Can a Minnesota public school give a student with unpaid meal debt a 'minimum meal' (like a peanut butter sandwich) instead of the scheduled lunch other students receive?

Plain-English summary

Minnesota Education Commissioner Heather Mueller asked whether schools participating in the federal school lunch program could serve an alternate or “minimum” meal to students with unpaid meal balances instead of the scheduled lunch. Attorney General Keith Ellison answered 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.”

The opinion gives two reasons under Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 5(a). First, an identifiable alternate meal given only or primarily to students with meal debt would stigmatize them. Whether a particular practice demeans or stigmatizes is otherwise a fact-based question the AG did not decide. Second, the statute prohibits limiting access to “other items provided to students” because of unpaid meal debt. The AG concluded that this phrase includes the scheduled lunch for the day, so the school cannot withhold that meal because of a balance.

The opinion also discussed the Public School Fee Law and federal school lunch nutrition regulations. It did not conclusively decide whether access to the varied scheduled menu was a right or privilege under the Fee Law, because the conclusion under § 124D.111 resolved the question.

What this means for you

School food service staff: The opinion says schools participating in the federal lunch program could not replace the scheduled meal with an alternate meal because a student had unpaid meal debt.

Students and families: The opinion treats the scheduled lunch as an item that may not be withheld because of an unpaid meal balance. It also identifies meals given only or primarily to students with debt as stigmatizing when they make those students identifiable among peers.

Education officials: The opinion leaves some stigma assessments to the facts of the particular practice. Its separate conclusion about denying access to the scheduled lunch does not depend on resolving every stigma question.

Common questions

Can a school serve a cheaper substitute lunch solely because a student has meal debt?

No. The AG concluded that replacing the scheduled menu with an alternate meal because of unpaid meal debt violates § 124D.111, subd. 5(a).

What if the same sandwich is available to every student?

The opinion does not approve or reject voluntary menu options. It addresses a student denied the scheduled menu and given an alternate meal because of unpaid debt.

Did the AG decide every question under the Public School Fee Law?

No. The opinion said a conclusive determination under that law was unnecessary after it found the alternate-meal policy unlawful under § 124D.111, subd. 5(a).

What if the alternate meal identifies students who owe money?

The opinion says identifiable alternate meals given only or primarily to students with outstanding meal debt would stigmatize those students.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion quotes Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 5(a), which requires respectful meal service and prohibits restrictions on student activities and access to materials, technology, or other items because of unpaid meal balances. The AG read “other items provided to students” to include the scheduled lunch. The opinion also cited Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1): the Legislature is presumed not to intend an absurd or unreasonable result. It would be unreasonable, the AG explained, to bar restrictions on unrelated extracurricular activities while allowing denial of the very meal associated with the debt.

The Public School Fee Law, Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-.39, bars differential treatment based on nonpayment of school fees or charges. The opinion noted that serving the same minimum meal day after day appeared contrary to the variety reflected in 7 C.F.R. § 210.10(a)(1), but did not decide the Fee Law question conclusively.

Citations and references

• Minn. Stat. § 124D.111, subd. 5(a)
• Minn. Stat. § 123B.35
• Minn. Stat. § 645.17(1)
• 7 C.F.R. § 210.10(a)(1)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/
• Original PDF: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Opinions/169i-20221117.pdf

Original opinion text

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)
November 17, 2022

Heather Mueller, Ed. D.
Commissioner
Minnesota Department of Education

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 interpretation of Minnesota law related to school menus. 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, providing an alternate meal based on meal debt violates Minnesota law.

BACKGROUND

You indicate that a number of public schools or districts across the state have adopted policies whereby students with unpaid meal balances are denied lunch items from the scheduled menu for the day. Students 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." Another district policy states that "until the negative balance is paid" students will receive a "minimum meal" consisting of "a peanut butter or jelly sandwich and milk."

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.

A. Respectful Treatment Regarding Meal Debt. Subsequent to my May 14, 2019 Opinion, the Legislature 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 subdivision 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 been 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 balance.

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. 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.

An alternate or minimum meal could also bring negative attention, especially 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, these students are clearly identified among their peers as owing meal debt. As such, the practice would stigmatize a student.

Prohibition on Access Limitations. Section 124D.111, subd. 5(a) also prohibits limiting 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.

Whether "other items provided to students" includes the scheduled menu requires statutory interpretation. Because "other items provided to students" is susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, it is ambiguous.

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 ceremonies, field trips, athletics, activity clubs, or other extracurricular activities." Because extracurricular activities are included in the list of aspects of the educational experience that cannot 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). It 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 allow 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 cannot be denied based on meal debt, I must conclude that the Legislature intended 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.

B. Minnesota Public School Fee Law. The Minnesota Public School Fee Law, Minn. Stat. §§ 123B.34-.39, prohibits differential treatment of students based 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. Stat. § 123B.35.

Federal regulations require schools participating in the national school lunch program to offer "nutritious, well-balanced and age-appropriate meals to all the children they serve." 7 C.F.R. § 210.10(a)(1). Providing an alternate or minimum meal day after day until the debt is paid appears to me contrary to the required variety reflected in the federal regulations. 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 above 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 analysis is helpful to you. Thank you for the inquiry and concern for all students in Minnesota's public schools.

Sincerely,

KEITH ELLISON
Attorney General