Jane Doe v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 56 F.4th 1076

Jane Doe, a ninth‑grade student, has misophonia (severe sensitivity to eating/chewing sounds) that causes anxiety, migraines, and forces her to leave class often.
She attends L&N STEM Academy, a magnet high school whose teachers may allow eating/snacking in class; some teachers prohibit it.
Doe’s parents requested a schoolwide ban on eating/chewing in her academic classrooms (with medical exceptions); administrators denied the request and suggested administrative appeal options.
Parents sued Knox County under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act seeking a permanent injunction; they sought a preliminary injunction in district court.
The district court dismissed under the IDEA’s exhaustion provision, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l), reasoning the requested relief was IDEA‑available; the Sixth Circuit reversed that dismissal but denied the requested emergency injunction and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1415(l) IDEA exhaustion was required before suing under ADA/Rehab Act	The ban sought is a non‑instructional accommodation (environmental change), so IDEA exhaustion is not required	The ban causes educational harm (gap in learning) and thus seeks relief available under IDEA, triggering exhaustion	Reversed district court: exhaustion not required because the requested eating/chewing ban is not "specially designed instruction" and is non‑instructional relief
Whether a preliminary injunction under ADA/Rehab Act should be granted on appeal	The requested ban is a reasonable modification necessary for Doe’s access and likely to succeed on the merits	The school has legitimate programmatic reasons (college‑like schedule, limited facilities); existing §504 accommodations (headphones, seating, breaks) may be adequate	Denied on appeal: court declined to decide merits and remanded for the district court to consider injunction and substantive claims in the first instance

Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Schs., 137 S. Ct. 743 (U.S. 2017) (establishes complaint‑centered test for when IDEA exhaustion under §1415(l) is required)
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (U.S. 1984) (discussed historical limits on overlapping remedies under IDEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act)
Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (U.S. 1999) (related services may be required to enable access to special education)
Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Schs., 936 F.3d 16 (1st Cir. 2019) (service‑dog accommodation held non‑instructional and not IDEA‑exhaustion required)
CTL v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524 (7th Cir. 2014) (distinguishes ADA/504 claims from IDEA when requested relief is non‑instructional)
Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Schs., 3 F.4th 236 (6th Cir. 2021) (example of ADA/504 suits requiring exhaustion where plaintiffs sought instructional methodology changes)