Lexyington McIntyre v. Eugene School District 4j, 976 F.3d 902

Background

McIntyre was a South Eugene High School student with a Section 504 plan for ADD; later diagnosed with Addison’s disease and the 504 plan added an emergency health protocol.
Multiple teachers (including Michael Stasack and Susie Nicholson) allegedly refused to implement accommodations; McIntyre’s parents filed a bullying/harassment complaint and the District found policy violations, offering non-IEP alternatives (college-level classes or independent study).
McIntyre experienced peer harassment, a hostile learning environment, an ankle fracture where school staff did not call 911 per the 504 protocol, and difficulties obtaining college testing accommodations and credit for independent study.
After turning 18, McIntyre sued the District (May 2018) under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 seeking injunctive and monetary relief; she never had an IEP or sought IDEA due-process.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding McIntyre failed to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies (per Fry) and that tolling did not save the claims; the Ninth Circuit reversed on exhaustion, vacated the statute-of-limitations dismissal, and remanded.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Must McIntyre exhaust IDEA administrative remedies before suing under ADA/§504?	McIntyre: No — complaint seeks relief for discrimination/hostile environment and discrete accommodations, not the IDEA’s FAPE.	District: Yes — claims concern denial of educational opportunities and thus implicate FAPE and IDEA exhaustion.	Reversed: Exhaustion not required; gravamen is discrimination/denial of equal access, not denial of FAPE as defined by IDEA.
Do the specific accommodations (testing location/time, emergency protocol) constitute "special education" or "related services" triggering IDEA exhaustion?	McIntyre: These are not "specially designed instruction" nor related services because she never sought or received special education/IEP.	District: Such accommodations relate to educational access and implicate IDEA remedies.	Held: Accommodations alleged are not special education/related services absent an IEP, so they do not trigger IDEA exhaustion.
Are McIntyre’s hostile-environment and discrimination claims time-barred and is minority or equitable tolling available?	McIntyre: Tolling doctrines may apply to preserve timely claims.	District: Claims are time-barred and minority tolling is inapplicable given IDEA’s remedial scheme.	Vacated and remanded: Court did not decide tolling; instructed district court to reassess limitations/tolling in light of the exhaustion ruling.
Was dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) valid given exhaustion defense is typically an affirmative defense?	McIntyre: The defense is not clearly apparent on the face of the complaint; Rule 12 dismissal was inappropriate.	District: Raised exhaustion in its motion; court relied on Fry to dismiss.	Ninth Circuit: Noted exhaustion defenses are usually raised later, but McIntyre did not challenge the procedure; court proceeded to decide exhaustion on the merits and reversed dismissal.

Key Cases Cited

Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 137 S. Ct. 743 (2017) (sets-out test whether ADA/§504 claims must exhaust IDEA: exhaustion required only when suit seeks relief for denial of IDEA-defined FAPE)
Endrew F. v. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. RE‑1, 137 S. Ct. 988 (2017) (defines IDEA’s substantive FAPE standard)
Paul G. by & through Steve G. v. Monterey Peninsula Unified Sch. Dist., 933 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 2019) (Ninth Circuit application of Fry to require exhaustion where IEP/FAPE implicated)
A.G. v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 815 F.3d 1195 (9th Cir. 2016) (discusses interplay of IDEA and §504 FAPE requirements)
Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984) (historical background on exclusivity of IDEA remedies prior to statutory amendment)
Lemahieu v. Bd. of Educ., 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008) (explains differences and overlap between IDEA and §504 FAPE obligations)