- Using the 135 ADM, the League divides schools into five classifications: AAAAA (largest), AAAA, AAA, AA and A (smallest). The purpose of dividing the schools into five classifications is to address the disparity of student enrollment and resources between larger and smaller schools and thereby promote fair and equitable competition. The League sponsors and controls playoffs and state championships for each classification. Response- Answering Paragraph 28 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that using five classifications lessens the differences in student enrollment, but denies that using the 135 ADM can completely alleviate disparities in resources and athletic competition. Further responding, the SCHSL would admit that the division of schools into classifications is based on the 135 ADM, but student enrollment is not the only factor taken into consideration. Finally, the SCHSL would admit that it sponsors and controls state championships for each classification, but it would further state that member schools play an integral role in deciding the number of playoff teams, qualifications for playoffs, seeding for playoffs, etc., to be applicable in each classification. Lawsuit- The League’s classification and realignment decisions affect every member school. For example, realignment directly dictates each school’s competition, which affects numerous other factors such as, but not limited to, scheduling, playoffs, rivalries, travel, revenues and expenditures. Plaintiffs, their schools, and their students have a real and vested interest in the classification and realignment decisions directly affecting their schools Response- Answering Paragraph 29 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that a school’s classification affects that school, but the SCHSL would also note that it does not change the fact that participation in interscholastic activities is a privilege, not a right. Further responding, the SCHSL would state that a member school’s interest in classification and realignment decisions are controlled by the League’s constitution and bylaws. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- Every two years, the League staff conducts a reclassification or realignment process. Under the League’s constitution, the reclassification process will use the 135 ADM from each school. The League must use the 135 ADM to establish the classifications and determine the placement of the schools within their respective classifications based on enrollment. Response- Answering Paragraph 30 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the League staff is required to conduct the realignment process and would show that the membership votes as to who will draft the reclassification proposal every two years. Further responding, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein regarding use of the 135 ADM, but would refer to the constitution and bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 30 are inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws, those allegations are denied. Further, the SCHSL would clarify that it denies any implication that realignment must be based solely on enrollment numbers. Lawsuit- Apart from the school enrollment count (the 135 ADM), neither the League’s constitution nor its bylaws establish any uniform rules, procedures, criteria, or standards for determining school classification placements or deciding realignment appeals. For example, the League has not adopted uniform rules for determining classification placements based on factors such as geography, academics, socio-economic status, or speculative future enrollments. Response- Answering Paragraph 31 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein as written. Further responding, the SCHSL would note that the constitution and bylaws do not prohibit the use of other factors besides enrollment count in deciding classification and region placements, and the SCHSL would further show that all member schools were informed prior to the realignment process of the guidelines to be used for realignment and that no school appealed or otherwise questioned the use of these guidelines. Lawsuit- The League staff uses realignment guidelines to prepare its realignment proposal. The guidelines consider factors outside the constitution and bylaws, such as, but not limited to, geography and travel, multiple schools in the same district, rivalries, and the effects one classification may have on another classification (i.e., scheduling, open dates, etc.). According to these guidelines, to address geographic and travel concerns, the League may move a school up or down a classification provided its enrollment is within 50 students of the top or bottom of the new classification. Such a rule serves to prevent unfair and arbitrary decisions such as assigning a AAAAA school to compete in the A classification due to travel or other concerns. Response- Answering Paragraph 32 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the guidelines shared with all member schools as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 32 are inconsistent with the guidelines, those allegations are denied. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the plaintiffs’ justification for the rule as written and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- Classification and realignment placement is of sufficient importance and consequence that a school may appeal its realignment placement. Under the League’s constitution, appeals from classification placements are to be determined by the Executive Committee or its designee. Neither the League’s constitution nor its bylaws establish any uniform rules, procedures, criteria, or standards for realignment appeals decided by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee does not issue written decisions or otherwise explain its realignment decisions. Response- Answering Paragraph 33 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegation that a school’s right to appeal its realignment placement is based upon the “importance and consequence” of such a placement. Rather, a member school has the right to appeal any decision. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the allegations regarding the lack of procedures, standards, etc. for realignment appeals and would state that realignment appeals follow the same process as any other appeal brought by a member school. To the extent that realignment appeals are treated the same as every other appeal, the SCHSL would admit that the Executive Committee does not issue written decisions and would note that written decisions are not required under the constitution and bylaws. Lawsuit- Neither the League’s constitution nor its bylaws authorize the Appellate Panel to determine classification or realignment placements. The Appellate Panel nevertheless decides realignment appeals under Article VIII of the League’s constitution, which generally provides that the Appellate Panel must provide the final ruling in any appeal brought against a decision on appeal from the Executive Committee, and its decision shall be the final administrative appeal. Neither the League’s constitution nor its bylaws establish any uniform rules, procedures, criteria, or standards for realignment appeals decided by the Appellate Panel. The Appellate Panel does not issue written decisions or otherwise explain its realignment decisions. Response- Answering Paragraph 34 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations regardingthe Appellate Panel’s lack of authority to decide realignment appeals and demands strict proof thereof. