In the case of Doe v. Knox Cnty. Bd. Of Educ., 56 F.4th 1076 (6th Cir.2023), a federal appellate court held that (1) the parents did not need to go through administrative exhaustion under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) when the parents sought a ban on chewing gum because such a change does not affect instruction and (2) a preliminary injunction for a ban on chewing gum was not justified when other school-provided remedies were reasonable.
In this case, the parents argued that (1) the administrative exhaustion in the IDEA did not apply to this case because the relief sought was not instructional and (2) the court should issue a preliminary injunction under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act because requesting students to stop eating and chewing gum is a reasonable request to accommodate the student’s disability. In response, the school board argued that (1) the parents sought an IDEA accommodation because the parents claimed that not banning eating and chewing gum was negatively impacting the student’s education and (2) other reasonable accommodations were made for the student, including allowing the student to wear noise-cancelling headphones and the ability to take breaks. The federal appellate court agreed with the student on the administrative exhaustion claim, and with the school board on the injunction claim.
In support of its decision in favor of parents on the administrative exhaustion claim, the federal appellate court explained that teacher instruction would not change with a ban on chewing gum, so the relief sought was not educational in nature. The federal appellate court further explained that the fact that the student was not on an Individualized Education Plan was evidence that the relief sought was not a type of special education or a related service.
In support of its decision in favor of the board of education on the injunction claim, the federal appellate court explained that the student was given other reasonable accommodations, so the school was not required to give the student the student’s preferred accommodation.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.