PENSACOLA, Fla. – The parent of a disabled Florida student wants a federal court to review a judge’s order upholding a Bay County school district’s decision to deny him a dress code accommodation.
The student, a minor, is identified as J.M. in the April 4 filing. His parent, identified as T.M., filed the lawsuit on his behalf in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida.
In the eight-page complaint, they claim the defendant Bay County School Board on Sept. 10, 2025 denied an accommodation of the dress code and their request to add a social emotional goal to the student’s IEP.
An Individualized Education Program, or IEP, is a legally binding document in the U.S. designed to provide specialized instruction and services to public school children with disabilities. It defines tailored learning goals, accommodations, and services to ensure access to the general education curriculum.
The plaintiffs seek judicial review of and challenge a final order issued by the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings, or DOAH. They want the federal court to vacate or reverse a Jan. 6 order by Administrative Law Judge Sara M. Marken.
In May 2025, the school board amended its student dress code policy to take effect August 2025.
The stricter dress code requires K-12 students to wear solid-colored tops, polo or crew neck style, and bottoms – pants, shorts, or skirts – in designated school colors or gray. The school board claims the policy is aimed at reducing peer pressure and enhancing safety.
In July 2025, T.M., on behalf of J.M., requested an accommodation of the new dress code under the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
“The accommodation requested was minimal and only addressed the type of shirt the student could wear to school,” the complaint states.
Soon after, district officials informed T.M. that an IEP meeting would need to be held to address the request for an accommodation, and that the meeting would not be held until after the start of the 2025-26 school year.
The school year began Aug. 11, 2025, and the new dress code went into effect the first day of school.
An IEP meeting was scheduled by the district and held on Sept. 10, 2025.
The plaintiffs asked for two things at the meeting: a social emotional goal to address coping with the new dress code; and an accommodation of the new dress code to allow the student to be out of dress code without getting into trouble while he learned to adjust to the new dress code.
Both of these requests were denied, the plaintiffs claim.
Five days after the meeting, the plaintiffs, pro se, filed a request for a due process hearing before the Florida Division of Administrative Hearings.
Originally, it was assigned to Administrative Law Judge Nicole D. Saunders, who issued a notice of hearing on Oct. 15, 2025.
Without explanation, the matter was transferred to Marken in November 2025. The final hearing was scheduled for Nov. 17-18, 2025.
Marken issued her final order January 6, concluding there was no predetermination, that the parents were able to participate in the IEP meeting, and that there was no denial of FAPE.
FAPE stands for Free Appropriate Public Education, a legal right under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, and Section 504. It mandates that public schools provide special education, accommodations, and related services at no cost to parents, tailored to a child’s unique needs in the Least Restrictive Environment, or LRE.
“The ALJ, in error, limited her decision to the discussions held at the IEP team meeting on September 10, 2025, rather than the evidence presented at the final hearing, specifically all the evidence presented on the request and need for a social emotional goal,” the plaintiffs’ complaint states.
“The ALJ, in error, further ignored inconsistencies in the testimony, the district’s own admissions regarding predetermination and parent participation as well as the differences between the first four meetings held with this family and J.M.’s meeting.”
The plaintiffs request the federal court enter judgment reversing or vacating the ALJ’s final order; declare J.M. the prevailing party; grant him the requested accommodation and social emotional goal; and award them attorneys’ fees.
Langer Law PA in St. Johns, Florida, is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.
