Indiana School District Prevails in Seventh Circuit Disability Accommodation Case

On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a noteworthy decision for school districts addressing student discipline, disability accommodations, and transfer enrollment policies. In E.W. v. Mt. Vernon Community School Corporation, the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of a school district that denied reenrollment to a transfer student with anxiety and depression after she accumulated ten out-of-school suspension days during the school year.

Background

The student attended the district as a transfer student and received accommodations through a Section 504 Plan after being diagnosed with depression and anxiety. Over time, the district expanded those accommodations to include counseling access, classroom breaks, testing modifications, and a Safety Plan addressing concerns related to the student’s mental health. Despite these supports, the student accumulated significant disciplinary incidents resulting in ten days of out-of-school suspension. The district subsequently denied her application for continued transfer enrollment pursuant to district policy and Indiana law, both of which permitted denial of reenrollment when a transfer student received ten or more suspension days.

The student and her parent sued, alleging disability discrimination and retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They argued, among other things, that the district should have conducted a manifestation determination meeting before denying reenrollment because the student’s conduct allegedly stemmed from her disability.

No Failure to Accommodate Under the ADA or Section 504

The Seventh Circuit first rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the district failed to reasonably accommodate the student’s disability. The court emphasized that the ADA and Section 504 require public entities to provide reasonable accommodations, not necessarily the accommodations preferred by a student or parent.

Central to the plaintiffs’ appeal was their contention that the district should have conducted a manifestation determination review before denying reenrollment. The court noted, however, that neither the ADA nor Section 504 imposed any obligation on the District to conduct a manifestation determination meeting before deciding the student’s reenrollment status under these circumstances. The court further concluded that the district had engaged extensively in accommodating the student’s disability by implementing and repeatedly revising her Section 504 Plan and Safety Plan. According to the court, these measures demonstrated responsiveness rather than deliberate indifference to the student’s needs.

Clarification of the Deliberate Indifference Standard

The decision also addresses the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in A.J.T. ex rel. A.T. v. Osseo Area Schools Independent School District No. 279, which held that plaintiffs seeking damages for disability discrimination in educational settings need show only deliberate indifference rather than discriminatory animus. The Seventh Circuit confirmed that the district court properly applied the deliberate-indifference standard and found no evidence that the school disregarded a known likelihood that its actions would violate the student’s federally protected rights.

Retaliation Claim Fails

The plaintiffs also alleged that the district retaliated against them for requesting accommodations and advocating on the student’s behalf. The Seventh Circuit acknowledged that requests for disability-related accommodations constitute protected activity and that denial of reenrollment could qualify as an adverse action. Nevertheless, the court found no evidence that the protected activity caused the reenrollment decision.

Although the parents requested a manifestation determination shortly before the reenrollment denial, the court found that the district’s disciplinary concerns and attendance-related issues predated those requests. Moreover, the undisputed fact that the student accumulated ten days of out-of-school suspension independently justified the district’s decision under both district policy and Indiana state law. As a result, the plaintiffs could not establish that the district’s stated reasons were pretextual.

Key Takeaways for School Districts

The decision offers several practical lessons for school administrators:

• The ADA and Section 504 require reasonable accommodations, not every accommodation requested by parents or students.
• Careful documentation of accommodations, disciplinary measures, and family communications is essential to defending disability-discrimination claims.
• Districts may enforce neutral enrollment policies supported by legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons.

The decision reinforces that while disability laws require meaningful participation in the accommodation process, they do not prevent school districts from enforcing neutral enrollment policies based on legitimate disciplinary concerns. Districts that consistently collaborate with families and appropriately document and implement accommodations are best positioned to defend against ADA and Section 504 claims.

If you have questions regarding Section 504 compliance, student discipline, transfer enrollment policies, or disability-related litigation, please contact a Franczek attorney.