INDIANAPOLIS (Legal Newsline) - An Indiana couple who sued their local school district and the health department because their children were required to attend remote learning in a crowded house with an incessantly squealing guinea pig had no basis for their lawsuit, an appeals court has ruled.
Expressing sympathy for the hardships of parents everywhere during government-imposed lockdowns, the Indiana Court of Appeals nevertheless upheld a trial court’s dismissal of the lawsuit by Jennifer and Jason Reinoehl against the Penn-Harris-Madison school district and the St. Joseph County Health Department.
Citing the trial judge’s decision, the appeals court concluded that while their claims were “particularly well-stated,” “that is different and distinct from stating an actionable, legal cause of action.”
Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb declared a public health emergency on March 6, 2020, and followed up with a series of executive orders closing schools for the rest of the year, halting state-mandated assessments and shifting to remote learning.
Both of the Reinoehl children are diagnosed with ADHD and depression. They attend school under plans that provide accommodations including sitting in the front of the classroom in an area free from distractions.
After the school switched to remote learning, Jennifer Reinoehl demanded her sons either be allowed to attend school in person or receive “traditional e-learning courses,” which she described as prerecorded classes her children could watch when they wanted. In their lawsuit, the parents complained their children were forced to learn in a crowded, 1,200 square-foot house with five children “and 3 pets, including a guinea pig who frequently squeals to get attention for 5 minutes or more.”
The Reinoehls sued in November 2020, representing themselves. After a hearing in February 2021 the judge dismissed their suit, concluding that while they had stated their claims well, there was no basis for relief.
The Reinoehls appealed but the Indiana Court of Appeals, in a Dec. 3 decision, upheld the dismissal, apologetically stating it was “tasked with informing them that they had no legal remedy for their troubles.”
The Reinoehls accused the school district of violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act as well as Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which like the ADA requires public entities to provide reasonable accommodations to the disabled. The appeals court upheld the dismissal of IDEA clams because the parents hadn’t exhausted their administrative remedies first and dismissed the rest of the claims on other grounds.
The school district was required to provide a distraction-free learning environment while the children were in the classroom, the appeals court ruled, but conditions at the Reinoehls’ home were out of its control.
The parents also argued their IDEA claims were improperly dismissed because they claimed their children were denied a free public education under that law, which doesn’t require them to first exhaust administrative remedies. The two claims were identical, however, the appeals court ruled.
The court finally agreed with the trial court’s decision barring the parents from filing an amended complaint. While the Reinoehls represented themselves they must be held to the same standards as licensed attorneys and they failed to properly ask permission to amend, the appeals court ruled.
“In this case, the court did a tremendous job of navigating that fine line of upholding the law and facilitating the ability of all the litigants to be fairly heard, especially the Reinoehls, who appeared in court as pro se litigants,” the court observed.