SCHOOL PUPILS: EXCLUSION: FEES: Minnesota law prohibits schools or districts participating in the federal school lunch program from providing an alternate meal not on the scheduled menu to students with unpaid meal debt.
169i (cr.ref. 169x)

445 Minnesota Street, Suite 1400, St. Paul, MN 55101

- 2131 Office: (651) 296

- 3353 • Toll Free: (800) 657

- 3787 • Minnesota Relay: (800) 627

- 3529 An Equal Opportunity Employer Who Values Diversity November 17 , 2022

Heather Mueller, Ed. D.
Commissioner

M innesota Department of Education
400 NE Stinson B oulevard Minneapolis, MN 55412

Re: Opinion Request

– Alternate Lunches for Student Meal Debt

Dear Commissioner :

Thank you for your correspondence requesting an opinion from this Office pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes §§ 8.07 and 120A.10. You request an interpret ation of Minnesota law related

to school m enus

. Specifically, you ask whether a policy of providing a meal that differs from the
scheduled menu to students with unpaid meal balances violates Minnesota laws that prohibit differential treatment, lunch shaming or otherwise ostracizing the student for unpaid meal
balances.

In my opinion, provi di ng an alternate meal based on meal debt violates Minnesota law.

BACKGROUND

You indicate that a number of public school s or districts across the state have adopted policies whereby students with unpaid meal balances are denied lunch items from the sche duled

menu for the day

. S tudents with unpaid meal balances are provided instead with what schools and
districts refer to as an “alternate meal

, ” a “minimum meal

, ” or a “courtesy meal

. ”

For example, one district’s policy states that students with an overdrawn account will be offered an “alternate meal consisting of a cheese sandwich, piece of fruit and milk .” A nother district policy states that “until the negative balance is paid” students will recei ve a “minimum meal” consisting of “ a peanut butter or jelly sandwich and milk. ” Some school policies simply indicate the alternate meal will meet federal and state requirements.Heather Mueller, Ed. D. November 17, 2022 Page 2

A review of school menus posted on the internet indicates that many, though not all, schools and districts provide a variety of daily meal options each day

.

QUESTION

Is providing alternat e meals to students with unpaid meal debt permissible under Minnesota Statutes, sections 124D.111 and 123B.34-123B.39?

ANSWER AND LEGAL ANALYSIS

No. Minnesota law prohibits schools or districts participating in the federal school lunch

program from providing an alternate meal , i.e. one that is not on the scheduled menu , to students with unpaid meal debt

. I first evaluate whether a policy of providing an alternate meal not on the scheduled menu violates a Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 124D.111) that requires respectful treatment of students regarding school lunch debt and prohibits limiting access to many as pects of
school life based on meal debt. I then evaluate whether alternate meal policies violate the Minnesota Public School Fee law (Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-.39) , which prohibits differential treatment of students based on nonpayment of school fees or cha rges.

A. Respectful Treatment Regarding Meal Debt . The first law your letter references is Minn. Stat. § 124D.111. Prior to changes to the law made in 2021, this statute provided simply
that school s and districts that participate in the school meals program must “ ensure that any reminders for payment of outstanding student meal balances do not demean or stigmatize any child participating in the school lunch program.” Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4 (2020) . In 2019

, I
concluded that denying a student the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies due to meal debt would demean or stigmatize the student in violation of this provision. Op. Atty. Gen. 169j (May 14, 2019) (attached).

Subsequent to that Opinion , t he Leg islature strengthened section 124D.111 by adding
subdivision 5 (a) , which requires :

Respectful treatment. (a) The participant [school or district] must also provide meals to students in a respectful manner according to the policy adopted under
subdivisi on 1. The participant must ensure that any reminders for payment of outstanding student meal balances do not demean or stigmatize any child participating in the school lunch program, including but not limited to dumping meals, withdrawing a meal that has b een served, announcing or listing students' names publicly, or affixing stickers, stamps, or pins. The participant must not impose any other restriction prohibited under section 123B.37 due to unpaid student
meal balances. The participant must not limit a student's participation in any school activities, graduation ceremonies, field trips, athletics, activity clubs, or other extracurricular activities or access to materials, technology, or other items provided to students due to an unpaid student meal balan ce.Heather Mueller, Ed. D.
November 17

, 2022 Page 3

Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 5 (a)

.

