## Facts

- Fay Ordway, an 18-year-old unmarried pregnant senior at North Middlesex Regional High School, sought to remain in regular daytime classes and graduate with her class.
- A written school rule (Rule 821) provided that when an unmarried enrolled girl was known to be pregnant, her school membership would be immediately terminated.
- After Ordway disclosed her pregnancy to the principal in late January 1971, the principal required her to stop attending regular classes as of February 12, 1971.
- The school offered limited alternatives: after-hours access to school facilities and personnel, and continued participation in extracurricular activities, but no full-time classroom attendance.
- Evidence showed Ordway’s grades had not declined, and her pregnancy had not disrupted school activities or her relationships with classmates.
- Medical testimony indicated Ordway was physically able to attend school without adverse physical consequences.
- Expert testimony indicated exclusion could cause mental anguish and emotional stress that might adversely affect Ordway and her pregnancy, and that after-hours instruction was not educationally equivalent to full-time classroom participation.
- The principal indicated the rule expressed disapproval of pregnancies outside marriage and did not provide a pedagogical justification for excluding Ordway from regular class hours.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding an unmarried pregnant student from regular daytime classes under Rule 821 likely violated the Equal Protection Clause by imposing a sex- and status-based classification without a rational educational justification.
2. Whether the plaintiff satisfied the standards for preliminary injunctive relief, including likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm.

## Decision

- The court granted a preliminary injunction.
- The court ordered defendants to readmit Ordway as a full-time student attending regular class hours, notwithstanding Rule 821.
- The court found a substantial likelihood that Ordway would succeed on her Equal Protection claim.
- The court found irreparable harm absent relief, given the time-sensitive loss of ordinary senior-year education and graduation opportunity, and the potential psychological and physical effects of exclusion.

## Legal Principles

- A school policy that singles out a narrow, identifiable group for exclusion from regular education must have a legitimate educational justification; moral disapproval alone does not justify differential treatment under the Equal Protection Clause.
- At the preliminary-injunction stage, the court considers likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable injury, along with the comparative harms associated with granting or denying relief.
- When alternative educational arrangements are materially inferior to regular classroom instruction, deprivation of access to ordinary schooling may support a finding of irreparable harm, particularly where time to complete the school year is limited.

## Conclusion

The court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of a rule terminating regular attendance for unmarried pregnant students, concluding that the plaintiff showed a strong likelihood of proving the exclusion unconstitutional under Equal Protection and that denial of full-time attendance would cause irreparable educational and personal harm.


Ordway v. Hargraves, 323 F. Supp. 1155 (D. Mass. 1971)