Stacy Fry and Brent Fry, et al. v. Napoleon Community Schools, Jackson County Intermediate School District, and Pamela Barnes
Issues
Does the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 require exhaustion of state administrative remedies when claims seeking monetary damages are made under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act?
The Supreme Court will decide whether the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 exhaustion requirement applies when a party brings a suit under the American with Disabilities Act or the Rehabilitation Act if the plaintiff is seeking a remedy not contemplated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The parties disagree on how to interpret Section 1415(l) of the IDEA and whether the IDEA is even implicated here. Stacy and Brent Fry posit that the plain text and purpose of the IDEA make it so monetary damages are not recoverable under the IDEA and thus neither exhaustion nor the IDEA should apply here. In response, Napoleon Community Schools et al. argues that the text and purpose of the IDEA’s exhaustion requirement require that substantively-the-same claims be exhausted before going to court. Depending on the how the Court rules, the ease of access to courts could be altered, thus impacting the role of school-related administrative proceedings.
Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties
The Handicapped Children's Protection Act of 1986 (HCPA), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), requires exhaustion of state administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for non-IDEA actions "seeking relief that is also available under" the IDEA. The question presented, on which the circuits have persistently disagreed, is:
Whether the HCPA commands exhaustion in a suit, brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, that seeks damages—a remedy that is not available under the IDEA.
Petitioners Stacy and Brent Fry are the parents of E.F., a minor, who was born with cerebral palsy. See Fry, et al. v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., et al., No. 14-1137, 2 (6th Cir. Jun. 12, 2015). E.F. was prescribed a service dog in 2008 to aid her with everyday tasks. See id. This service dog, named Wonder, helps E.F.
Edited by
Additional Resources
- Pete Wright, Fry v. Napoleon Comm. Sch. Dist. Family Appeals Decisions in Discrimination Case to Supreme Court, Wright’s Law (June 28, 2016).
- Sam Hananel, SCOTUS Agrees to Hear Case Involving Service Dog at School, U.S. News & World Report U.S. News (June 28, 2016).
- Christina Samuels Supreme Court Seeks Input on Special Education Service Animal Case, Education Week Education Week (January 19, 2016)