Fry v. Napoleon (2017)

By Davina Haggar

Overview

In Fry v. Napoleon (2017), the Supreme Court of the United States examined how Ezra Eby Elementary School infringed upon the rights of a young girl, Ehlena Fry, (also known as E.F.), and her service dog, Wonder. Ehlena suffered from disabilities, so her family provided a service dog to assist and support her in living independently. However, the school district rejected her family’s request, asserting that she was provided with human aide to assist her throughout the day under her Individualized Education Plan (IEP), and therefore, does not need a service animal. Her family filed a lawsuit against the school, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 

Summary

Ehlena Fry, a young girl with disabilities, was just about to start kindergarten in Fall 2009 at the age of five. Ehlena suffered from cerebral palsy that severely limited her mobility, and therefore, was recommended a service dog by her pediatrician to assist her in daily tasks and encouraged her to develop independence. Her trained service dog Wonder, a white Goldendoodle, assisted her with daily tasks such as turning on lights, opening doors, removing her jacket, picking up dropped items, and providing stability while she used her walker (Michigan Law). Wonder was not only Ehlena’s service animal, but he also taught Ehlena how to gain independence, pushing her to do tasks on her own, rather than have a human being do it for her. 

Just like many other children, Ehlena was thrilled to start kindergarten with Wonder by her side to help her. However, after her parents enrolled her at Ezra Eby Elementary School in Napoleon, Michigan, Ehlena’s parents were informed that Wonder was not permitted in the school and if Ehlena were to continue at this school, she would have to attend without Wonder (Michigan Law). In April 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), an organization that safeguards constitutional liberties, deemed the school’s decision unfair (American Civil Liberties Union). The Elementary School conceded by allowing Wonder to attend school by Ehlena’s side, but with one condition: that Wonder stay in the back of the classroom and not assist Ehlena during breaks. The Elementary School claimed that Ehlena could be assisted by faculty, therefore, she doesn’t need her service dog (U.S. Department of Justice). 

After the school year finished, school officials informed the Fry family that Wonder is restricted from accompanying Ehlena for the upcoming school year. In an interview, Ehlena’s mother, Stacy Fry, articulated her frustration: “It was a huge letdown and disappointment for Ehlena, who had this dog that was supposed to help her but was not accepted at school with her” (Michigan Law).  Ehlena’s family contended that the school's decision infringed upon Ehlena’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an act that was passed to protect the rights of disabled individuals (U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division). They refused to allow their daughter to attend a school that would not tolerate Wonder, who played a crucial role in her life by assisting with tasks and fostering her independence, leading them to homeschool her instead (Justice U.S. Law). Following this complaint, the Elementary School allowed Wonder to return to school with Ehlena, but with the same limitation as the previous time, restricting Wonder’s capacity to fully assist her. 

The Fry family found a more welcoming and supportive environment for Ehlena at a nearby city, Manchester, Michigan. Ehlena was in second grade, embarking on a new chapter where school officials welcomed her and Wonder with open arms, and even provided Wonder with his own ID badge (Michigan Law). They also gave him a spot in the yearbook, with almost a page full of pictures of him. 

After finding a well-suited environment to satisfy Ehlena’s disability needs, her parents chose to initiate legal action against Ezra Eby Elementary School. The lower courts and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the case, claiming that the family needed to “exhaust all administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA),” an act that provides disabled students with free and tailored public education, prior to demanding damages under the ADA (Michigan Law). Ehlena’s parents responded, arguing that the central issue was the school’s failure to accommodate her needs and its failure to appropriately accommodate her. They claimed that Ehlena required a service animal, as prescribed by her pediatrician. 

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous 8-0 ruling in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools which enabled the Fry family to “sue for violations of the ADA unrelated to the adequacy of Ehlena’s education without first exhausting administrative proceedings” (Michigan Law). Ehlena’s case returned to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals to be reviewed. The court ruled in favor of the Fry family, enabling their lawsuit to proceed. They reached an undisclosed settlement in 2019. 

Ehlena and Wonder received justice. Wonder helped Ehlena become more independent and has now retired as a service dog. The Fry family hopes that disabled children never have to choose between their independence or education and is happy to have raised awareness that having a service animal at school can work. Stacy hopes that school officials will think twice before denying a service animal for disabled children. 

Impact

Following the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision, the Court ruled that families are no longer required to exhaust IDEA’s administrative procedures if they filed a lawsuit about disability discrimination rather than the denial of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). If a complaint filed by a disabled child’s family is based on equal access under ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, a 1973 “national law that protects qualified individuals from discrimination based on their disability” (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), then they can take legal action without having to go through IDEA procedures. This case significantly facilitated the ability for families, like Ehlena’s, to seek damages for discrimination. 

Court Documents

Fry v. Napoleon 

Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools 

Citations

“The Americans With Disabilities Act.” U.S. Department of Justice - Civil Rights Division, www.ada.gov/. Accessed 12 Feb. 2025. 

Duignan, Brian. “American Civil Liberties Union.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, inc., 12 Feb. 2025, www.britannica.com/topic/American-Civil-Liberties-Union.  

“Education Rights for Students with Disabilities.” Pacific ADA Center, 10 Oct. 2023, www.adapacific.org/education-rights-for-students-with-disabilities/.  

“Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools.” American Civil Liberties Union, 22 Aug. 2016, www.aclu.org/cases/fry-v-napoleon-community-schools. 

“Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools.” Oyez, www.oyez.org/cases.  Accessed 12 Feb. 2025.  

“A Girl, Her Wonder Dog, and a Supreme Court Ruling .” Law Quadrangle, quadrangle.michigan.law.umich.edu/issues/spring-2017/girl-her-wonder-dog-and-supreme-court-ruling 

“Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.” U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ocr/civilrights/resources/factsheets/504.pdf.  Accessed 13 Feb. 2025.