Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools
United States Supreme Court
137 S. Ct. 743 (2017)
![SC](https://quimbee-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/educator/photo/11/Sean_Carroll.webp)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) sought to guarantee “free appropriate public education” for children with disabilities. IDEA stated that if a claim under another federal antidiscrimination law could provide relief that was also available under IDEA, the claimant would need to exhaust his or her administrative remedies under IDEA prior to pursuing the other claim. E.F. was a child with cerebral palsy. E.F. had a trained service dog to help her with daily activities. E.F.’s kindergarten, Ezra Eby Elementary School (defendant), refused to let E.F. bring her service dog to school. Stacy and Brent Fry (plaintiffs) filed a complaint with the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. OCR found in favor of the Frys. The school appealed, arguing that the Frys had not exhausted their administrative remedies under IDEA. The court of appeals found that the Frys’ claims were educational in nature and thus had to be exhausted through IDEA’s administrative process prior to judicial review. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.