A federal judge threw out some but not all claims from a 13-count complaint against the Milton Hershey School in Hershey over the death of one of the school’s students in 2013.

So litigation continues over the death of 14-year-old Abrielle Kira Bartels, known as Abbie. She had lived at the boarding school since she was 5. Bartels killed herself one day in 2013 after the school sent her home, according to the lawsuit filed in 2016 by her parents, Julie Wartluft and Frederick Bartels Jr.

In a 48-page order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III of the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted in part and denied in part the school’s two motions for judgment on the pleadings.

The parents alleged that school officials knew “Abrielle suffered from depression and suicidal ideations,” Jones said, but, according to the suit, they “discharged her from their care under a ‘shadow policy’ which mandated that students be expelled from the school after two mental health hospitalizations, even if those hospitalizations were recommended by school staff.”

She died soon after being sent home, Jones said.

The judge came down harshly on what the parents charged was a “refusal to accommodate” Abbie Bartels’ need to stay in a time of crisis. Jones called the school’s defense lawyers’ argument on that point, that the policy treated Bartels the same as every other student, “ludicrous.”

“A refusal to even enter into a dialogue concerning reasonable accommodations certainly implies that the reasonable accommodation sought to be discussed was refused,” Jones said. The judge said such an accommodation was “essential,” and “not just preferable,” as the parents “have pleaded that instituting the reasonable accommodation would have saved Abrielle’s life.”

“We are unpersuaded by defendants’ arguments that the estate has failed to demonstrate that Abrielle was treated differently as a result of her disability because the policy which necessitated her dismissal applied to every student at the school,” Jones said. “Put simply, this argument is ludicrous. An intentionally discriminatory policy does not become non-discriminatory simply because it applies across the board. That is, the policy at issue is discriminatory on its face.”

The chocolate maker Milton Hershey and his wife Catherine Hershey established the school in 1909 to provide a cost-free education to economically disadvantaged students and a “positive, structured home life year-round to help children gain the skills to be successful in all aspects of life,” according to the website. The school offers “award-winning programs, experienced teachers and caring adult mentors” for 2,000 kindergarten through 12th-grade students “from around the country,” the site said.

U.S. District Chief Judge Christopher C. Conner dismissed seven of the counts in the amended complaint, but then reconsidered and reinstated five of them last year.

The case was reassigned to Jones in January, he said in a footnote.

Lawyers on both sides took encouragement from the latest order.

“We are very pleased with the court’s decision to grant the motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismiss eight of the 10 claims challenged by defendants at this preliminary stage,” said Hershey School defense attorney Jarad W. Handelman of Elliott Greenleaf in Harrisburg. “We look forward to presenting further grounds for dismissal of any remaining claims in summary judgment.”

“We are pleased that the court has agreed that Milton Hershey School students have rights under the Federal Fair Housing Act as renters on account of chores that they are required to perform as a condition of residency in student homes,” one of the parents’ lawyers, John W. Schmehl of Dilworth Paxson in Philadelphia, said. “A federal claim for discrimination in housing on mental health and other grounds is an important protection for these students.”

The judge dismissed the parents’ Federal Fair Housing Act claims, but the estate’s FHA claim survived. “So the student but not parent has the FHA claim,” Schmehl said. “The wrongful death and negligence claims already survived a prior motion to dismiss so those claims were not part of this opinion. Negligence per se and conspiracy to endanger children claims were dismissed. Breach of fiduciary duty claim as to the estate survived but not for parents. So we move forward on negligence claims, wrongful death (parents), survival, FHA, breach of fiduciary duty for the estate.”

Schmehl acknowledged his team will still have to face the looming summary judgment challenge.

Still, he said, “We see it as a ruling of considerable import on the application of the Federal Fair Housing Act and breach of fiduciary duty claims for residential school students. While we are disappointed in some of the other rulings, we respect them and overall we are happy to move forward on the significant claims that remain.”