Demeaning or Stigmatizing

. Whether an alternate meal demeans or stigmatizes students
with meal debt is a somewhat fact

- based determination that this Office generally declines to make.

See Op. Atty. Gen. 629

- a (May 9, 1975). However , the examples of demeaning and stigmatizing conduct provided in the statute (which are not an exclusive list) shed light on whether an alternative meal is of the same character. Withdrawing or dumping a meal, publication of names of students, “stickers, stamps, or pins” as enumerated in the statute constitute practices that bring negative
attention to a student based on meal debt.

An alternate or minimum meal could also bring negative attention, especi ally if alternate or minimum meals are provided for no reason other than meal debt. If identifiable alternate meals are provided only or primarily to students with outstanding meal debt, the se student s are clearly identified among their peers as owing mea l debt. As such, the practice would stigmatize a student.
Even if many other students are opting for an alternate meal, the student who has no choice in the matter may, depending on the circumstances of how the meal is presented, feel demeaned or stigmat ized. For example, if some students ask for a peanut butter sandwich but students with meal debt are simply given a peanut butter sandwich without the student expressing a choice , those circumstances can be demeaning and stigmatizing for the student with meal debt.

Ultimately the determination of whether an alternate meal policy stigmatizes or demeans a student is a factual determination, and the statute places you as Commissioner in the role of determining whether a participant has violated subdivisio n 5(a)

. Minn. Stat. § 124D.111 , subd. 5(b). I believe the appropriate inquiry regarding stigma is to determine whether the circumstances
under which alternate or minimum meals are provided brings negative attention to the student

, such as when only or primarily students with outstanding meal debt receive identifiable alternate
meals , or when it is apparent that students with meal debt have no choice in meal selection.

Prohibition on Access Limit ation s

. S ection 124D.111, subd. 5 (a) also prohibits li miting
a student’s access to “ any school activities, graduation ceremonies, field trips, athletics, activity clubs, or other extracurricular activities or access to materials, technology, or other items provided
to students ” due to meal debt

. By providing an alternate or minimum meal, the school or district denies access to the scheduled meal of the day based on meal debt. The list of school experiences to which access may not be limited in the statute does not expressly include the scheduled me nu

. Howev er, “ o ther items provided to students ” is a catch

- all category that could include the
scheduled me nu

.

Whether “other items provided to students ” include s the scheduled menu requires statutory interpretation. T he first step in this endeavor is to determ ine if the phrase is unambiguous and can be given its plain meaning, or is ambiguous , requiring statutory construction. State v. Vasko

, 889
N.W.2d 551, 556 ( Minn. 2017). Because “other items provided to students ” is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous.Heather Mueller, Ed. D.
November 17

, 2022 Page 4

Once ambiguity is determined, we turn to principles of statutory construction. Id. The purpose of engaging in any statutory construction is to effectuate the intent of the Legisl ature. Minn. Stat. § 645.16. The phrase must be given a meaning that is contextually appropriate. State

v. Friese , 959 N.W.2d 205, 211 (Minn. 2021). More specifically, t he “word association” canon of
statutory construction provides that the meaning of doubtful words in a legislative act are
determined with reference to their connection to associated words and phrases. Id. at 213 ( citing

State v. Seuss , 52 N.W.2d 409, 415 (Minn. 1952) )

. Words grouped in a list should be given related meanings. Friese , 959 N.W.2d at 213.

In Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 5 (a) , “other items provided to students ” directly follows the words “materials” and “technology,” which suggests the phrase might be limited to curriculum

related “other items ” and not the scheduled menu. But the phrase is also associated

– in the very

same sentence

– with “ any school activities, graduation cere monies, field trips, athletics, activity clubs, or other extracurricular activities

. ” Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 5 (a)

. B ecause extracurricular activities are included in the list of aspects of the educational experience that can no t be limited based on school debt , the word association canon of construction requires that we not interpret “other items provided to students ” to include only curriculum

- related items.