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the allegations regarding the lack of procedures, standards, etc. for realignment appeals and would state that realignment appeals follow the same process as any other appeal brought by a member school. To the extent that realignment appeals are treated the same as every other appeal, the SCHSL would admit that the Appellate Panel does not issue written decisions and would note that written decisions are not required under the constitution and bylaws. Lawsuit- The League’s reclassification and realignment process fails to afford member schools directly affected by a realignment appeal any protection against arbitrary actions and decisions. Realignment decisions are not made pursuant to any established and uniformly applied rules, procedures, criteria, or standards. Rather, the process is vague, conflicting and confusing, lacks even rudimentary due process protections, lacks transparency, and is insulated from external review. As demonstrated by the League’s reclassification of UCHS from Region II AAAA to Region III AAA (as alleged below), the schools directly affected by realignment appeals are expected to accept reclassification decisions without any due process or other recourse. Response- Answering Paragraph 35 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- On or about August 2, 2017, the League issued its 2018-2020 realignment proposal to the membership. UCHS was assigned to Region II AAAA. Chapman and Chesnee were assigned to Region II AAA. Woodruff, Emerald, and Clinton were assigned to Region III AAA…UCHS decided to appeal its placement in Region II AAAA. Response- Answering Paragraphs 36 and 37 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein regarding the realignment proposal and appeal by Union County High School. Lawsuit- On or about August 2, 2017, the League’s commissioner issued realignment appeal procedures to the membership. The commissioner directed that all appeals must include an alternative realignment proposal, and the proposal must include all regions affected by the proposed changes. The commissioner explicitly directed schools, to “please contact those schools affected and solicit a written response of their support for your proposal.” If, after notice, affected schools chose not to offer written support, it would be viewed by the League as non-support. Response- Answering Paragraph 38 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the memorandum issued to all member schools as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 38 are inconsistent with the referenced memorandum, those allegations are denied. Lawsuit- There was confusion among the membership about the realignment appeals process. On or about August 10, 2017, the League’s commissioner attempted to clarify the process. He reiterated that those schools affected by the realignment appeal should be made aware that an attempt to change the realignment proposal is occurring. Although the commissioner indicated that written support from the affected schools was “not necessarily required,” he did not state that notifying the affected schools of the appeal was “not necessarily required.” According to the commissioner, the purpose of soliciting written support is to “give the Executive Committee a better understanding of how the affected schools feel about your appeal. Response- Answering Paragraph 39 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the memorandum shared with all member schools as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 39 are inconsistent with the referenced memorandum, those allegations are denied. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the memorandum as written and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- On or about August 10, 2017, UCHS sent an email informing the Class AAAA and Class AAA presidents of its intent to appeal its placement in Region II AAAA. UCHS stated: “We are seeking support from member schools in both the AAAA and AAA classification which is required by the South Carolina High School League. Please find our reasoning for the appeal in the attached e-mail. Could you please get this information out to member schools in both the AAAA and AAA classifications?” The information attached to the e-mail stated that UCHS was requesting placement in Region II AAA. Plaintiffs’ affected schools did not receive any information from the AAAA or AAA president concerning UCHS’s realignment appeal…On or about August 10, 2017, UCHS emailed Region II AAA schools Chapman and Chesnee requesting written support for its appeal for placement in Region II AAA. Upon information and belief, UCHS also contacted the other Region II AAA schools (Carolina, Southside, Broome, and Landrum) for support of its appeal for placement in Region II AAA. None of these schools supported UCHS’s appeal. Upon information and belief, UCHS did not inform these schools of any alternative realignment proposal involving Region III AAA…It is apparent UCHS understood and believed it was required to notify the affected schools of its appeal and alternative realignment proposals in accordance with the realignment appeal procedures issued to the membership by the League’s commissioner. Response- Answering Paragraphs 40, 41, and 42 of the Complaint, the SCHSL is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding the acts or beliefs of Union County High School, and, therefore, demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- Plaintiffs’ affected schools should have been notified and given an opportunity to respond to UCHS’s realignment appeal and proposed reclassification to either Region II or Region III AAA. However, neither UCHS nor the League notified any of Plaintiffs’ affected schools of UCHS’s alternate proposal for reclassification to Region III AAA. Moreover, neither UCHS nor the League notified Woodruff, Emerald, or Clinton regarding UCHS’s appeal or any proposed reclassification placing UCHS in Region II AAA or Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 43 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that affected schools should have been notified and that written support should have been solicited, but the SCHSL denies that such notification and solicitation were requirements for an appeal, as stated in the Commissioner’s memorandum dated August 10, 2017. Further responding, the SCHSL is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding notification efforts of Union High School and demands strict proof thereof. Further, the SCHSL admits that it did not specifically notify schools in Region III-AAA of Union High School’s desire to be placed in that specific region. Lawsuit- On or about August 14, 2017, UCHS submitted its written appeal and realignment proposal to the Executive Committee, which stated: “We request placement in Region II AAA.” It also included a section captioned “Region III AAA,” which stated: “We also included a comparison chart below for region III AAA as well. This is for the executive committee’s information. We did not include a ‘double appeal’ as Region II AAA is the better option for the wellbeing of the students of Union County High School; however, Region III AAA is a better choice than Region II AAAA for the same reasons as listed above in our appeal. Union County High School is situated between Region II AAA and Region III AAA. We include this chart to show that there are two options for regions that make a better fit for our students.” Response- Answering Paragraph 44 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein but would refer to Union’s appeal documentation