1

Alejandra Meza

CSN EDU 203

Constantina Pappas

Artifact #1: Exploration of Historical Foundations In Special Education -Landmark Case

 2

The Special Education case I researched was Fry V Napoleon Comm. Sch Dist. This case is

about Ehlena Fry, a young girl with cerebral palsy, when she was five years old she was

prescribed a service dog. Her pediatrician prescribed a goldendoodle to help Ehlena be more

independent. The service dog’s name was Wonder. Wonder was trained to help Ehlena with

balance, retrieve dropped items, open and close doors, turn on lights among other tasks. Wonder

was a great help to Ehlena because it allowed her to move around and feel like she could do

more things on her own. Ehlena’s service dog was hypoallergenic and he was trained to stay out

of the way when he wasn't working. In my personal opinion Wonder sounds like he was of great

help to not only Ehlena but to her parents. Furthermore things got complicated when

Respondents Napoleon Community Schools and Jackson County Intermediate School District

refused to permit Ehlena to attend school with her service dog.

The outcome of this refusal led to Ehlena attending school from October 2009 to April 2010

without her service dog. After meditating on the decision the school allowed Wonder to have a

trial period and attend school with Ehlena. But Wonder was not allowed to actually “work” ; he

had to stay in the back of the classroom. Wonder was not allowed to help Ehlena with the tasks

he had been trained to do. For example he could not accompany her to recess, lunch, computer

lab, library and other activities. After this trial period the school made the decision to not allow

Wonder to attend the next school year with Ehlena. Ehlena’s parents decided to make a

complaint with the office of Civil Rights of the USDE. Their complaint was towards the School

District and how they had violated the ADA and Section 504 by refusing to allow Ehlena to
 3

bring her service dog with her to school. The school refused to allow Ehlena’s dog to attend

school with her because she was not old enough to bring her service dog with her. The school

argues that they had every accommodation at school for Ehlena and other families were

uncomfortable with a dog being around their children. In 2012 after the complaint was filed and

revised the OCR issued a 14 page decision that the school district had in fact violated the ADA

and the Rehabilitation Act. Ehlena’s parents kept suing because of the emotional and social

hardships Ehlena faced while not having her service dog in school. The parents did not request a

special education due process hearing under the IDEA. Which led to the Fry’s appealing that the

IDEA did not apply because they were not looking for relief from the IDEA. The case went to

the Supreme Court and in the view of the US the petition for a writ of certiorari should be

granted.

This case is considered a landmark case because the Department interpreted the statute as

reasonable modifications to require that individuals with disabilities should be permitted to be

accompanied by service animals in all areas. This case brought light upon students with

disabilities that require a service dog in school. It brought a solution to a student with disabilities

and her individual rights. I think this was greatly beneficial to more students with disabilities

facing a similar situation. It also explained when it is suitable to exhaust under IDEA and when it

is not. This case showed the hardships of special education students that require special

modifications to their IEPs.

This case got to the Supreme Court because the Fry’s decided to continue the suits due to the

social and emotional hardships caused by the school not allowing Ehlena to have Wonder in class

with her to provide assistance. Ehlena being a disabled student who needed her service dog to
 4

help her with certain activities that come easily to most people. But Ehlena needed help with

such things and Wonder did that for her and by the school not allowing her to have her service

dog Ehlena was treated unequally and refused the opportunity to be successful. When the court

decided to dismiss the Fry’s suit because of them not exhausting under the IDEA they appealed

because they were not looking for relief from the IDEA.

The outcome of this case was that the plaintiff’s claim for violation of the Rehabilitation Act

and the Americans With Disabilities Act arose under the laws of the US. The defendants

discriminated against a five year old with cerebral palsy when they refused to allow her to utilize

her service animal in school as a reasonable accommodation and took actions against Ehlena.

The Fry’s moved Ehlena from the district, she was homeschooled and later was put in another

district where they allowed her to have Wonder with her. There was a settlement demand of

$800,000 and $200,000 inclusive of all damages, costs, interest, and attorneys’ fees. Both parties

agreed that they would comply with the Court’s instructions regarding the content and timing of

trial briefs and jury instructions. The side that won in this case were the Fry’s because it showed

the humiliation and emotional stress that Ehlena went through. The parent’s were able to prove

that the school indeed discriminated against Ehlena and her necessities as a special education

student.

This court case ruling is important today because it opened a door for different situations in

which someone can exhaust under the IDEA. I think that by Fry's filing a complaint about the

school it allowed other parents who have been in a similar situation to do the same and educate

themselves on the IDEA’s regulations. This case is also important because students nowadays

can learn from Ehlena’s experience and the district can pay more attention to the emotional
 5

distress such things can cause. Some people may think they were exaggerating but we never

know the difficulties that having a child with disabilities can come with. Unless you have a

similar situation I always try my best to put myself in their position to understand their

perspective.
6