Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free Sch. Dist.

100 F.4th 86

Jane DOE, on behalf of herself and her minor child Sarah Doe, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FRANKLIN SQUARE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellee.^*

No. 23-582-cv

August Term 2023

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Argued: January 9, 2024

Decided: April 25, 2024

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, J.)

Sujata Sidhu Gibson, Gibson Law Firm, PLLC, Ithaca, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Chelsea Weisbord (Adam I. Kleinberg, on the brief), Sokoloff Stern LLP, Carle Place, NY, for Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Lynch, Nardini, and Kahn, Circuit Judges.

Maria Araújo Kahn, Circuit Judge:

During the COVID-19 pandemic, as schools reopened in the fall of 2020, the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health ("NYSDOH") implemented a regulation requiring preschool through 12th grade school students and staff to wear masks. Plaintiff-Appellant Jane Doe ("Doe") brought this action, on behalf of herself and her minor daughter, Sarah Doe ("Sarah"), against Defendant-Appellee Franklin Square Union Free School District ("School District"), alleging that the School District violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("§ 504") by refusing to grant Sarah an accommodation from the school mask mandate for her asthma. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Frederic Block, J.) dismissed Doe's constitutional claim after concluding that the School District's conduct survived rational basis review, and her federal statutory claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). As explained below, we conclude that the School District's denial of Sarah's accommodation request did not violate either Doe's or Sarah's constitutional rights, and we therefore affirm the district court's dismissal of Doe's constitutional claim. We disagree, however, with the district court's dismissal of Doe's claims under the ADA and § 504 because we conclude that Doe was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies under the IDEA. Accordingly, we affirm in part and reverse in part the district court's judgment in this case, and we remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BACKGROUND

Beginning in the fall of 2020 and continuing throughout the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the NYSDOH issued a series of interim guidance governing in-person instruction at schools. The first interim guidance, which was issued on August 26, 2020, required all "students, faculty, staff, and other individuals" at schools to wear "at least, an acceptable face covering," App'x at 199, and permitted "exemptions of alternatives for those medically unable to wear masks," id. at 201. Later in the 2020-21 school year, on April 9, 2021, NYSDOH issued an updated interim guidance to ensure its policies were "align[ed] . . . with the most recent recommendations from the Centers [for] Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)." Id. at 203. The updated interim guidance included a mask mandate similar to that in the first interim guidance and permitted exemptions from the school mask mandate for "[s]tudents who are unable to medically tolerate a mask, including students where such mask would impair their physical health or mental health." Id. at 206. The School District was permitted to reopen for in-person learning for the 2020-21 school year on the condition that it complied with the mask mandate. Accordingly, it implemented a reopening plan that required all individuals to wear face masks while on school premises.

Sarah, who attends a school in the School District, suffers from asthma, which, according to Doe, prevents her from being able to medically tolerate wearing a face mask. In her complaint, Doe alleged that she attempted to work with the School District during the 2020-21 school year to secure a medical exemption from the mask mandate for Sarah. Doe initially requested a partial exemption from the mask mandate, which would allow Sarah to remove her mask during physical activity, but that request was denied. Sarah's asthmatic symptoms then worsened. After additional, unsuccessful attempts by Doe to obtain an accommodation for Sarah, Doe was advised to acquire a formal exemption letter from a physician. Taking that advice, on April 27, 2021, Doe sent the School District a note from Sarah's treating physician indicating that Sarah had been diagnosed with asthma and that she should be allowed to engage in physical activity without a mask in order to prevent wheezing. In response, the District Superintendent of Schools, Dr. Jared Bloom, called Doe and informed her that Sarah's exemption request had been denied, but that, as an alternative, Sarah could request "mask breaks." App'x at 149. Dr. Bloom noted "that the district had adopted an official policy not to give any child a mask exemption." Id. At Doe's request, Dr. Bloom followed up with a letter indicating that the School District was denying Sarah's medical exemption request based on the opinion of the School District's hired consultant, Dr. Ron Marino, who had reviewed the request and spoken to Sarah's doctor. Dr. Marino found that "the mask was not creating difficulty with [Sarah's] asthma." Id. at 151.