Another canon of construction is the presumption that the Legislature does not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable. Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1). I t is hard to fathom that the Legislature would prohibit limiting access to “athletics, activity clubs or other extracurricular activities,” which are wholly unrelated to meal debt but all ow schools to deny access to the everyday public activity of receiving the service associated with the debt

– a scheduled school
lunch. Denying access to the daily scheduled meal is arguably more likely to stigmatize a student
with meal debt than denying access to an optional extracurricular activity unrelated to the debt

. Given the clear intent of the Legislature to avoid stigma, and the expansive list of school experiences to which access can no t be denied based on meal debt, I must conclude that the Legisla ture inten ded to include the scheduled lunch for the day within the category of “other items provided to students

, ” and to prohibit alternate lunch based on school debt

.

Therefore, e ven if there is no actual stigma associated with an alterna te meal, the broad prohibition against limiting access to a wide variety of school activities includes access to the
scheduled m enu as an “other item[] provided to students

. ” The practice of providing an alternate
meal based on meal debt , which denies acc ess to the scheduled menu, thus violates Minnesota law.

B. Minnesota Public School Fee Law . The second law your letter references is the Minnesota Public School Fee Law, Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34

- .39, which prohibits differential
treatment of students bas ed on nonpayment of school fees or charges.

This law establishes the general policy that, “Any practice leading to . . . discriminatory action based upon nonpayment of fees denies pupils their right to equal protection and entitled privileges.” Minn. S tat. § 123B.35. In addition to this policy statement, the law contains a specific prohibition: “No pupil’s rights or privileges, including the receipt of grades or diplomas may be denied or abridged for nonpayment of fees.” Minn. Stat. § 123B.37, subd. 2.Heather Mueller, Ed. D.
November 17

, 2022 Page 5

Application of this specific prohibition to the alternate meal policy , which denies access to the scheduled menu

, requires a determination of whether access to the scheduled menu constitutes a “right or privilege.” F ederal regulations require schools participating in the national school lunch program to offer “nutritious, well

- balanced and age

- appropriate meals to a ll the children they

serve.” 7 C.F.R. § 210.10 (a)(1). These regulations require participating schools to follow a menu planning approach and produce enough food “to offer each child the quantities specified in the meal pattern.” Id . at § 210.10(a)(1)(i ). The pattern requirements include a designated quantity of a variety of foods each week

. Id. at § 210.10(c).

Although your letter stipulates that the alternate meals meet federal nutrition requirements

, p roviding an alternate or minimum meal day aft er day until the debt is paid appears to me contrary

to the required variety reflected in the federal regulations. These menus are carefully designed to meet federal nutrition requirements for a balanced diet, and I question the practice of providing
the same spartan meal every day as long as the debt is unpaid . However, a conclusive
determination whether access to the varied scheduled menu constitutes a right or privilege under the Public School Fee law is unnecessary here in light of the conclusion abov e that an alternate meal policy based on meal debt violates Minn. Stat. § 124D.111 , subd. 5 (a)

.

As Commissioner, you play a critical role in implementing the statutory requirement for respectful treatment regarding meal debt, and I hope this analysi s is helpful to you. Thank you for the inquiry and concern for all students in Minnesota’s public schools.

Sincerely,

KEITH ELLISON Attorney General

Encl: Op. Atty. Gen. 629a (May 9, 1975) Op. Atty. Gen. 169j (May 14, 2019)

|#5343230

- v 3SCHOOL PUPILS: GRADUATION: FEES: Public schools are prohibited from denying students – who are eligible to receive their dipl oma – the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies due to unpaid meal debts. 169j (cr.ref. 169x) 

# S TATE OF 

# M INNESOTA

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

102 STATE CAPITOL ST. PAUL, MN 55155-1609 KEITH ELLISON TELEPHONE: (651) 296-6197 ATTORNEY GENERAL

May 14, 2019

Mary Cathryn Ricker
Commissioner Minnesota Department of Education 1500 Highway 36 West
Roseville MN 55113

Dear Commissioner Ricker:

Thank you for asking the Attorney General’ s Office to provide a written opinion on whether denying a student’s opport unity to participate in gradua tion ceremonies or activities because of an unpaid meal debt violates state la w. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.07 (2018), here is

our response.

