ALERTS

Special Education Tip – Wonder of Wonders – 37-2017

Print

Rochelle’s Special Education Tips

Wonder of Wonders – Supreme Court Opens Door for More Litigation in Cases Involving 504 and the ADA

On February 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools et al. A school district had prohibited a student from bringing her service dog, Wonder, to school with her. So the family filed suit for money damages under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, claiming the student suffered “emotional distress and pain, embarrassment [and] mental anguish as a result. Decisions were issued by the U.S. District Court and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in favor of the school district on the basis that the claimed injuries were “educational” in nature, making the case subject to IDEA’s exhaustion requirement. The exhaustion requirement mandates that the plaintiff must exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA, which in Maryland would mean that the plaintiff must file for a due process hearing before the Office of Administrative Hearings. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Sixth Circuit and in so doing, announced a new standard. That standard is that exhaustion is only required if the plaintiff is seeking relief for the denial of a FAPE (free appropriate public education) because that is the only “relief” IDEA makes available. The Supreme Court said, in what will likely end up being the basis for future litigation, that when “determining whether a suit seeks relief for a denial of FAPE, the court should look to the substance, or gravamen, of the plaintiff’s complaint.” Then the Supreme Court gave two “clues” to help decide if the gravamen of a complaint concerns the denial of FAPE. “First, could the plaintiff have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school – say a public theater or library? And second, could an adult at the school – say an employee or visitor – have pressed essentially the same grievance?” A “yes” answer means the complaint is unlikely to address a denial of FAPE.

On a daily basis, this decision will have no impact on how you do business. But any time there is a change that makes it easier to file suit, inevitably that results in more litigation. Eliminating the need to exhaust administrative remedies and giving plaintiffs the right to go straight to court will increase your costs. It is now more important than ever to make sure your schools are compliant with Section 504 and the ADA.

We await the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the definition of FAPE. Hold on tight. It may be quite a rollercoaster ride.

Rochelle’s Special Education Tips (“Tips”) are designed to be helpful and thought provoking, but should not be considered legal advice as they may not be accurate for use in all situations. Tips are based on my opinions and positions in accordance with federal and Maryland law and my over 35 years of experience in the special education legal field. – Rochelle S. Eisenberg, Esquire
Copyright © 2016 Pessin Katz Law, P.A. All rights reserved.
Tips may be reproduced for distribution within the educational institution, the individual school or school system and is for use by their staff. Additional distribution must be approved by author.
If you wish to unsubscribe from this mailing list, please e-mail Rochelle S. Eisenberg at reisenberg@pklaw.com, put “unsubscribe” in the subject line and your name will be removed.
10500 Little Patuxent Parkway
Suite 650
Columbia, MD 21044
410-938-8800
information@pklaw.com
www.pklaw.com