Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 does not command exhaustion of state-level administrative remedies codified in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the gravamen of the plaintiff's lawsuit is not related to the denial of free appropriate public education (FAPE).
Background Minor Ehlena Fry was born with spastic quadriplegic cerebral palsy, which significantly impairs her motor skills and mobility. Ehlena Fry, originally in an orphanage in Calcutta, India, was adopted by Stacy and Brent Fry. In 2008, Fry's pediatrician prescribed a service dog for Ehlena; the community ran a fundraiser so that the Fry family could purchase a service dog for their adopted daughter. The service dog Wonder would help Ehlena Fry, amongst other things, open doors, turn on lights, pick up dropped items, help her remove her coat, and help her balance while she transferred from her walker onto a chair or the toilet. The administration of Ezra Eby Elementary School (one of the Napoleon Community Schools), however, denied permission to bring her service dog to school for the 2009–2010 school year. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, schools are obligated to provide disabled children the Individualized Education Program (IEP) in order to provide them free appropriate public education (FAPE). The school district argued that a human aide can provide all the necessary help so that Ehlena Fry can get free and appropriate public education. The school's decision to prohibit Wonder was upheld in the meeting held in January 2010 related to Fry's IEP. The Fry family maintained that the service dog, which had time to bond with Ehlena, is necessary as a bridge to her independence, and that the right to bring her service dog is covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Once the American Civil Liberties Union intervened to represent the Frys, the school allowed Ehlena Fry to bring Wonder for the "trial period" (from April 2010 until the end of the school year); however, Wonder was not allowed to accompany Ehlena Fry during lunch time, in library, in computer labs, during recess, and during any other school activities. Wonder also had to sit at the back of the classroom whenever a class was in session. After the trial period, the school informed the Frys that Ehlena would not be allowed to bring Wonder to school during the 2010–2011 school year. The Frys homeschooled their daughter for the 2010–2011 school year. During that time, the Frys filed a complaint to the Office of Civil Rights of the United States Department of Education, which issued a determination letter that the school violated Ehlena Fry's rights protected by the Americans with Disabilities Act "by failing to modify their policies, practices, or procedures to permit the student's service animal to accompany her to and assist her at school, thus denying and/or significantly limiting the student's ability to access the district's programs and activities with as much independence as possible". The school, without accepting the OCR's determinations, eventually allowed the Frys to bring her service dog, starting from the 2012–2013 school year; but feeling that Ehlena and Wonder were still not welcomed by the administration, the family transferred to a school in a neighbouring county which allowed Fry to bring her service dog. The Fry family sued the Napoleon Community Schools, the principal of Ezra Eby Elementary School, and the school district under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, for damages for the 2009–2010, 2010–2011, and 2011-2012 school years for the following: the denial of equal access; the denial of the use of Wonder; interference to form bonds with other kids; denial of an opportunity to interact with other children; and emotional distress and pain, embarrassment, mental anguish, inconvenience, and loss of enjoyment. The Napoleon Community Schools moved to dismiss the lawsuit for failing to exhaust the IDEA administrative remedies. The Frys countered that since they seek for the declaratory judgement that the school violated the ADA and money damages for emotional distress, both of which are not the type of remedies available under the IDEA. They also argued that they do not accuse the school of not providing free and appropriate public education. For these reasons, they argued that the administrative remedy exhaustion requirement does not apply.
Legislative background The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA or EAHCA) was enacted in 1975, to require all public schools accepting public funds to provide equal access to education to children with disabilities via a personalized education plan with parents' input. The EHA's name was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Besides the IDEA, there are other federal statutes covering the rights of people with disabilities, including, but not limited to, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §12131 et seq., and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794. Title II of the ADA mandates public facilities to make "reasonable modifications" to avoid discriminating against people with disabilities. Similarly, the Rehabilitation Act demands certain modifications to existing practices to accommodate people with disabilities. Both statutes allow individuals to bring suits for relief or damages to have their grievances addressed.
The interaction between these three laws was addressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in Smith v. Robinson . In Smith, the plaintiffs brought their claims not just under the EHA, but also the virtually identical claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court ruled that any claims brought under the Rehabilitation Act and the Equal Protection Clause are preempted by the EHA, as the EHA, with its "comprehensive" and "carefully tailored" provisions, was intended to be the exclusive means for the parents to challenge the adequacy of the school's accommodation for their disabled child. Congress was quick to overrule Smith by enacting the Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986. It also added a carefully defined administrative remedy exhaustion requirement, codified at 20 U.S.C. §1415(l). The text of this statute is read as follows:
The issue in this case was how the scope of this exhaustion requirement should be interpreted, the question which caused a circuit split.
Ruling by the lower courts Judge Lawrence Paul Zatkoff of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan agreed with the schools and dismissed the lawsuit because the claims necessarily implicated the IDEA, which required plaintiffs to exhaust all administrative remedies before suing under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The Frys appealed and argued that the exhaustion requirement did not apply because they were seeking damages, which is not the sort of relief the IDEA provided.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal in a 2-1 ruling, with Judges John M. Rogers and Bernice B. Donald forming the majority. The majority of the Sixth Circuit held that the Frys’ claims were essentially educational—particularly, they noted that "developing a bond with Wonder that allows E.F. to function more independently outside the classroom is an educational goal". Therefore, this is precisely the sort of claims the IDEA was meant to address, and therefore the exhaustion requirement applied.
Judge Martha Craig Daughtrey dissented. Judge Daughtrey wrote that since Frys' request to bring Wonder to school was not related to Ehlena's academic program – hence not educational in nature – there is no reason for the administrative remedy exhaustion requirement to apply. Particularly, she observed that "[the Frys'] request could be honored simply by modifying the school policy allowing guide dogs to include service dogs" (emphasis original).
Supreme Court of the United States The Frys applied to the Supreme Court of the United States. The federal government also filed a brief recommending that the Supreme Court grant the writ of certiorari, arguing that the Sixth Circuit incorrectly decided the case in favour of the respondents. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on June 28, 2016. Amicus briefs in support of the Fry family were filed by National Disability Rights Network, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Psychiatric Service Dog Partners, and Autism Speaks. Former Senator Lowell P. Weicker Jr., who was actively involved in drafting many disability rights laws including the ones in this issue (Handicapped Children's Protection Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Americans with Disabilities Act), also filed an amicus brief supporting the petitioners arguing that the Sixth Circuit's ruling runs contrary to the Congress's intent. The National School Boards Association filed a brief supporting the respondents, urging the nation's highest court to uphold the process meant to encourage that the parent and the school work together for the child's special education needs. The oral argument took place on October 31, 2016; the Supreme Court released its opinion on February 22, 2017.
Supreme Court Opinion The Supreme Court of the United States announced the opinion on February 22, 2017. The opinion of the Court was written by Justice Elena Kagan, joined by the Chief Justice, Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Samuel Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.
Opinion of the Court Part I The Court reviews the history of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the law at issue in this case, and also reviews the facts of this case.
Part II On the merits, the Court held the following. The IDEA's remedy exhaustion requirement does not apply when a lawsuit seeks relief unrelated to the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE). To determine if a lawsuit seeks relief for the denial of a FAPE or not, a court should examine the gravamen – equivalently, the substance – of the plaintiff's complaint.