as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 44 are inconsistent with the referenced appeal documentation, those allegations are denied. Lawsuit- Plaintiffs’ affected schools were not provided copies of the written appeal and realignment proposal UCHS submitted to the Executive Committee. Plaintiffs’ affected schools, and particularly the Region III AAA schools (Woodruff, Emerald, and Clinton) were not given any notice of UCHS’s alternate proposal for reclassification to Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 45 of the Complaint, the SCHSL is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding notification efforts of Union High School and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- On or about August 24, 2017, the Executive Committee heard UCHS’s appeal. Plaintiffs’ affected schools were not informed of the hearing. Upon information and belief, the League did not post a notice and agenda at the meeting place and on the League’s public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting that would have informed Plaintiffs that any action would be taken concerning UCHS’s proposed reclassification to Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 46 of the Complaint, the SCHSLwould only admit that the Executive Committee heard Union High School’s appeal on August 24, 2017, but denies the remaining allegations contained therein as written, to the extent it implies that the agenda for those meetings would have described Union High School’s proposed reclassification, and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- At the commencement of the Executive Committee hearing, the chair stated that the appeals process would proceed pursuant to the rules and regulations outlined on pages one and two of the League’s bylaws (i.e., “Article I. Appeals”). Those appeal procedures require in relevant part: “Copies of the appeal brief must be supplied in advance, either mailed, faxed, emailed, or hand delivered, to the Commissioner, the members of the Executive Committee and to all other parties involved. All parties are to be offered an opportunity to appear before the Executive Committee.” Plaintiffs’ affected schools were neither supplied with copies of UCHS’s appeal brief nor offered any opportunity to appear before the Executive Committee. Response- Answering Paragraph 47 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the entire audio recording of the Executive Committee hearing and the bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 47 are inconsistent with the referenced recording or bylaws, those allegations are denied. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the bylaws as written and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- At the hearing, UCHS requested reclassification to either Region II AAA or Region III AAA. The Executive Committee voted 14-0 to deny UCHS’s appeal. The Executive Committee did not issue a written decision or otherwise explain its decision. Plaintiffs and their affected schools were not informed of the Executive Committee’s decision. Response- Answering Paragraph 48 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein regarding Union High School’s request and the Executive Committee vote to deny Union High School’s appeal. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the allegation that the Executive Committee did not explain its decision and demands strict proof thereof. Finally, the SCHSL admits that the Executive Committee did not issue a written decision and that the SCHSL did not specifically notify plaintiffs of the decision, but would note that it was not required to do so. Lawsuit- Despite the Executive Committee’s decision to deny UCHS’s appeal, as a result of the lack of any notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the decision, the record before the Executive Committee is devoid of any arguments and evidence from the affected schools opposing (or supporting) UCHS’s reclassification to Region III AAA. In other words, the record before the Executive Committee and going forward on appeal was devoid of any information concerning how Plaintiffs’ schools felt about and would be affected by UCHS’s reclassification to Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 49 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the record before the Executive Committee and going forward on appeal was devoid of information concerning how plaintiffs’ schools felt about Union High School’s appeal and demands strict proof thereof. The Executive Committee and Appellate Panel were aware of the League’s directive that “failure to have written support will be deemed as non-support.” Further responding, the SCHSL deniesthe remaining allegations of Paragraph 49 on the grounds that even if an affected school (such as Chesnee High School or Chapman High School) had been present during Union High School’s appeal before the Executive Committee, the affected school would not have had the right to address the Executive Committee and express objections to Union High School’s appeal. Lawsuit- On or about August 24, 2017, UCHS notified the League’s commissioner of its intent to appeal to the Appellate Panel. In its email to the commissioner, UCHS stated: “We are appealing to move to Region II AAA or Region III AAA.” Neither UCHS nor the League informed Plaintiffs’ affected schools of UCHS’s realignment appeal to the Appellate Panel. Response- Answering Paragraph 50 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits that Union High School appealed the Executive Committee’s decision to the Appellate Panel but would refer to the referenced email as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, the SCHSL is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding notification efforts of Union High School and demands strict proof thereof. Further, the SCHSL admits that it did not specifically notify schools of Union High School’s appeal to the Appellate Panel, but states that such specific notice was not a requirement for the appeal. Lawsuit- On or about August 28, 2017, UCHS emailed a written appeal to the Appellate Panel requesting reclassification to either Region II AAA or Region III AAA. Plaintiffs’ affected schools were not provided copies or otherwise informed of the appeal to the Appellate Panel. Response- Answering Paragraph 51 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits that Union High School appealed the Executive Committee’s decision to the Appellate Panel , but would refer to the referenced email as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, the SCHSL is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding notification efforts of Union High School and demands strict proof thereof. Further, the SCHSL admits that it did not specifically notify schools of Union High School’s appeal to the Appellate Panel, but states that such specific notice was not a requirement for the appeal. Lawsuit- On or about August 29, 2017, the Appellate Panel heard UCHS’s appeal. Plaintiffs’ affected schools were not informed of the hearing. Upon information and belief, the League did not post a notice and agenda at the meeting place and on the League’s public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting that would have informed the Plaintiffs that any action would be taken concerning UCHS’s proposed reclassification to Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 52 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that the Appellate Panel heard Union High School’s appeal on August 29, 2017, but denies the remaining allegations contained therein as written, to the extent it implies