On September 23, 2020, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in McIntyre v. Eugene School District that the exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when the claims do not allege a denial of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The case involved a student with attention deficit disorder who alleged that her school district violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act when it did not provide her with disability-related testing accommodations and failed to follow an emergency health protocol.
In the complaint, the student did not expressly allege a denial of FAPE. Instead, it alleged that the school district failed to provide her with reasonable accommodations and discriminated against her by failing to provide her with those reasonable accommodations and creating a hostile learning environment. The student was eligible for a Section 504 plan but did not have an individualized education program (“IEP”). The complaint did not seek compensatory education. Instead, it sought declaratory and injunctive relief, economic and noneconomic money damages, and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
The student’s complaint was dismissed by the federal District Court, which relied upon the 2017 United States Supreme Court case Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools. The District Court interpreted the student’s complaint as primarily involving FAPE, and therefore exhaustion of administrative remedies was required. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
Instead, the Ninth Circuit found that the student’s Complaint sought relief for the denial of equal access to her education as opposed to a denial of FAPE. The Ninth Circuit relied upon the fact that the student did not have an IEP and that the testing accommodations and the health protocol in the Section 504 did not constitute special education for which FAPE is required.
