In March 2023, the Supreme Court ruled for a deaf student and against a school district. The decision in Perez v. Sturgis is a win for students with disabilities and gives them more ways to ensure school districts comply with federal law.

Background

Miguel Luna Perez, who is deaf, was a student in the Sturgis Public School District. During his eleven years of attendance, the school either did not provide an interpreter, or his assigned interpreter failed to show up.

A few months before his graduation, the school district informed Perez that he did not meet the district's graduation requirements. At this point, the Perez family filed an administrative complaint with the Michigan Department of Education.

The family subsequently filed a lawsuit under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). IDEA covers K-12 students and requires school districts to provide all students with free appropriate public education (FAPE), including support for students with disabilities. ADA covers all Americans and prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities, including in schools.

The Perez family and the school district settled regarding the claims under IDEA. Perez continued the lawsuit under the ADA, including seeking compensatory damages. The school filed to dismiss claiming that Perez had not exhausted administrative remedies under IDEA. Both the district court and the Sixth Circuit sided with the school district.

The Supreme Court, however, reversed on the basis that Perez did not need to exhaust his IDEA remedies to file suit under the ADA.

Different Laws and Exhausted Remedies

The Supreme Court found that Perez's failure to exhaust all administrative remedies under IDEA did not disallow him from suing under the ADA. IDEA specifically states that nothing in that law should restrict a student's rights under other federal laws.

The Sturgis School District relied on another part of IDEA, which states that families must exhaust all remedies under IDEA before filing a civil action. The Supreme Court, however, found an exception in Perez's case because IDEA does not provide for compensatory damages, but the ADA does. In other words, Perez was suing for something he could not obtain under IDEA, so his suit should have been allowed to continue.

What Now?

The Supreme Court's decision affirmed Perez's right to sue and sent the case back to the lower courts. The Supreme Court decision suggests that IDEA's requirement for exhaustion does not apply when the remedy sought does not exist under IDEA.

What the Supreme Court did not address was whether Perez had a claim under ADA or if his claim has any merit. Perez could still lose during trial, or a court may find he does not have a case under the ADA.

For students with disabilities, the Supreme Court's decision in Perez v. Sturgis provides them with another avenue to ensure school districts do not minimize or reduce their rights. Under federal law, students with disabilities have not only the right to an education but also the right to appeal, file a complaint, and even sue when a school fails to provide a student with federally mandated support and other services.

Keep Up-to-Date on the Law

The Education Law Team at the Lento Law Firm not only has nationwide experience defending students, we keep on top of changes to the law and how they affect our clients. With in-depth experience in education defense and disability rights, we know the importance of protecting a student's right to FAPE and the services and support they require to succeed. Contact us online or by phone.