Doe by K.M. v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

• Decision Date: 04 January 2023
• Docket Number: 22-5317
• Parties: Jane DOE, a student, BY her next friends and parents, K.M. and A.M., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KNOX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit

56 F.4th 1076

Jane DOE, a student, BY her next friends and parents, K.M. and A.M., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.KNOX COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 22-5317

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Argued: October 25, 2022

Decided and Filed: January 4, 2023

ARGUED: Justin S. Gilbert, GILBERT LAW, PLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee, for Appellant. Amanda Lynn Morse, KNOX COUNTY LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Justin S. Gilbert, GILBERT LAW, PLC, Chattanooga, Tennessee, Jessica F. Salonus, THE SALONUS FIRM, PLC, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellant. Amanda Lynn Morse, Jessica Jernigan-Johnson, KNOX COUNTY LAW DIRECTOR'S OFFICE, Knoxville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; DONALD and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

MURPHY, Circuit Judge.

Jane Doe, a high-school student, suffers from a condition that makes her hypersensitive to the everyday sounds of eating food and chewing gum. Doe's parents asked her school to ban students from eating or chewing in her classes. It refused. So they sought this ban by suing the Knox County Board of Education under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. While considering their preliminary-injunction motion, the district court decided to dismiss the suit. It reasoned that Doe's parents could obtain the requested relief in administrative proceedings under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Until they exhaust this administrative process, the IDEA bars Doe's parents from using the ADA or Rehabilitation Act to seek "relief that is also available" under that law. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l). Doe's parents now argue both that they need not exhaust their claims under the IDEA and that we should grant Doe a preliminary injunction under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act on appeal.

We agree with their first argument but not their second. The IDEA provides relief only to students who need "specially designed instruction." Because no ordinary English speaker would describe a ban on eating and chewing as "instruction," her parents did not need to go through the IDEA's review process to attempt to seek this ban under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. But just because Doe's parents need not exhaust their claims does not mean that Doe is entitled to a preliminary injunction under those laws. Knox County has offered significant justification for its policy allowing students to eat in class at the magnet school that Doe chose to attend—a school designed to operate like a college. Ultimately, though, we leave this issue for the district court to consider in the first instance. We thus reverse the district court's dismissal of the complaint, reject Doe's request that we grant a preliminary injunction, and remand for further proceedings.

I

This case reaches us at the motion-to-dismiss stage. We thus must accept the complaint's well-pleaded factual allegations as true. See Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons v. FDA , 13 F.4th 531, 543–44 (6th Cir. 2021) ; Mattox v. Edelman , 851 F.3d 583, 590 (6th Cir. 2017).

Jane Doe, who lives with her parents near Knoxville, Tennessee, has a condition known as "misophonia." Compl., R.27, PageID 251. The complaint describes misophonia as "a disorder of decreased tolerance to specific sounds or their associated stimuli." Id. According to Doe, the normal sounds of eating food or chewing gum cause her to suffer "great fear and anxiety." Id. , PageID 252. These common noises trigger a "fight or flight" sensation, forcing Doe to escape from areas in which she hears them. Id. They also exacerbate her recurring migraines. Id.

Before high school, Doe's misophonia did not affect her academic performance. Id. , PageID 255. Her private middle school barred students from eating food and chewing gum in classrooms. Id. She thus could attend class without incident and excelled at her academics. Id. , PageID 253–54. Doe was a "straight A student" and National Junior Honors Society member. Id. , 253, 255; Doe Decl., R.27-2, PageID 265.

According to Doe's complaint, most of Knox County's public high schools likewise bar students from eating food and chewing gum outside the cafeteria. Compl., R.27, PageID 255. Yet Doe decided to attend L&N STEM Academy. Id. , PageID 250. This high school's policy allegedly allows each teacher to decide whether students may eat food and chew gum on a class-by-class basis. Id. , PageID 255–56. Some teachers, like Doe's ninth-grade math teacher, prohibit food and gum, so she has flourished in this class. Id. , PageID 256. The high school also prohibits eating food or chewing gum in areas with "expensive equipment," such as digital-art classrooms. Doe Decl., R.27-2, PageID 266. But other teachers, like Doe's ninth-grade history teacher, allegedly allow "rampant" eating and chewing. Compl., R.27, PageID 256. The high school also allows students to eat throughout an 80-minute elective ("Genius Hour") that Doe would like to take. Id. , PageID 257. L&N's permissive policies have forced Doe to avoid this elective and to leave her regular classes about 50% of the time, rendering her "physically and emotionally exhausted" at day's end. Id. , PageID 256.

