Amy Howe

May 25 2016

Federal government recommends grant in disability law dispute

Since the death of Justice Antonin Scalia on February 13, the rate at which the Justices granted review in new cases has slowed significantly. But one new case that could make it on to the Court’s docket for next Term is Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, in which the federal government recently filed a brief recommending that certiorari be granted.

Stacy and Brent Fry are the parents of a daughter, known as “E.F.” to protect her privacy. At the age of five, E.F. – who has cerebral palsy, which limits her motor skills – received a service dog: a goldendoodle named Wonder, trained with dog toys to help with everything from turning lights on and off to taking off E.F.’s coat. However, the Michigan school district in which E.F. attended school refused to allow her to bring Wonder with her; in its view, she had enough support from her human aide.

In December 2012, the Frys filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The ADA bars state and local governments from discriminating against individuals with a disability, while the Rehabilitation Act bars discrimination because of a disability by institutions or entities that receive financial assistance from the federal government. The Frys sought damages “for the social and emotional harm caused by the” school district’s refusal to allow E.F. to bring Wonder to school with her.

The district court dismissed the case, on the ground that the Frys had failed to comply with the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986. A provision of that law requires would-be plaintiffs to pursue state administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act before going to court, even if their lawsuits are not based on the IDEA, if they are “seeking relief that is also available under” the IDEA.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed. It concluded that, although the Frys’ lawsuit sought damages, which are not available under the IDEA, they still needed to exhaust the available state administrative remedies. Otherwise, the court of appeals reasoned, plaintiffs could circumvent the exhaustion requirement simply by adding a damages claim.

In fall 2015, the Frys filed a petition seeking Supreme Court review of the Sixth Circuit’s decision; in January of this year, the Court asked the federal government to weigh in.

In a brief filed last week, the federal government agreed with the Frys that the Court should grant review. The Sixth Circuit’s decision, the government told the Court, “deepens an entrenched” split among the federal courts of appeals over how to interpret the exhaustion requirement. Moreover, it continued, the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the exhaustion requirement is “at odds with the plain text” of the provision, which “makes clear” that the IDEA is not the only avenue available for lawsuits on behalf of children with disabilities. Instead, it applies only to “civil actions” “seeking relief that is also available under” the IDEA: if the relief that the plaintiffs are seeking is not available under the IDEA, the government contended, they are simply not required to go through the state administrative process.

In E.F.’s case, the government explained, the Frys alleged only that the school district refused to change their policies to allow E.F. to bring Wonder to school; nothing in their lawsuit mentioned the IDEA, and their complaint asked only for money damages and declaratory relief – relief that is not available under the IDEA. Indeed, the government suggested, there is no reason to require the family to go through the exhaustion requirement, because even if they won on all issues related to the IDEA, they “would have had to file exactly the same suit under” the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.

The school district will have the opportunity to respond to the federal government’s brief. The Court is likely to announce before its summer recess whether it will review the case on the merits.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies