Ricks v. Matayoshi

Filing 138

ORDER ADDRESSING FRY v. NAPOLEON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 137 S.Ct. 743 (2017) - Signed by JUDGE HELEN GILLMOR on 4/11/2017. (emt, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notific ations received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
MARIA THERESE RICKS, as
Guardian Ad Litem for her
minor son, M.R.,

)
)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
KATHRYN MATAYOSHI, in her
)
official capacity as
)
Superintendent of the State of )
Hawaii Department of
)
Education,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)
______________________________

CIV. NO. 16-00044 HG-KSC

ORDER ADDRESSING FRY v. NAPOLEON COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,
137 S.Ct. 743 (2017)
On February 22, 2017, the United States Supreme Court
issued a decision in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 137
S.Ct. 743, 756 (2017).

Fry addressed the exhaustion provision

in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”)
and the interplay between the IDEA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Id.
On March 24, 2017 at the Final Pre-Trial Conference, the
Court instructed the Parties to review the Fry decision and
file legal memoranda as to their position on the application
of the Fry ruling in the case before this Court.
p. 2, ECF No. 119).
1

(Minutes at

On March 29, 2017, Defendant filed its Memorandum (ECF
No. 121) regarding the Fry decision and Plaintiff filed her
Memorandum.

(ECF No. 122).

The Court finds the following aspects of the Fry ruling
relevant to the case before this Court.
The IDEA establishes formal administrative procedures for
resolving disputes between parents and schools concerning the
provisions of a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”).
The IDEA statute includes an exhaustion provision.

The

provision provides that a plaintiff bringing suit pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, or similar laws seeking
relief also available under IDEA, must first exhaust the
IDEA’s administrative procedures.

20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).

In Fry, the United States Supreme Court held that the
IDEA’s exhaustion requirement “hinges on whether a lawsuit
seeks relief for the denial of a free appropriate public
education.

If a lawsuit charges such a denial, the plaintiff

cannot escape § 1415(l) merely by bringing her suit under a
statute other than IDEA.”

Fry, 137 S.Ct. at 748.

The Supreme Court explained in the Fry decision that “the
IDEA guarantees individually tailored educational services,
while Title II and § 504 promise non-discriminatory access to
public institutions.”

Id. at 756.
2

A complaint brought

pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act may proceed when it seeks
relief based on discrimination, but it may not proceed without
exhausting the IDEA’s administrative requirements if it seeks
relief based on a school district’s failure to provide the
student with a FAPE.

Id. at 756-57.

In this case, Plaintiff was not required to exhaust her
Section 504 claim pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).

Plaintiff

seeks monetary damages for intentional discrimination.

Such

relief is not the type of relief an IDEA hearing officer may
award and is not subject to the exhaustion requirement of the
IDEA.

See Fry, 137 S.Ct. at 752.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 11, 2017, Honolulu, Hawaii.

_________________________________
Helen Gillmor
United States District Judge

Maria Therese Ricks, as Guardian Ad Litem for her minor son,
M.R. v. Kathryn Matayoshi, in her official capacity as
Superintendent of the State of Hawaii Department of Education,
Civ. No. 16-00044 HG-KSC; ORDER ADDRESSING FRY v. NAPOLEON
COMMUNITY SCHOOLS, 137 S.Ct. 743 (2017)
3