ENFORCING RIGHTS OF SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND FAMILIES

As a private bar attorney with Children and Family Law Division of the Massachusetts Committee for Public Services, I get updates on recent cases and here is one (which I hope I am allowed to reprint) about a recent Supreme Court case which provides more remedies for families with disabled children who have been harmed by schools. 

Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21–887, slip op. (U.S. Mar. 21, 2023)

Michelle Scavongelli

Senior Counsel, The EdLaw Project

 

REQUIREMENT OF EXHAUSTION NO LONGER A BAR TO RECOVERY OF DAMAGES FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION STUDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES Last week, the United States Supreme Court handed down a unanimous decision in Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, No. 21–887, slip op. (U.S. Mar. 21, 2023). The Court held that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s (IDEA) exhaustion requirement does not apply to lawsuits seeking only money damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

The plaintiff, Miguel Luna Perez, had attended Sturgis Public Schools since he was nine years old. Mr. Perez is deaf. To accommodate his disability, the school was required to provide him with aides to translate classroom instruction into sign language. However, the aides assigned to Mr. Perez were either unqualified or largely absent from the classroom.

The district also inflated Mr. Perez’s grades, advancing him from grade to grade without regard to his progress. That led Mr. Perez and his parents to believe he was on track to graduate with his class. The school reached out just months before graduation to inform them that Mr. Perez would not be awarded a standard diploma.

Mr. Perez and his family filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education under the IDEA, claiming that the school district had failed to provide Mr. Perez a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). They settled with the school district before the case went to a hearing. According to the settlement, the school district agreed to provide Mr. Perez with relief available under the IDEA, including additional schooling at the Michigan School for the Deaf as well as additional compensatory education.

Mr. Perez then filed a lawsuit under the ADA seeking monetary relief for harms flowing from Sturgis’ failure to provide FAPE. The school district objected. It argued that the IDEA required Mr. Perez to “exhaust” the administrative procedures in the IDEA—that is, file a due-process complaint and litigate the case to a final administrative decision before he could file a lawsuit under the ADA.

The Court disagreed. It held that the exhaustion requirement only applies when a plaintiff asks for remedies that are also available under the IDEA, such as injunctive relief or compensatory education. Because the remedy that Mr. Perez is seeking—monetary damages—is not available under the IDEA, his lawsuit may proceed. He had already obtained the relief available under IDEA through the settlement of the IDEA claim.

The Court’s holding will allow students who have been denied FAPE to settle their IDEA claims and still receive the monetary damages to which they are entitled under ADA. School districts may respond by requiring a general release of all claims, including ADA claims, to settle an ADA claim.

Perez represents a significant departure from prior practice. In 2017, the Court held that the IDEA’s exhaustion rule applies when a plaintiff seeks relief for the denial of FAPE. Fry v. Napoleon, 580 U.S. __ (2017). The Court reasoned that providing FAPE is the IDEA’s “core guarantee,” and so claims seeking relief for denial of FAPE must be channeled through the statute’s administrative processes. The Court specifically reserved the question of whether damages only ADA claims could be brought without exhausting administrative remedies under IDEA.

The ruling in Perez clarifies that the exhaustion requirement does not apply when a plaintiff seeks only money damages under ADA even if the gravamen of the claim is related to FAPE. The Court’s decision in Perez ensures that students’ allegations of harm and requests for compensation will not be administratively barred.