Cave v. East Meadows Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 07-1120 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008)
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (CT, NY, VT) has ruled that a hearing impaired student who was forbidden to bring his service dog to school was required to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of Rehabilitation Act, and Section 1983. Section 504 protects individuals with disabilities from being excluding from discrimination under federally funded programs or activities. Section 1983 allows a plaintiff to sue a public official who, acting under color of state law, violates rights secured by the federal constitution or statutes. John Cave, Jr. attends W. Tresper Clarke High School in Westbury, New York, where he receives a number of special education services in accordance with his individualized education program (IEP). When East Meadow Union Free School District officials denied John permission to bring his service dog to school, his parents sued, alleging that the dog was vital to his development, that its presence during the school day was crucial to its training, and that without the training it would be rendered useless as a service animal. A U.S. district court denied the student’s motion for an order allowing him to bring the dog to school.
On appeal, the Second Circuit held that it could not consider the federal claims because the student had failed first to exhaust his administrative remedies under IDEA. The court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss the suit without prejudice, meaning the suit could be brought again in the future. Focusing on whether IDEA’s exhaustion requirement applies to claims brought under the ADA, Section 504, and § 1983, the court acknowledged that the parents had explicitly renounced any challenge to the IEP and instead had premised their claims on John’s right to access and use of a public facility. However, the court was not convinced that these claims were “materially distinguishable from claims that could fall within the ambit of the IDEA.” The student’s class schedule under his IEP would have to be “changed to accommodate the concerns of allergic students and teachers and to diminish the distractions that [the dog’s] presence would engender,” the court pointed out. As a result, these issues implicated the IEP and “would be best dealt with through the administrative process.” The appeals court agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that “at least in part, the plaintiffs are challenging the adequacy of John, Jr.’s IEP because it does not include a service dog.” It also rejected their argument that, under a previous Second Circuit decision, a plaintiff need not exhaust administrative remedies before bringing a § 1983 claim. While that case had held that “exhaustion is necessary prior to bringing a § 1983 action only where Congress has carved out a specific exception to the general rule that exhaustion is not required,” the court concluded that IDEA’s explicit requirement constitutes just such an exception.
The court then turned to the question of whether the parents were excused from complying with the exhaustion requirement based on the futility exception, under which compliance is “excused when exhaustion would be futile because the administrative procedures do not provide an adequate remedy.” The court rejected their argument that the superintendent’s decision about the dog would have controlled the outcome of any subsequent administrative proceeding, making it futile for them to pursue administrative relief. Under IDEA and state law, the parents were entitled to a due process hearing before an impartial hearing officer, the court noted. “Absent any evidence casting doubt on the impartiality of the local or the state review officers who would examine appellants’ claims, we cannot presume that they would be biased.”
Cave v. East Meadows Union Free Sch. Dist., No. 07-1120 (2d Cir. Jan. 23, 2008)
[Editor’s Note: A summary of the district court decision, with links back to information and resources on this and other disputes over service and assistance animals, is below.]
NSBA School Law pages on Cave v. East Meadows Union Free Sch. Dist.