that the agenda for those meetings would have described Union High School’s proposed reclassification, and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- At the commencement of the Appellate Panel hearing, the chair stated that the appeals process would proceed pursuant to the rules and regulations outlined on pages one and two the League’s bylaws (i.e., “Article I. Appeals”). Those appeal procedures require in relevant part: “Copies of the appeal brief must be supplied in advance, either mailed, faxed, emailed, or hand delivered, to the Commissioner, the members of the Executive Committee and to all other parties involved. All parties are to be offered an opportunity to appear before the Executive Committee.” The bylaws do not refer to any appeal proceedings before the Appellate Panel. Nevertheless, to the extent the League’s bylaws also apply to realignment appeal proceedings before the Appellate Panel, Plaintiffs’ affected schools were neither supplied with copies of USCH’s appeal brief nor offered any opportunity to appear before the Appellate Panel. Response- Answering Paragraph 53 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein, but would refer to the entire audio recording of the Appellate Panel hearing and the bylaws as if set forth verbatim herein. To the extent any allegations in Paragraph 53 are inconsistent with the referenced recording or bylaws, those allegations are denied. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the bylaws as written and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- At the hearing, UCHS requested reclassification to either Region II AAA or Region III AAA. As a result of the lack of any notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the decision, the record before the Appellate Panel was devoid of any information concerning how Plaintiffs’ schools felt about and would be affected by UCHS’s reclassification to Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 54 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein regarding Union High School’s request at the Appellate Panel Hearing. Further responding, the SCHSL denies that the record before the Appellate Panel was devoid of information concerning how plaintiffs’ schools felt about Union High School’s appeal and demands strict proof thereof. The Executive Committee and Appellate Panel were aware of the League’s directive that “failure to have written support will be deemed as non-support.” Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- The League, through its attorney, defended its placement of UCHS in Region II AAAA and opposed UCHS’s appeal by seeking to enforce the League’s realignment guidelines. Specifically, the League argued that UCHS’s enrollment was greater than 50 students (82 students) of the top of the AAA classification. The League also argued that moving UCHS down to AAA would increase the disparity in Region II or Region III AAA. The League further argued that UCHS’s geography and travel concerns were not sufficient to justify UCHS jumping over eight smaller AAAA schools to move down and become the largest AAA school. Response- Answering Paragraph 55 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that its attorney appeared before the Appellate Panel to provide information regarding the basis for the decision by the Executive Committee and to answer any questions from the Appellate Panel, but the SCHSL would refer to the entire recording of the hearing as if set forth herein verbatim. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- The Appellate Panel voted 4-3 to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA. The Appellate Panel did not issue a written decision or otherwise explain its decision. Plaintiffs and their affected schools were not informed of the Appellate Panel’s decision. Response- Answering Paragraph 56 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein regarding the Appellate Panel’s vote to grant Union High School’s appeal. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the allegation that the Appellate Panel did not explain its decision and demands strict proof thereof. Finally, the SCHSL admits that the Appellate Panel did not issue a written decision and that the SCHSL did not specifically notify plaintiffs of the decision, but would note that it was not required to do so. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- On or about August 30, 2017, the League issued its final 2018-2020 realignment. Upon review, Plaintiffs and their affected schools learned for the first time and only after-the-fact that the League had reclassified UCHS down to Region III AAA. Response- Answering Paragraph 57 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the allegations contained therein regarding the final 2018-2020 realignment, but it is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations and demands strict proof thereof. Lawsuit- Upon learning of UCHS’s reclassification, Spartanburg 4’s superintendent immediately contacted the League’s commissioner with questions and concerns about how such action could occur without any notice to Woodruff and the other affected schools. Response- Answering Paragraph 58 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that Spartanburg 4’s Superintendent contacted the League’s Commissioner to discuss Union High School’s appeal, but except as specifically admitted herein, each of the remaining allegations is hereby expressly denied. Lawsuit- On or about August 31, 2017, Spartanburg 4’s superintendent promptly notified the League’s commissioner in writing of Spartanburg 4’s protest of the decision to reclassify UCHS down to Region III AAA without affording Woodruff and the other affected Region III AAA schools notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the final decision in violation of the League’s constitution, bylaws, and principles of due process. On or about September 15, 2017, the League, through its attorney, responded that “there is no provision in the Constitution or Bylaws that requires potentially affected schools to be notified of every realignment appeal.”…On or about August 31, 2017, pursuant to the FOIA, Spartanburg 4’s superintendent also requested copies of all League records relating to UCHS’s realignment appeal and the decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA. On or about October 16, 2017, Spartanburg 4’s superintendent received records from the League in response to the FOIA request…By letter to the League commissioner dated November 10, 2017, Plaintiffs collectively protested and appealed to the League to reconsider the final realignment placing UCHS in Region III AAA after giving notice and affording an opportunity to be heard to all the affected schools in accordance with the League’s rules and procedures. Response- Answering Paragraphs 59, 60, and 61 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that correspondence was exchanged between Spartanburg 4’s Superintendent and the League on the dates alleged, but the SCHSL would refer to those letters as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- On January 31, 2018, the Appellate Panel held a meeting to discuss whether its decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA should be vacated and reheard on the merits. The League did not post an agenda at the meeting place and on the League’s public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the Appellate Panel meeting as required by the FOIA. Response- Answering Paragraph 62 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits the Allegations contained therein regarding the date and purpose of the meeting. Further, the SCHSL admits that there was no agenda posted because the Union High School issue was the only item to be addressed by the Appellate Panel. