By Marie E. Matyjaszek
You may recall a previous column about a young girl named Ehlena Fry, and her fight against Napoleon (Michigan) Community School’s refusal to allow her service dog, Wonder, to assist her while obtaining her education. Her family sued the school, intermediate school district, and the former principal, for the perceived civil rights violation. The lower courts sided with the school, and ruled that Ehlena had to exhaust administrative remedies before filing a legal action.
The U.S. Supreme Court decided to change Ehlena’s luck, and on February 22, 2017, it unanimously ruled that Ehlena could file her legal action without exhausting the administrative remedies available first. Of primary focus was determining if the substance of the complaint was based around the denial of a “FAPE” – which stands for “free appropriate public education,”or, if the main concern is “disability-based discrimination.”
In writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan provided a hypothetical, asking if “the plaintiff [could] have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school – say, a public theater or library; [a]nd second, could an adult at the school – say, an employee or visitor – have pressed essentially the same grievance.”
As Ehlena’s lawsuit concerned discrimination based on disability, and did not focus on a FAPE denial, the lawsuit should have been allowed to proceed through the court system, without the exhaustion of the administrative process. The Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ ruling, and remanded the case so that a determination could be made relative to whether or not the crux of Ehlena’s lawsuit is the “adequacy of special education.”
The distinction made by the Supreme Court relative to the correct path to take with these types of cases will assist other families who face hurdles in educating their special needs child. One can hope that it also triggers all school systems to accommodate children, when appropriate, without the necessity of a lawsuit.
(The author is an Attorney Referee at the Washtenaw County Friend of the Court; however, the views expressed in this column are her own. Her blog site is: http://legalbling.blogspot.com. She can be reached by e-mailing her at matyjasz@hotmail.com.)
- Posted April 07, 2017
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
A 'Wonder'ful outcome at the Supreme Court
headlines Flint-Genesee County
- Two-in-one: Area law firm welcomes new attorney with Canadian and American Dual JD
- Trio joins State Bar’s Insurance, Indemnity Law Section Council
- Founding Fathers embraced the Age of Enlightenment
- Russia’s long list of war crimes grows with each passing day
- Irvine joins firm’s governmental law group
headlines National
- Former judge sentenced to 12 years in prison for using public funds for vacations, personal purchases
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Attorney sentenced to 25 years in prison after taking client money for gambling
- Ex-DLA Piper partner accused of assault by former associate
- Legal leaders shoulder more stress, new survey shows
- Some noncitizens may have Second Amendment rights, federal appeals court says