Doe subsequently petitioned the School District to permit Sarah to attend school remotely. When that request was unsuccessful, Doe requested that Sarah be placed in a classroom with air conditioning and that she be allowed to wear a face shield or mesh mask as opposed to a cloth mask. These accommodation requests were also denied. On June 16, 2021, Doe sent a letter to the School District, through counsel, stating that the School District's policies violated Sarah's constitutional and statutory rights, and demanding an exemption from the mask mandate for Sarah for the remainder of the 2020-21 school year as well as the upcoming 2021-22 school year. The 2020-21 school year ended shortly thereafter.

Before the start of the 2021-22 school year, Doe inquired whether the NYSDOH intended to reimpose the mask mandate for the upcoming school year and was told "that guidance might be forthcoming." App'x at 154. On August 24, 2021, Doe sought yet another exemption for Sarah from the mask mandate with a certification from Sarah's doctor that "she is not medically able to tolerate a mask." Id. In a letter dated September 2, 2021, the School District denied the exemption sought by Doe based upon the recommendation of Dr. Marino. The School District represented in that letter that Sarah's classrooms would be air conditioned in the 2021-22 school year and stated that any failure by the School District to comply with the NYSDOH's regulations could result in fines being imposed by the NYSDOH against the School District or Doe. On the same day, the NYSDOH issued an interim guidance for the 2021-22 school year pursuant to 10 N.Y.C.R.R. § 2.60 and in accordance with CDC guidance. The NYSDOH interim guidance required that "all students, personnel, teachers, administrators, contractors, and visitors must wear masks at all times indoors, regardless of vaccination status" and permitted exemptions for "[p]eople with medical or developmental conditions that prevent them from wearing a mask." App'x at 232.

On September 7, 2021, Doe filed a complaint against the School District alleging various violations of her and Sarah's constitutional and statutory rights.¹ The next day, Doe moved for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction prohibiting the School District from requiring masks for any student who asserts a medical need to opt out of the school mask policies, or, alternatively, from enforcing mask requirements for Sarah pending resolution of this matter.

In a scheduling order filed on September 8, 2021, the district court denied Doe's motion for a temporary restraining order and set a briefing schedule for the preliminary injunction motion. On September 15, 2021, the School District filed a pre-motion letter indicating that it intended to move to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and (6). The district court then held oral argument on Doe's motion for injunctive relief and the School District's anticipated motion to dismiss. By Memorandum and Order dated October 26, 2021, the district court denied Doe's motion for a preliminary injunction. See Doe v. Franklin Square Union Free Sch. Dist. ("Doe I"), 568 F. Supp. 3d 270 (E.D.N.Y. 2021). As relevant here, in denying the motion, the district court concluded that rational basis review applied to the mask mandate because the mandate "[did] not impinge upon any fundamental right." Id. at 291. The district court, however, reserved decision on whether Doe was entitled to preliminary injunctive relief on her state law claims. Id. at 295. At the request of the parties, the district court continued the hearing to November 3, 2021, to allow the parties to pursue settlement negotiations. Id. at 294.

On November 3, 2021, the parties reported that they had reached an agreement wherein the School District agreed to allow Sarah to wear a mesh mask at school. The same day, the district court entered an order stating that "[i]n light of the parties['] agreement regarding an accommodation, the [continued] hearing . . . is canceled; the accommodation shall remain in effect unless vacated by the Court." App'x at 7.

Doe filed an amended complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on January 20, 2022, alleging seven causes of action: (1) "declaratory judgment action based upon federal preemption/violation of the Supremacy Clause" ("Count One"); (2) "violation of plaintiff[']s fundamental right to refuse medical interventions that place the child at risk of harm as documented by a licensed physician[,] 42 U.S.C. § 1983" ("Count Two"); (3) "violation of New York State's recognized common law...