FACTS

You indicated that you have recently become aware that several Minnesota school districts have policies that restrict a student’s ab ility to participate in graduation ceremonies or
activities when the student ha s an unpaid school meal de bt owing to the school.

QUESTION

You have asked whether the practice of rest ricting a student from participating in graduation ceremonies or activities because the student has an outstanding school meal debt
violates Minnesota statutes.

LEGAL ANALYSIS

In my opinion, public schools 1 are prohibited under Minnesota statutes from denying students the opportunity to participate in gradua tion ceremonies due to unpaid meal charges. I base this opinion on both the Minnesota Public School Fee Law, Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-39, (the “Law”) and the Lunch Aid Law, Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4.

1 “Public schools” refer to Minnesota public elem entary and secondary schools; school districts; and charter schools that are all subject to the Public School Fee Law.

Toll Free Line: (800) 657-3787 • Minnesota Relay: (800) 627-3529 • Facsimile: (651) 297-4193 • www.ag.state.mn.us Printed on 30% Postconsumer Material PaperCommissioner Ricker May 14, 2019 Page 2

Minnesota Public School Fee Law:

“It is the policy of the state of Minnesota th at public school education shall be free.” Minn. Stat. § 123B.35. The Minnesota Public School Fee Law explicitly provides:

No pupil’s rights or privileges, including th e receipt of grades or diplomas may be denied or abridged for nonpayment of fees...

Minn. Stat. § 123B.37, subd. 2. Th e Law further provides:

Any practice leading to suspension, coercion, exclusion , withholding of grades or diplomas, or discriminatory action based upon nonpayment of fees denies pupils their right to equal protecti on and entitled privileges.

Minn. Stat. § 123B.35 (emphasis added) . As discussed in more detail below, (1) a charge for a school-provided meal qualifies as a “fee” under the La w, and (2) the opportunity to participate in graduation ceremonies is covered by this Law, a nd is a privilege that cannot be denied because of outstanding meal balances.

First, a charge for a meal by a public school is a “fee” subject to the Public School Fee Law. Minn. Stat. § 123B.36, subd. 1(b) lists “authorized fees” that a public school may require payment, and subdivision 1(b)(6) authorizes: “fees specifically permitted by any other statute.” Both federal ( see 42 U.S.C. § 1760(p)(2) – “each school food au thority shall establish a price for paid lunches” served to students who are not certified to receive free or reduced price meals) and state (Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4 – entitled “N o fee” and restricts reminders for payment of meals) statutes authorize participating schools to charge a fee for meals fo r qualified students. In addition, subdivision 1(b)(5) in the list of authorized fees include s: “items of personal use or products that a student has an option to purchase... ”, which can include a meal (a product) that the student has option to purchase.

Second, the Law applies to students’ partic ipation in graduation ceremonies. While section 123B.37, subd 2 cited above expressly c ites “grades or diplomas,” its use of the introductory term “including” m eans the statutory prohibition is not limited to those examples. See Fed. Land Bank of St. Paul v. Bismarck Lumber Co., 314 U.S. 95, 100 (1941) (stating that “the term ‘including’ is not one of all-embraci ng definition, but connotes simply an illustrative application of the general principle”); LaMont v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 728, 814 N.W.2d 14, 19 (Minn. 2012) (“The word ‘includes' is not exhaustive or exclusive”).

In general, many courts across the country ha ve held that participation in a graduation ceremony does not constitute a constitutional property right in the same way as the right toCommissioner Ricker May 14, 2019 Page 3

receive a diploma or degree when one has met all academic requirements. 2 Participation in graduation ceremonies is more likely a privilege, 3 akin to participation in extracurricular athletic
activities. 4 See Olson v. Robbinsdale Area Schools, No. Civ. 04–2707, 2004 WL 1212081 *4 (D. Minn. 2004) (“Participating in a high school graduation ceremony with one’s own peers is, almost by definition, an unrepea table event” and upholding a hear ing officer’s conclusion that participation in the graduation ceremony with p eers is an “important educational benefit.”). Accordingly, I conclude that participation in a graduation ceremony constitutes a benefit or privilege, for which public sc hools cannot deny or abridge for nonpayment of fees under section 123B.37, subd. 2.