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- At the meeting, Plaintiffs requested the Appellate Panel rescind its prior decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA because the decision was made without any notice and opportunity to be heard afforded to Plaintiffs’ affected schools before a final decision, and the decision was arbitrary, capricious and in violation of League rules and procedures. Response- Answering Paragraph 63 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits that the plaintiffs and others requested that the Appellate Panel rescind its prior decision, but the SCHSL would refer to the entire audio recording of the meeting as if set forth verbatim herein. Lawsuit- At the meeting, the League did not dispute that Plaintiffs were not notified and given an opportunity to respond to UCHS’s appeal for reclassification to Region III AAA prior to the Appellate Panel’s final decision. Rather, according to the League, nothing contained in the appeal procedures issued by its commissioner requires a school appealing its realignment placement to notify the affected schools. Additionally, according to the League, schools directly affected by a reclassification decision are not “parties” to the realignment appeal and therefore are not entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard under the League’s bylaws. The League equates its presumption of non-support with due process, even when the affected schools are denied any actual notice and opportunity to respond before any final action is taken. Response- Answering Paragraph 64 of the Complaint, the SCHSL admits that the League responded to the plaintiffs’ claims and argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were without merit, but the SCHSL would refer to the entire audio recording of the meeting as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, the SCHSL denies plaintiffs’ summation of the League’s arguments as being complete or wholly accurate. Lawsuit- At the meeting, the Appellate Panel informed Plaintiffs, “this body is not governed by any rules,” including the League’s constitution and bylaws. Similarly, according to the League, its bylaws allow the Appellate Panel to set aside any rules and regulations based on a “hardship” showing. However, neither the League’s constitution nor its bylaws contain any such hardship provision with regards to reclassification or realignment, and especially with regards to the requirement that schools be divided among classifications based on school enrollment. Response- Answering Paragraph 65 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the representation of the comments by one Appellate Panel member as being complete or wholly accurate, and the SCSHL denies plaintiffs’ summation of the League’s arguments as being complete or wholly accurate and would refer to the entire audio recording of the meeting as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Lawsuit- The Appellate Panel meeting concluded with a motion and a 7-0 vote to end the discussion. No vote or action was taken on Plaintiffs’ requests to rescind the prior decision. Response- Answering Paragraph 66 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that the Appellate Panel voted to end the discussion and did not rescind the prior decision, but would refer to the entire audio recording of the meeting as if set forth verbatim herein. Lawsuit- Plaintiffs have at all times acted in good faith in attempting to resolve this dispute internally within the League’s leadership, membership, and governance framework. Plaintiffs have exhausted any and all administrative remedies available through the League to protest and appeal the Appellate Panel’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA to no avail. Response- Answering Paragraph 67 of the Complaint, the SCHSL is without information or knowledge sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained therein regarding good faith actions on behalf of the plaintiffs and demands strict proof thereof. Further responding, the SCHSL admits the plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies available through the League. Lawsuit- For a first cause of action…Declaratory judgment – state action… 68. Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 69. The League is the functional equivalent of a government agency and should therefore be held to the same standards of due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial review applicable to the actions and decisions of similar South Carolina government agencies. 70. As the sole recognized state authority on interscholastic athletics in South Carolina, and particularly among all public high schools and their student-athletes statewide, the League controls and dominates a field of great public importance and interest in this state. 71. The League is not a true voluntary association. League membership is required for a public high school to participate in interscholastic athletics in South Carolina. In exchange for joining the League, a public high school receives valuable consideration in being allowed to participate in interscholastic athletics with other public high schools. 72. The League is an organization overwhelmingly comprised of public schools. The League is inextricably intertwined with public school institutions and officials, state agencies and officials, state legislators, and public funds in its composition and operations 73. Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code §§ 15-53-10 et seq., this Court enter a declaratory judgment that, in its all-pervasive regulation and control of interscholastic athletics among all South Carolina public high schools, the League acts as a government agency and, as such, its actions and decisions, including those relating to classification and realignment, are subject to the same standards of due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial review applicable to the actions of similar South Carolina government agencies under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), S.C. Code §§ 1-23-10 et seq. Response- For a first defense…to a first cause of action 57. Answering Paragraph 68 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 58. Answering Paragraph 69 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. 59. Answering Paragraph 70 of theComplaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein as written and demands strict proof thereof. 60. Answering Paragraph 71 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that public and private schools receive valuable consideration as members, but denies that the consideration is solely linked to participation in interscholastic athletics. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the remaining allegations contained therein as written and demands strict proof thereof. 61. Answering Paragraph 72 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that most member schools are public schools. Further responding, the SCHSL denies the characterization of “inextricably intertwined” and demands strict proof thereof. 62. Answering Paragraph 73 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment as stated is appropriate or otherwise legally justified. 63. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s First Cause of Action and the entire Complaint is hereby expressly denied Lawsuit- For a second cause of action, declaratory judgment – state action 74. Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 75. Through legislative action, the South Carolina General Assembly has effectively created and vested a legislatively mandated and appointed body, the Appellate Panel, with unfettered authority to make final decisions in all matters involving and affecting public school athletics, including, but not limited to, classification and realignment decisions. 76. According to the League, the Appellate Panel must comply with a legislative budget proviso enacted by the South Carolina General Assembly. The proviso prohibits public school districts and schools from using state funds to join, affiliate with, pay dues or fees to, or in any way financially support any interscholastic athletic association, body, or entity (i.e., the League) unless its constitution, rules, or policies contain an appeals process in which appeals are made to a disinterested third-body appellate panel. The legislative proviso requires that the appellate panel consist of seven members, with one member appointed by the delegation of each congressional district. The legislative proviso further requires that the appellate panel must provide the final ruling in any appeal brought against a decision of the association, body, or entity. 77. The legislative proviso also requires that, in the event the association, body, or entity (i.e., the League) fails to comply with the proviso, public school districts and schools must end their affiliation with and are prohibited from paying dues or fees to the association, body, or entity. Therefore, in order to preserve its existence, the League amended its constitution to establish the Appellate Panel in accordance with legislative mandates 78. To the extent the League’s Appellate Panel purports to derive its authority from state legislative provisos and is not governed by and acts independent of any rules, including the League’s constitution and bylaws, that body acts as and is a state actor and should therefore be held to the same standards of due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial review applicable to the actions and decisions of similar South Carolina state actors and government agencies 79. Additionally, or in the alternative, Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code §§ 15-53-10 et seq., this Court enter a declaratory judgment that the legislatively mandated and appointed Appellate Panel is a state actor and, as such, its actions and decisions, including those relating to classification and realignment, are subject to the same standards of due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial review applicable to the actions of similar South Carolina state actors and government agencies under the Response- For a second defense, to a second cause of action Answering 64. Paragraph 74 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 65. Answering Paragraph 75 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. 66. Answering Paragraphs 76 and 77 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that a proviso to the Budget Appropriations bill as relates to the State Board of Education contains various provisions regarding the formation of the Appellate Panel, but would refer to the entire proviso as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, the SCHSL admits that member schools, including plaintiffs’ schools, adopted revisions to the constitution and bylaws to establish the Appellate Panel. 67. Answering Paragraph 78 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. 68.Answering Paragraph 79 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment as stated is appropriate or otherwise legally justified. 69. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Second Cause of Action and the entire Complaint is hereby expressly denied. Response- For a third cause of action, declaratory judgment, due process 80. Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 81. Acting as a government agency, the League is required to meet minimum standards of due process. Due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands. South Carolina’s constitutional due process provisions, as well as the League’s own bylaws and realignment appeal procedures, confer the rights of notice and an opportunity to be heard to member schools directly affected by classification and realignment decisions. 82. Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code §§ 15-53-10 et seq., this Court enter a declaratory judgment that: (i) League members directly affected by a reclassification or realignment appeal are entitled to notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the League’s final decision; (ii) the League violated the fundamental due process rights of Plaintiffs’ affected schools by reclassifying UCHS to Region III AAA without affording them any notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the League’s final decision in violation of the standards of minimum due process afforded under S.C. Const. Art. I, Sec. 22 and under the League’s own realignment rules and procedures; and (iii) the resulting decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA is therefore null and void and must be vacated. Response- For a first defense to a third cause of action 70. Answering Paragraph 80 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 71. Answering Paragraph 81 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein which state or otherwise imply that plaintiffs have a right to approve of or object to other schools being placed in their particular region and demands strict proof thereof. The SCHSL further denies any allegation or implications contained in Paragraph 81 of the Complaint that plaintiffs’ due process rights were violated and demands strict proof thereof. 72. Answering Paragraph 82 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment as stated is appropriate or otherwise legally justified. 73. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Third Cause of Action and the entire Complaint is hereby expressly denied . Lawsuit- For a fourth cause of action, declaratory judgment – breach of contract 83. Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 84. The League’s constitution, bylaws, rules, and regulations create a legally enforceable agreement in the nature of a contract between the League and its members. 85. By joining the League, Plaintiffs’ member schools have agreed to comply with the League’s rules and regulations. The League has a corresponding obligation to fairly apply its rules and regulations, including those concerning reclassification and realignment appeals. 86. Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code §§ 15-53-10 et seq., this Court enter a declaratory judgment that the League breached the parties’ contract by failing to afford Plaintiffs’ affected schools notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the Appellate Panel’s final administrative decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA as required by the League’s rules and procedures for realignment appeals and, as a result, the decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA is therefore null and void and must be vacated Response- For a first defense, to a fourth cause of action. 74. Answering Paragraph 83 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 75. Answering Paragraphs 84 and 85 of the Complaint, the SCHSL asserts that no response is required given that the allegations call for a legal conclusion. To the extent a response is required, the SCHSL would admit that member schools and the League have corresponding obligations as set forth in the bylaws and constitution and would refer to them as if set forth herein verbatim. 76. Answering Paragraph 86 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment as stated is appropriate or otherwise legally justified. 77. 77.Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Fourth Cause of Action and the entire Complaint is hereby expressly denied. Lawsuit- For a fifth cause of action 87. Plaintiffs incorporate the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 88. The League is a public body subject to FOIA. 89. The meeting notice requirements of Section 30-4-80(A) of FOIA require the League to publicly post an agenda for each Executive Committee and Appellate Panel meeting on a bulletin board in a publicly accessible place at the office or meeting place and on the League’s public website at least twenty-four hours prior to such meetings. 90. Upon information and belief, the League did not post an agenda at the meeting place and on the League’s public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the August 24, 2017, Executive Committee meeting sufficient to inform the public and the League’s member schools, including Plaintiffs and their affected schools, that any action would be taken concerning UCHS’s realignment appeal and proposed reclassification to Region II or Region III AAA. 91. Upon information and belief, the League did not post an agenda at the meeting place and on the League’s public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the August 29, 2017, Appellate Panel meeting sufficient to inform the public and the League’s member schools, including Plaintiffs and their affected schools, that any action would be taken concerning UCHS’s realignment appeal and proposed reclassification to Region II or Region III AAA. 92. Upon information and belief, the League did not post an agenda place and on its public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the January 31, 2018, Appellate Panel meeting sufficient to inform the public and other member schools that any action would be taken concerning Plaintiffs’ protest of the decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA. 93. Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to Section 30-4-100 of FOIA, this Court enter a declaratory judgment that the League violated FOIA and, as a result, the decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA is null and void and must be vacated, and further enjoin the League from enforcing the Appellate Panel’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region II AAA. 94. Plaintiff’s request that, pursuant to Section 30-4-100 of FOIA, this Court award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorney’s fees and other costs specific to this request. Response- For a first defense to a fifth cause of action 78.Answering Paragraph 87 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 79. Answering Paragraph 88 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that it has agreed to follow the requirements of FOIA, but that no appellate court of this state has ever specifically addressed the applicability of FOIA to the South Carolina High School League. Further responding, the SCHSL would refer to all the provisions of FOIA as if set forth verbatim herein. 80. Answering Paragraph 89 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that plaintiffs have appropriately stated the requirements of Section 30-4- 80(A) of FOIA, but would refer to all the provisions of FOIA as if set forth verbatim herein. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. 81. Answering Paragraphs 90, 91, and 92 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the allegations contained therein as written, to the extent it implies that the agenda for those meetings would have described Union High School’s proposed reclassification, and demands strict proof thereof. 82. Answering Paragraphs 93 and 94 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment and attorney’s fees are appropriate or otherwise legally justified. Lawsuit- For a sixth cause of action-declaratory judgment-arbitrary and capricious 95. Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 96. The League’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA was not made pursuant to and in accordance with its own reclassification rules and procedures. 97. Under the League’s constitution, schools must be classified based on school enrollment (the 135 ADM) for purposes of athletic competition. The Appellate Panel’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA disregarded the 135 ADM and violated the League’s reclassification rules by jumping UCHS over eight smaller AAAA schools to move down and become the largest AAA school in the state based on factors other than enrollment. 98. The realignment guidelines issued to the membership by the League’s commissioner and used by the League’s staff to prepare the realignment provide that a school may be moved down in a classification provided its enrollment is within 50 students of the top of the new classification it is to be assigned. UCHS’s enrollment is greater than 50 students (82 students) of the top of the AAA classification. The Appellate Panel’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA disregarded and violated the League’s realignment guidelines. 99. The realignment appeal procedures issued to the membership by the League’s commissioner required that UCHS inform all of Plaintiffs’ affected schools of its alternate realignment proposals for placement in Region II or Region III AAA. The Appellate Panel’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA without affording any notice and opportunity to respond to the affected schools disregarded and violated the League’s realignment appeal procedures, as well as principles of fundamental fairness and due process. 100. The Appellate Panel’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA was not based on or governed by the League’s constitution, bylaws, or any other fixed rules or standards. 101. Plaintiffs request that, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgments Act, S.C. Code §§ 15-53-10 et seq., this Court enter a declaratory judgment that the League’s decision to reclassify UCHS down from Region II AAAA to Region III AAA was arbitrary and capricious because it was not made in accordance with any uniform rules, procedures, criteria, or standards, was made without affording even rudimentary due process to Plaintiffs affected schools, and was made without regard to and in violation of the League’s realignment rules and procedures. Response- For a first defense to a sixth cause of action 84. Answering Paragraph 95 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 85. Answering Paragraph 96 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would only admit that the Appellate Panel granted Union High School’s realignment appeal, thereby setting aside the guidelines issued by League staff in advance of the realignment process. Further responding, the SCHSL denies that the Appellate Panel’s decision violated the constitution and/or bylaws and demands strict proof thereof. E ach and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. 86. Answering Paragraph 97 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that its constitution states classification must be based on school enrollment, but denies any inference that school enrollment is the only factor used for determining classifications. Further responding, the SCHSL denies that the Appellate Panel’s decision violated the constitution and/or bylaws and demands strict proof thereof. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. 87. Answering Paragraph 98 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would admit that the guidelines issued by League staff in advance of the realignment process were as stated, but would refer to the entire memorandum as if set forth verbatim herein. Further responding, the SCHSL denies that the Appellate Panel’s decision violated the constitution and/or bylaws and demands strict proof thereof. Each and every allegation not specifically admitted herein is hereby expressly denied as they may relate to the SCHSL. Answering Paragraphs 99 and 100 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies the all egations contained therein and demands strict proof thereof. 89. Answering Paragraph 101 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment is appropriate or otherwise legally justified. 90. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Sixth Cause of Action is hereby expressly denied Lawsuit- For a seventh cause of action-injunctive relief 102. Plaintiffs incorporate all the preceding paragraphs as if re-alleged verbatim herein. 103. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the League’s denial of due process and arbitrary reclassification of UCHS to Region III AAA in violation of the League’s constitution, bylaws, rules and regulations. Plaintiffs therefore request that this Court issue an order permanently enjoining the League from reclassifying UCHS to Region III AAA. Response- For a seventh cause of action 91. Answering Paragraph 102 of the Complaint, the SCHSL would reaffirm and reallege each of its defenses above as fully and effectually as if set forth herein verbatim. 92. Answering Paragraph 103 of the Complaint, the SCHSL denies that the plaintiffs’ request for injunctive relief is appropriate or otherwise legally justified. 93. Except as herein specifically admitted, each and every allegation contained in Plaintiff’s Seventh Cause of Action and the entire Complaint is hereby expressly denied. Lawsuit- Prayer for relief WHEREFORE, having fully stated their claims against Defendants, Plaintiffs respectfully request the entry of an order that provides the following relief: a. Declaring the League in governing and controlling all public high school athletics statewide acts as a government agency, and its actions, including those relating to classification and realignment, constitute state action subject to the same standards of due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial review applicable to the actions of similar South Carolina government agencies under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), S.C. Code §§ 1-23-10 et seq.; b. Declaring the League’s legislatively mandated and appointed Appellate Panel acts as a government agency, and its actions, including those relating to classification and realignment, constitute state action subject to the same standards of due process, fundamental fairness, and judicial review applicable to the actions of similar South Carolina government agencies under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), S.C. Code §§ 1-23-10 et seq.; c. Declaring the League violated the fundamental due process rights of Plaintiffs’ affected schools by reclassifying UCHS to Region III AAA without affording them any notice and opportunity to be heard prior to the League’s final decision in violation of the standards of minimum due process afforded under S.C. Const. Art. I, Sec. 22 and under the League’s own realignment rules and procedures; d. Declaring the League breached the parties’ agreement by failing to afford Plaintiffs’ affected schools notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to the Appellate Panel’s final administrative decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA as required by the League’s rules and procedures for realignment appeals; e. Declaring the League violated FOIA by failing to post meeting agendas at the meeting place and on its public website at least twenty-four hours prior to the meetings of its Executive Committee and Appellate Panel; f. Declaring the League’s decision to reclassify UCHS down from Region II AAAA to Region III AAA was arbitrary and capricious; g. Declaring the League’s decision to reclassify UCHS to Region III AAA is therefore null and void and must be vacated; h. Enjoining the League from reclassifying UCHS to Region III AAA; i. Awarding Plaintiffs attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to S.C. Code §30-4-100 and as otherwise may be just and proper under applicable law; and j. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper Response- Prayer for relief 94. Answering plaintiffs’ Prayer for Relief, the SCHSL denies that plaintiffs have appropriately asserted causes of action that would entitle them to the requested relief and demands strict proof thereof. FOR A SECOND DEFENSE (Failure to State a Claim) 95. The defendant SCHSL would show that the allegations in plaintiff’s Complaint fail to allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against it, and, therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed as to it pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) SCRCP. FOR A THIRD DEFENSE 96. The defendant SCHSL will show that the plaintiffs, by participating in high school athletics governed by the South Carolina High School League, a voluntary organization, agreed that the Executive Committee and the Appellate Panel would be the final authority on appeals of decisions, and the SCHSL, therefore, asserts that the plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrines of estoppel and waiver. FOR A FOURTH DEFENSE 97. The plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the South Carolina High School League’s classification decision regarding another school. Further, the plaintiffs cannot allege a concrete and particularized injury for purposes of establishing standing. FOR A FIFTH DEFENSE 98. The defendant SCHSL would show that the South Carolina Administrative Procedures Act is inapplicable because the South Carolina High School League is not an “agency” for purposes of triggering the Act’s provisions. The League’s decisions do not establish binding norms, but rather are focused on the individual facts of each case that arises. FOR A SIXTH DEFENSE 99. The defendant SCHSL would show that the plaintiffs failed to allege the elements required for an injunction to issue because they cannot demonstrate any irreparable harm, the lack of an adequate remedy at law, or a likelihood of success on the merits of this litigation. FOR A SEVENTH DEFENSE 100. The defendant SCHSL would show that the plaintiffs’ requested relief would require the Court to engage in a legislative exercise and, thus, violates the separation of powers doctrine. FOR AN EIGHTH DEFENSE 101. The defendant SCHSL would show that a declaratory judgment is not used simply to rule upon past conduct or declare one party liable to another and, therefore, the remedy sought by the plaintiffs is improper. FOR A NINTH DEFENSE 102. The SCHSL would show that the plaintiffs’ due process claim fails as a matter of law because they do not have a legally cognizable right with respect to their classification for interscholastic activities. Furthermore, to the extent plaintiffs can prove a cognizable right, they were afforded due process protections throughout the realignment process. WHEREFORE, having fully answered, the defendant, South Carolina High School League, prays that plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed as to it and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
0 Comments
|
TravisI am Travis, the king 0f SC 1A Football Archives
November 2021
Categories |