McIntyre v. Eugene School District 4J, No. 19-35186 (9th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Plaintiff, a former high school student, filed suit alleging disability discrimination by school officials in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and, in the alternative, as barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations.
The panel applied Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017), and held that the crux of plaintiff's complaint seeks relief for the disability-based discrimination and harassment she faced at school, and not for the denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Therefore, plaintiff need not exhaust the administrative remedies under the IDEA, and the panel reversed the district court's order dismissing her complaint for failure to exhaust. The panel also vacated the district court's order dismissing the complaint as alternatively barred by the statute of limitations and remanded. On remand, the district court should reconsider whether any of plaintiff's claims are barred by the statute of limitations in light of the panel's conclusion that plaintiff does not seek relief for the denial of a FAPE under the IDEA.
Court Description: Disability Discrimination The panel reversed in part and vacated in part the district court’s dismissal of a former high school student’s action alleging disability discrimination by school officials in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff had a “504 Plan” describing the education and related aids and services she needed, but she did not have an “individualized education program,” defined under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) as a plan for ensuring that a student receives a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”). The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the dual grounds that (1) the plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies under the IDEA, and (2) her claims were barred by the applicable two-year statute of limitations. * The Honorable Timothy M. Burgess, United States Chief District Judge for the District of Alaska, sitting by designation. MCINTYRE V. EUGENE SCH. DIST. 4J 3 Applying Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017), the panel concluded that the “crux” of the complaint sought relief for the disability-based discrimination and harassment the plaintiff faced at school, and not for the denial of a FAPE under the IDEA. As a result, she was not required to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. First, the plaintiff complained that the school district discriminated against her by failing to provide her with specific accommodations, none of which constituted FAPE as the IDEA defines it. The plaintiff also complained that the school district discriminated against her by creating a hostile learning environment. Her claim, which was based only on Section 504, did not indirectly seek relief under the IDEA. Because she never sought or received “special education and related services,” a hostile learning environment could not be said to have interfered with any such services. Accordingly, the panel reversed the district court’s dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the IDEA. The panel also vacated the district court’s dismissal on the alternative ground that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by the two-year statute of limitations because she was not entitled to minority tolling under Oregon Revised Statutes section 12.160(2) or equitable tolling. The panel concluded that to the extent the district court construed the statute of limitations to be an alternative basis for dismissal, it misconstrued a magistrate judge’s findings and recommendation, which it adopted in full. Because the tolling issues were not an independent basis for dismissal, the panel vacated the district court’s order. In light of the panel’s analysis under Fry, it remanded for further consideration of whether the plaintiff’s claims were subject to minority tolling. 4 MCINTYRE V. EUGENE SCH. DIST. 4J
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.