In E.W. v. Mt. Vernon Community School Corp., the Seventh Circuit upheld a school district’s decision to deny reenrollment to a transfer student with anxiety and depression after years of behavioral and attendance concerns. The court found that the district had provided reasonable accommodations under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and that the student’s reenrollment was denied because she met the district’s established transfer-policy criteria, not because of her disability or her family’s requests for accommodations.
The student attended the district as a transfer student from sixth through eighth grade. After being diagnosed with anxiety and depression, she received accommodations through a Section 504 plan that was developed and revised with input from her parents. Over time, the district expanded those supports to include class breaks, access to counselors, testing accommodations, and a safety plan following a suicide attempt. Despite those supports, the student continued to experience significant behavioral and attendance issues. During the 2022-23 school year, she accumulated ten days of out-of-school suspension and numerous absences. Under the district’s transfer policy and Indiana law, transfer students may be denied reenrollment based on excessive suspensions or attendance problems, and the district denied her application to return for the following school year.
The student and her father sued, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and Section 504, retaliation for requesting accommodations, and sex discrimination. They argued, among other things, that the district should have conducted a manifestation-determination meeting before denying reenrollment.
The court rejected those claims. It explained that the ADA and Section 504 require schools to provide reasonable accommodations, but not necessarily a family’s preferred accommodation. The court found that the district had repeatedly reviewed and revised the student’s Section 504 plan and provided numerous supports throughout her enrollment. It also held that neither the ADA nor Section 504 required the district to conduct the requested manifestation-determination meeting before making its reenrollment decision. The court also rejected the retaliation claim, finding that the district had a legitimate basis for denying reenrollment because the students’ ten days of out-of-school suspension independently satisfied the district’s transfer-policy criteria. The family did not present evidence showing that the decision was motivated by disability discrimination or retaliation.
This decision reminds schools to engage in the accommodation process and provide reasonable supports to students with disabilities. At the same time, schools may continue to enforce generally applicable enrollment and discipline policies when they have documented, non-discriminatory reasons. Careful documentation of accommodations, communications with families, and the consistent application of district policies remain critical when addressing student discipline and enrollment decisions.
If your district is facing questions regarding disability accommodations, Section 504 compliance, student discipline, or enrollment decisions, please contact any of our Student/Special Education attorneys for assistance.
Source: E.W. v. Mt. Vernon Community School Corporation, No. 25-2991 (7th Cir. Sept. 8, 2026)
