In Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the United States Supreme Court addressed procedural issues when parents pursue claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act when claims also exist under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Summary of case
This case involved a deaf student named Miguel Luna Perez. The School District provided him with aides to translate instruction into sign language. Months before graduation from high school, the District informed his parents that he was not eligible to graduate. The parents filed a due process lawsuit pursuant to IDEA alleging that the District’s aides were either unqualified or absent from the classroom for hours at a time. The parents claimed they thought the student was on track to graduate, and that the District had misrepresented his performance in school. The District reached a settlement of the IDEA claim. However, once the IDEA claim was settled, Mr. Perez filed another suit in federal court under the ADA seeking compensatory damages. Mr. Perez argued that he was not obligated to file another IDEA claim because the relief he was seeking, compensatory damages, is not offered under IDEA.
The federal district court ruled that exhaustion of the claims was required and dismissed the lawsuit. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. This led to the Plaintiff’s appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Legal Issues
The question before the Supreme Court was whether students with disabilities must exhaust administrative remedies under IDEA before seeking relief under the ADA. Exhaustion in this context means the parents must litigate their special education due process claims through the state-level procedures under IDEA before filing in court. By determining that the Plaintiff did not need to exhaust his ADA claims before filing the lawsuit in federal court, the Supreme Court has expanded the realm of possible litigation under the ADA and similar statutes.
Although IDEA and ADA both concern the rights of students with disabilities, they set forth different legal standards. Under IDEA, a School District is obligated to provide a free, appropriate public education (“FAPE”) for a student with a disability or disabilities. Under the ADA, a School District is prohibited from discriminating against students (and others) on the basis of disabilities and must make certain reasonable accommodations.
Previously, the Supreme Court had evaluated the issue of these two different claims in Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools. In Fry, the Court ruled that if a claim under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) was not related to FAPE, then it would not need to be exhausted through the administrative process. Under Fry, the Court provided a framework for analysis to determine whether claims presented to a court are substantively tied to the provision of a FAPE. First, could the plaintiff have brought essentially the same claim if the conduct had occurred at a public facility other than a school? Second, could an adult, and not just a child, have pursued the same claim? Finally, the court should review the history of the proceedings; if the plaintiff previously sought administrative remedies under the IDEA, this is a strong indication that the claims stem from a FAPE consideration. The Third Circuit has since reviewed the Fry framework and noted that a request for damages is not dispositive of the exhaustion determination, and the three-pronged analysis is necessary in every case.
In Perez, the Supreme Court focused on the type of relief requested by the Plaintiff rather than whether the claim involved the provision of a FAPE. The Court referenced Fry but did not apply the analysis set forth in that decision. Thus, the decision offers parents the option to pursue discrimination claims in court regardless of whether they also pursue related claims regarding denial of FAPE. The decision makes it less clear whether the courts must still determine whether the discrimination claims are distinct from the FAPE claims and require exhaustion.
Bottom Line for Schools
The biggest takeaway is that Plaintiffs may have an easier time filing an ADA claim in federal court without needing to exhaust an IDEA claim. Before Perez, the analysis centered on whether the Plaintiff’s claim related to a District providing FAPE. Now, the Court will look to the relief requested by the Plaintiff in deciding whether it should be exhausted. If a Plaintiff is seeking compensatory damages only, they may be able to bypass the administrative hearing process which is used in IDEA cases.
On the other hand, it is not clear that federal court will always be a more attractive option than the administrative process. Federal court involves procedural issues which could be challenging for plaintiffs especially if they are unrepresented. Finally, settlement agreements in administrative proceedings may be drafted to cover all of the possible litigation scenarios.
School officials with questions about the content of this article should contact their solicitor or an attorney at KingSpry.