Doe's parents repeatedly asked Doe's teachers to ban eating and chewing during her classes. Id. But some teachers allegedly have refused on the ground that L&N's official policy permits this conduct. Id. , PageID 257. Doe's parents thus turned to the school's administrators, asking them for this accommodation about halfway through her ninth-grade year in December 2021. Id. The administrators denied the request. Id. , PageID 258–59. But they noted that Doe's parents could appeal this decision administratively. Id. , PageID 259 n.8.

The next month, her parents instead brought this suit on Doe's behalf against Knox County. They alleged that the county's refusal to grant Doe the requested accommodation—a classroom ban on eating and chewing for all students except those with medical needs—violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Id. , PageID 255, 259–60. They requested a permanent injunction that would require L&N to implement the accommodation for Doe. Id. , PageID 260–61.

Along with their complaint, Doe's parents filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. During the injunction briefing, Knox County explained its rationale for refusing to ban eating and chewing in Doe's classrooms. L&N, a public "magnet" school, offers a curriculum tailored to the study of science, technology, engineering, and math for over 500 students from nine counties in and around Knoxville. Allen Decl., R.44-1, PageID 445–46, 448. Students must apply to attend this school and maintain certain standards to stay there. Id. , PageID 449. According to L&N's principal, the school seeks to develop a "unique" culture that gives the students more independence than a typical high school and allows their teachers to develop "individualized teaching methods" for them. Id. , PageID 449. Because L&N operates more like a college, it has gathering spaces that can hold only 70 to 90 students and lacks a designated "cafeteria." Id. , PageID 447. L&N also has only two scheduled lunch periods during the school day because of the nature of its curriculum. Id. If students could eat only at specified times, the school would have to change its "entire schedule[.]" Id. Some students also travel from hours away to attend L&N and stay for extracurricular activities. Id. , PageID 448. They may remain on campus for over 12 hours and often need to eat more than at a designated lunch time. Id. The school thus allows teachers to permit snacking during class. Id. , PageID 447.

Knox County also described the accommodations that L&N had provided to Doe. Since her arrival at the school as a ninth grader, Doe has had a "504 plan" (a plan under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act). Odom Decl., R.44-2, PageID 451. Among other things, this plan gives Doe preferential seating near the teacher and allows her to wear noise-cancelling headphones. Id. It also gives her additional time to complete assignments and permits her to take tests in isolation. Id. Under a " ‘break’ system" that administrators developed with Doe's parents, moreover, she could signal to a teacher that she needed a break of a specified length and obtain a new seat on her return to class. Id. But administrators allege that Doe stopped using this "collaborative" system and started leaving class without attempting to return. Id. , PageID 452.

According to L&N's principal, Doe's teachers have all requested that her peers limit eating in class. Allen Decl., R.44-1, PageID 446. But Doe responds that her case has now attracted unwanted local attention. The Knox County mayor, a retired professional wrestler who competed under the moniker "Kane," has described the suit as "gum gate" on Twitter. Br., R.15, PageID 168. (The mayor has no affiliation with the Knox County Board of Education.) According to her father, this attention has caused some cruel students to target Doe by making noises that trigger her condition. K.M. Decl., R.31-1, PageID 359.

When considering Doe's preliminary-injunction request, the district court flagged a "potential jurisdictional issue" for supplemental briefing: Did Doe's parents need to seek relief for Doe's injuries under the IDEA's administrative process before they pursued their claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act? Doe v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ. , 2022 WL 1126389, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Apr. 15, 2022). During that briefing, Knox County moved to dismiss the complaint on this exhaustion ground. The district court granted its motion. Id. at *1. It held that Doe's parents sought relief for an educational harm that the IDEA could remedy. Id. at *4.

Doe's parents filed a notice of appeal and sought an emergency injunction pending appeal. The district court denied her request for an immediate injunction, and we subsequently denied that request too.

II

Doe's parents raise two arguments on appeal. They argue that they did not...