Graduation ceremonies are significant even ts and a memorable way to celebrate the important achievement of graduation with families, fellow students, and teachers. Participation in graduation ceremonies is a privilege, and therefore, a public school cannot exclude a student from participating in the school activity base d upon nonpayment of fees . Minn. Stat. § 123B.37, subd. 2. Moreover, this practice leading to ex clusion or discriminatory action based upon nonpayment of fees denies students their right to equal protection and en titled privileges as provided by Minn. Stat. § 123B.35.

Lunch Aid Law:

In addition to the Public School Fee Law, public schools particip ating in the School Lunch Program under current Minnesota law ar e expressly prohibited from demeaning or stigmatizing students for outstandi ng student meal balances:

The [school] must also ensure that a ny reminders for payment of outstanding
student meal balances do not demean or stigmatize any child participating in the school lunch program.

Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 4. Denying students the opportunity to partic ipate in their school graduation due to nonpayment of me als is a reminder or message to others that would demean or stigmatize students. That is prohibited under Section 124D.111, subd. 4.

2 See Nieshe v. Concrete Sch. Dist, 129 Wash. App. 632, 645, 127 P.3d 713, 720, (2005); See also, Williams v. Austin Indep. Sch. Dist., 796 F.Supp. 251, 255 (W.D.Tex 1992).

3 “Privilege” is defined as “a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage or
favor.” Merriam–Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary 936 (9th ed. 1983). Participation in a graduation ceremony due to successful completion of required coursework, examinations and all academic requirements is a benefit.

4 See Brown v. Wells, 288 Minn. 468, 181 N.W.2d 708 (1970) (mem bership in interscholastic sports teams is a privilege).**Commissioner Ricker** 

**May 14,**  **2019 Page**  **4**

**In sum,**  **schools retain**  **the right**  **to pursue**  **legal collection**  **action for**  **unpaid fees.**  **But public**  **schools are**  **prohibited from**  **denying students** 

**- who**  **are eligible**  **to receive**  **their diploma** 

**- the**  **opportunity to**  **participate in**  **graduation ceremonies**  **due to**  **unpaid meal**  **debts, under**  **the Public**  **School Fee**  **and State**  **School Lunch**  **Aid Laws.** 



### CONCLUSION

**I understand**  **that there**  **is pending legislation**  **to strengthen**  **the enforcement,**  **reporting and**  **policies regarding**  **school meals**  **and lunch**  **aid. I**  **support that**  **legislation. In**  **the meantime,** 
**because we**  **are in**  **the midst**  **of high**  **school graduation**  **season, I**  **am issuing**  **this Written**  **Opinion**
**that is**  **binding on**  **school officers**  **unless overruled**  **by a**  **court. 5** 

**Let me**  **know if**  **you have**  **further concerns.**  **Thank you**  **for your**  **concern for**  **all students**  **in**
**Minnesota's public**  **schools.**

**1#4488342-v l**  **Sincerely,**

**KEITH ELLISON**  **Attorney General** 

**5** 

### See, **Minn. Stat.**  **§ 120A.10;**  

### Minnesota **Voters Alliance**  **v. Anoka-Hennepin**  **Sch. Dist.,**  **868**
**N.W.2d 703,**  **707, n.2,**  **(Minn. Ct.**  **App. 2015)**  **(written opinion**  **of the**  **attorney general**  **is**
**"decisive" on**  **all school**  **matters until**  **decided otherwise**  **by courts.)**  

### See **also, Eelkema**  **v. Bd.**  **of Educ.**  **of City**  **of Duluth,**  **215 Minn.**  **590, 593,**  **11 N.W.2d**  **76, 78,**  **(Minn. 1943)**  **(attorney general**  **"opinion, though**  **not binding**  **on the**  **courts, was,**  **by statute**  **law, binding**  **upon school**  **officers**
**until overruled**  **by the**  **courts.")**