## Facts

- A six-year-old child with Hemophilia B and AIDS sought to attend first grade in a public school district after moving into the district.
- District officials were informed of the child’s medical conditions.
- The Board adopted a policy for children with chronic communicable diseases and created a placement evaluation committee.
- After meeting with the child’s mother and counsel, the Board voted to exclude the child from the regular classroom and provide home tutoring.
- The child sued under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discriminatory exclusion from the normal classroom based solely on handicap.

## Issues

1. Whether a § 504 claim challenging classroom exclusion is subject to the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) such that state administrative remedies must be exhausted before filing in federal court.
2. Whether the child qualified as a “handicapped child” under the EAHCA because his medical conditions adversely affected educational performance and created a need for special education and related services.

## Decision

- The court denied the school district’s motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
- The court held that the EAHCA exhaustion requirement did not apply because, on the allegations presented, the child was not a “handicapped child” under the EAHCA.
- The court allowed the § 504 claim to proceed in federal court without prior exhaustion of EAHCA procedures.

## Legal Principles

- EAHCA procedural safeguards, including administrative exhaustion, apply only if the plaintiff falls within the statute’s definition of a “handicapped child.”
- A serious medical condition does not trigger EAHCA coverage unless it adversely affects educational performance and results in a need for special education and related services.
- When EAHCA coverage is not shown, defendants cannot use EAHCA exhaustion to bar federal jurisdiction over a § 504 discrimination claim.
- At the pleading stage, a § 504 claim may proceed where the plaintiff alleges being otherwise qualified for the educational program and discriminatory exclusion by a federally funded recipient, even if the merits of discrimination are not yet decided.

## Conclusion

The court retained jurisdiction over the child’s § 504 classroom-exclusion claim and rejected dismissal on exhaustion grounds because the alleged facts did not place the child within the EAHCA’s definition requiring special-education procedures.


Doe v. Belleville Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 118, 672 F. Supp. 342 (S.D. Ill. 1987)