As a history enthusiast, I feel absolutely honored to author an article in our newest GPSolo eReport column, “A Page Out of Legal History,” which examines a significant legal event from the year of the author’s birth or law school graduation.
I graduated and earned my LL.M. degree in taxation in 2017. As usual, many significant legal events took place throughout that year. I am particularly drawn to Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017). In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) addressed whether a student at a public school with a disability was allowed to bring her service dog to school. The plaintiff’s suit was dismissed by the lower courts because she did not exhaust administrative remedies under a different statute, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), even though the plaintiff was not complaining about her education and the IDEA has no provision for the damages she sought. The plaintiff was a 12-year-old student, Ehlena Fry, who was represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Michigan.
The lawsuit was filed in 2012 (when Fry was eight years old) against the Napoleon Community Schools and Jackson Intermediate School District by the ACLU of Michigan after district officials barred the plaintiff from bringing her service dog, a goldendoodle named Wonder, to school. The plaintiff has a severe form of cerebral palsy that affects her legs, arms, and body, and therefore needs assistance with many of her daily tasks.
The ACLU contended that the plaintiff experienced discrimination because of her disability and that the school district was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for failing to make reasonable modifications to their policies and practices. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that her claim brought under the ADA should be thrown out because she never asked for an administrative hearing under a separate law, IDEA. The ACLU argued that administrative hearings under IDEA are only required for violations of the ADA if the student is seeking relief that is also available under IDEA, and in this case, the monetary damages sought by the Frys are not available under IDEA.
On February 22, 2017, SCOTUS ruled unanimously on behalf of the plaintiff. The Court found that the ADA allows a person with a disability to sue for violations unrelated to the adequacy of her education without first exhausting administrative proceedings. This was and is a huge victory for students with disabilities nationwide.
Michael Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, reacted to SCOTUS’s decision, stating, “This victory will, once and for all, remove unfair legal hurdles for victims of discrimination across the country that prevent students from seeking justice guaranteed by the Americans with Disabilities Act.”
The unanimous decision ended a five-year journey for the plaintiff and her family. More often than not, the only way to obtain a legal remedy in the fight for our rights is through the filing of a lawsuit. This case, along with so many others, reminds us that we must stay vigilant when it comes to the preservation of our rights as Americans and as human beings.
