In
Fry v.
Napoleon Community Schools, Docket No.
15–497, the U.S. Supreme Court examined a disability-based discrimination
claim brought by a Michigan student against a public school. A disabled student
alleging discrimination has three primary federal statutes on which she can
rely to bring her claim: (1) Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA), which prohibits any public entity from discriminating based on
disability; (2) §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits any federally
funded program or activity from discriminating based on disability; and (3) the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees disabled
children access to a free appropriate public education tailored to their
individual needs.
If a claim is
brought under the IDEA, the plaintiff must first exhaust the administrative
procedures specified in that statute -- filing a complaint with the local
educational agency, attending a meeting with school officials, participating in
a due process hearing, and appealing an unfavorable ruling from that hearing
with the state agency — before bringing suit in court. Congress
subsequently passed a law requiring a plaintiff bringing a claim under the ADA
or the Rehabilitation Act to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures
first, even if the plaintiff is not bringing any claim under the IDEA— provided
that the plaintiff is seeking relief that would also be available to her under
the IDEA. This prevents plaintiffs from electing to bring a claim under one of
the other acts simply to avoid having to go through the IDEA’s exhaustion
requirement. The issue in Fry is whether all education-based discrimination
claims brought under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act are subject to the
IDEA’s administrative proceedings requirement, or whether this only applies in
certain circumstances.
The plaintiff in
Fry, E.F., was a kindergartner with a severe form of cerebral palsy. When she
started school at Ezra Eby Elementary School in Napoleon, Michigan, she sought
permission to have her service dog, Wonder, accompany her. Because school
officials had already agreed to assign an aide to work with E.F. one-on-one
throughout the day, they thought that Wonder’s assistance would be unnecessary
and denied E.F.’s request to bring him to school with her. E.F.’s parents
ultimately filed a federal lawsuit against the school district, alleging violations
of Title II of the ADA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
The District Court
dismissed E.F.’s claim, since she failed to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative
procedures before bringing suit. The Sixth Circuit upheld the dismissal,
reasoning that the IDEA’s administrative exhaustion requirements apply whenever
a disability-based discrimination claim is educational in nature, even if it is
brought under a different statutory scheme, such as the ADA or the
Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. Supreme Court, however, reversed the Sixth Court,
finding its interpretation of the scope of the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement
too broad. Rather, the Supreme Court held that the IDEA’s exhaustion
requirement applies only to cases where the gravamen of the plaintiff’s suit is
the denial of access to a free appropriate public education. The Court reasoned
that the core guarantee of the IDEA was to provide disabled children with
access to a free appropriate public education, and therefore the Sixth
Circuit’s holding that the exhaustion requirements applied whenever the
plaintiff’s claim was connected in any manner to the child’s education was too
broad.
The Supreme Court
found that two questions will be helpful in determining whether gravamen of the
plaintiff’s complaint is the denial of a free appropriate public education or
some other form of disability-based discrimination: (1) could the plaintiff
have brought the same claim if the conduct had occurred at a public facility
other than a school?; and (2) could an adult, as opposed to a student, have
brought the same claim against the school? If the answer to those questions is
yes, then the gravamen of the plaintiff’s complaint is likely to be something
other than a denial of a free appropriate public education, and the IDEA’s
administration exhaustion requirements would not apply. Additionally, the Court
suggested that if a plaintiff had begun to utilize the IDEA’s administrative
proceedings at the beginning of her case before abandoning the process mid-way
through, this could be an indication that the gravamen of her complaint is the
denial of a free appropriate public education to which the exhaustion
requirement would apply.
The Court
ultimately remanded Fry to the District Court for further investigation on the
gravamen of Fry’s complaint. If the gravamen is that E.F. was denied a free
appropriate public education, then she will have to exhaust the IDEA’s
administrative procedures before bringing her suit in federal court. If the
gravamen is found to be a different form of disability-based discrimination,
the E.F.’s suit will be allowed to continue.
Labels: ADA, Americans with Disabilites Act, exhaustion of administrative remedies, IDEA, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Jackson County, Michigan, Napoleon, Rehabilitation Act, service dog