Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools

Fry vs. Napoleon Community Schools
Student's Name
College/University
Course
Professor's Name
Due Date
Explain the position of each of the two sides
Ehlena Fry had been struggling with cerebral palsy. Her trained service dog had been trained to assist Fry with her routine chores. The school officials declined the request by Fry's parents to have the dog join their child in the classroom. The administration at Ezra Eby Elementary School asserted that the human assistant offered as a component of Fry's individualized education program (IEP) made the pet unnecessary. As a result, Fry's parents removed her from the learning institution and enrolled her in homeschooling lessons. The Frys filed a grievance with the education department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) asserting that the barring of their daughter's dog breached her rights under Title II and § 504. OCR approved the grievance, and the school accepted Fry back with her dog (Garda, 2017). However, the Fry's preferred taking their daughter to another school that welcomed her dog. Afterward, the Fry's sued the matter in federal court against E.F. school districts claiming that they breached Title II and §504 and wanting declaratory and financial relief. The school district's motion to reject the suit was given by the District Court, maintaining that §1415(l) mandated the Frys to exhaust the IDEA's administrative procedures initially.
Court rulings
The Sixth Circuit endorsed the Michigan federal court ruling that §1415(l) applies when an appellant's purported damages are educational.
Were there appeals?
The Frys 2015 appealed the verdict to the Supreme court, claiming that the exhaustion necessity di...