In February, The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a unanimous decision in favor of a student with disabilities, and clarified the inter-relationship between the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1993.
The case, Fry V. Napoleon Community Schools, involves a Michigan girl with cerebral palsy who sought to bring her service dog, Wonder, to school. The dog was prescribed to the girl, then age 5, by her physician to help with activities of daily life: retrieving dropped items, opening and closing doors, and performing other tasks. School officials refused, arguing that a paid paraprofessional provided as part of the girl’s IEP could carry out those functions. The family removed their daughter from school to home school her, but ultimately found a new school where the dog was welcomed. Working with legal experts at the American Civil Liberties Union, the family filed a compliant and sued for damages, arguing that denial of the dog was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The district argued that the case should be dismissed because the family failed to exhaust remedies under IDEA.
SCOTUS sent the case back to the 6th Circuit saying that federal civil rights laws – ADA and Section 504 – allow the girl to purse her claims in court without first having to exhaust IDEA’s legal process. The decision could make it easier for students with disabilities to have their rights protected under the ADA.
The court accepted the argument – that requiring parents to participate in extensive litigation (for which they know compensation may never be obtained) as a prerequisite for a distinct ADA/504 claim – is “contrary to the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 and its purpose.”
In its 20-page decision, SCOTUS instructed the 6th Circuit to review the case and determine whether the same claims could be raised “if the conduct had occurred in a public facility which was not a school” and whether an adult with disabilities who was not a student could have “pressed the same grievance.” To read the full decision, go to: supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-497_p8k0.pdf
.