Abstract Richard Grube, an athletically inclined senior at Freedom High School in the Bethlehem Area School District, played football his freshman, sophomore, and junior years. Prior to the start of the football season in his senior year, the district claimed Richard was ineligible to play on the basis that Richard only had one kidney. Richard and his family filed a preliminary injunction against the school district claiming the district violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) According to the United States Department of Education (2011), Section 504 states that, “no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in…any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance”. As a result, the court ruled in favor of Richard Grube.

Case and Law Review
Richard Wallace Grube et al. v. Bethlehem Area School District

Legal Research In 1982, Richard Grube, a senior at Freedom High School was declared ineligible to play football because he only had one kidney. Richard and his family filed a preliminary injunction based on Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. According to the U.S. Department of Education, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that, no otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. According to the testimony, Richard William Grube’s only physical problem is that he only has one working kidney. When Richard was 2, his left kidney was removed because it was non-functioning since birth. Richard’s remaining kidney compensates for the loss of his left. Richard has participated in sports since the age of eight and has been a member of the Freedom High School football team in ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) Prior to his senior year, Richard prepared for the upcoming football season. He attended team practices and participated in physical contact with other players. A few days before the first scrimmage game, Richard was barred from playing and practicing based solely on only having one kidney. Richard and his father, Mr. Grube agreed to sign a waiver accepting full legal and financial responsibility in the event that Richard is harmed playing football. In the 1981 season, Richard did sustain an injury to his remaining kidney and was hospitalized after Richard hit another player’s helmet. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) While in the hospital, Richard was under the care of Dr. Lennart, a specialist in Urology. Dr. Lennart did not advise Richard to stop playing football and stated that it was Richard’s choice to continue playing the game. When Richard decided to continue playing football, Dr. Lennart referred him to Lehigh University to secure protective equipment from Texas. At no cost to the district, Richard obtained a protective “flack jacket” for $400 designed to protect the kidney and ribs. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) Dr. Delp, Bethlehem Area School District’s physician and the physician to the school’s athletic teams, conducts medical examinations for all team members. Dr. Delp, checks the players’ heart, lungs, and kidneys. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) Dr. Delp, who is not a specialist in Urology or sports medicine, decided that it would be best that Richard obtain a note from his kidney specialist stating that Richard could take part in this contact sport. Since Richard did not have a kidney specialist he asked Dr. Lennart to write a note to Dr. Delp. Dr. Lennart wrote three letters on behalf of Richard. After receiving the letters, Dr. Delp came to the conclusion that playing football would be too risky for Richard. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) In preparation for his testimony, Dr. Moyer, director of Sports Medicine Clinic at Temple University, examined Richard and determined that Richard is in good health and his remaining kidney is healthy. In Dr. Moyer’s professional opinion, he stated that Richard can safely play football with protective equipment with little to no risk of injury. In the event that Richard was injured, the result would be dialysis or a kidney transplant, which Richard and his family fully understood. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1982) Another important factor in this case is that Richard and his family was not financial sound but Richard demonstrated his maturity by holding down a part-time job to purchase his protective gear. (Grube v Bethlehem, 1882) Therefore, the court ruled in favor of Richard Grube because according to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Richard was “otherwise qualified”. The Department of Education 2011 notes that,
The exclusion from contact sports of students who have lost an organ, limb, or an appendage (e.g. a kidney, leg, or finger) but who are other- wise qualified is a denial of equal opportunity. It denies participation not on the basis of ability but because of a handicap.
Furthermore, since the district receives federal financial assistance for sports programs they must comply with Section 504.
In reviewing this case there were two other major cases that the courts referred to in order to make their decision. In 1981, John Wright, who was blind in his right eye was accepted to Columbia University to play football. John played football throughout high school but a physician at Columbia University decided that John should not play football as this sport may result in the loss of vision in his other eye. John Wright invoked his rights under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and was able to try out for the team because he was “otherwise qualified”. John Wright later went on to make the Columbia University football team. (Wright v Columbia University, 1981) The second major case was Poole v South Plainfield Board of Education, 1980. Richard Poole Jr. was a high school wrestler for three years prior to being barred by the school board from joining the team in 1980 because he only had one kidney. Like Richard Grube, the courts ruled in favor of the student based on Section 504. (Poole v South Plainfield Board of Education, 1980)
Analysis and Interpretation of the Law
As a result of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, a few questions need to be answered. Does Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act apply to public schools? Should handicapped students be allowed to participate in contact sports?
According to the Office for Civil Rights, U.S Department of Education Section 504 applies to any public or private institution receiving financial benefits must comply with this section of the law. In the Grube case, Richard attended a public school which did receive monies for activities. This interpretation leads us to the question of whether or not handicapped students should be allowed to play contact sports. The Office for Civil Rights states that a student with a handicap must be afforded the same opportunities as a student without a disability. Although Richard did not have one working organ, he took precautions to prevent any damage or injury to his remaining kidney. Furthermore, there are serious life threatening injuries which are concerns for not only Richard but for any student athlete playing a contact sport.
Application of the Law to Instructional Practice After researching Grube v Bethlehem Area School District, I do have a deeper understanding of Section 504. Since I have started my career, I have not dealt with any students with a 504 plan in my classes but I am aware that I must comply with this law. Moreover, I am an assistant Track and Field coach in the Scranton School District where the issue of students with a 504 plan may try out for the team. The Scranton School District does have a policy regarding students with a 504 plan which reads: The Scranton School District affirms that all employment practices, student enrollment practices, and curriculum offerings will be handled without discrimination based on sex, race, color, religion, age, national origin, handicaps, or disabilities in compliance with Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972; Title VI and VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964; Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. While all three of these cases deal with sports, the law most definitely applies to the classroom setting. Students with a 504 plan will have specially designed instruction in the classroom that the regular education teacher must be aware of. As a special education teacher, I am not responsible for developing or ensuring that a student’s 504 plan is being followed but after looking at the law I will be sure to make myself aware of these students and encourage other teachers to do the same.

References
Joseph Wright v. Columbia University Civ. A. No. 81-2996 520 F. Supp.789; 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14191
Richard Wallace Grube, et.al. v. Bethlehem Area School District Civil Action No. 82-3915 550 F. Supp. 418; 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15657
Richard Poole v. South Plainfield Board of Education Civ. No. 79-1771 490 F. Supp. 948; 1980 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13213
Scranton School District. (2011) Student/parent handbook (2011-2012). Retrieved from http://www.scrsd.org/webdocs/Admin/Doc0889_30Q0QNAY2.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil Rights. (2011). Protecting students with Disabilities Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/504faq.html