By Robin S. Ballard, Esq. 

On March 21, 2023, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, in which the Court held that nothing in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) prevented parents from pursuing a lawsuit through a different statute seeking monetary damages for failures of the educational agency.

In that case, Miguel Luna Perez, a student with a hearing impairment who attended public school in Sturgis, Michigan, alleged he had been subjected to educational neglect for 12 years. He said the school system failed him by providing an aide who was not trained to work with deaf students, did not know sign language and in later years left him alone for hours at a time. After over a decade, Perez purported to not know any formal sign language and was only able to communicate through invented signs that anyone unfamiliar with his unique signing would not understand. He maintained this neglect permanently stunted his ability to communicate. Perez also claimed the school had lied to his parents about the progress he was making by giving him inflated grades and passing him year after year. It was only when the family believed he would be graduating from high school with a diploma that the school system told them he qualified only for a “certificate of completion.”

The family brought a petition for due process through the IDEA alleging Perez had been denied a free appropriate public education. Prior to the hearing, the parties settled those claims brought through the IDEA. Through the settlement, the school agreed to pay for Perez to receive additional schooling and sign language instruction at the Michigan School for the Deaf, from which he graduated in 2020.

Following the settlement of the IDEA matter, the family filed another claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in Federal District Court seeking compensatory damages, which are not available through the IDEA. Lower courts had dismissed the case, concluding that Perez was barred from pursuing his ADA claims because of language in the IDEA that requires exhaustion of its procedural remedies prior to filing a civil action seeking relief that is available through the IDEA. The Supreme Court disagreed, ruling that nothing in the IDEA would prevent Perez and his family from pursuing the lawsuit, as compensatory damages are not relief available through the IDEA. The Court declined to determine whether compensatory damages sought by the family would be available through the ADA.

The effect of this ruling remains to be seen, though it likely will limit the ability of school districts to get cases dismissed that were filed seeking compensatory damages for special education students through laws other than the IDEA. It also may result in school districts having to simultaneously defend against IDEA claims in one forum, and ADA claims in a different forum. Neverthless, the waivers of claims that could be brought through other laws such as the ADA that are routinely included in IDEA settlement agreements still may be effective in foreclosing that possibility. Districts should pay careful attention to the language used in release clauses in IDEA settlement agreements.

For more information on this Legal Alert or related issues, please contact Robin S. Ballard at rsb@spsk.com or 973-631-7844. 

DISCLAIMER: This Alert is designed to keep you aware of recent developments in the law. It is not intended to be legal advice, which can only be given after the attorney understands the facts of a particular matter and the goals of the client.