COVID-19   Law    Advocacy    Topics A-Z     Training    Wrights' Blog   Wrightslaw Store    Yellow Pages for Kids 

 Home > Law Library > Supreme Court to Decide Damages Case Brought by a (Former) Child with a Disability by Pete Wright and Pam Wright


The Special Ed Advocate newsletter
It's Unique ... and Free!

Enter your email address below:

2023
Training Programs

Feb. 2-5 - San Antonio, TX

Mar. 23 - Anchorage, AK

Mar. 30 - Long Island, NY

Apr. 5 - Hill AFB, UT

Apr. 11+12 - Virginia (via Zoom)

Apr. 20 - Cleveland, OH

Apr. 24+25 - Southern CA (via Zoom)

Sept. 30 - Dallas, TX

Full Schedule


Wrightslaw

Home
Topics from A-Z
Free Newsletter
Seminars & Training
Yellow Pages for Kids
Press Room
FAQs
Sitemap

Books & Training

Wrightslaw Storesecure store lock
  Advocate's Store
  Student Bookstore
  Exam Copies
Training Center
Bulk Discounts
Military Discounts
Student Discounts
Mail & Fax Orders

Advocacy Library

Articles
Cool Tools
Doing Your Homework
Ask the Advocate
FAQs
Newsletter Archives
Short Course Series
Success Stories
Tips

Law Library

Articles
Caselaw
Fed Court Complaints
IDEA 2004
McKinney-Vento Homeless
FERPA
Section 504

Topics

Advocacy
ADD/ADHD
Allergy/Anaphylaxis
American Indian
Assistive Technology
Autism Spectrum
Behavior & Discipline
Bullying
College/Continuing Ed
Damages
Discrimination
Due Process
Early Intervention
  (Part C)

Eligibility
Episodic, such as
   Allergies, Asthma,
   Diabetes, Epilepsy, etc

ESSA
ESY
Evaluations
FAPE
Flyers
Future Planning
Harassment
High-Stakes Tests
Homeless Children
IDEA 2004
Identification & Child Find
IEPs
Juvenile Justice
Law School & Clinics
Letters & Paper Trails
LRE / Inclusion
Mediation
Military / DOD
Parental Protections
PE and Adapted PE
Privacy & Records
Procedural Safeguards
Progress Monitoring
Reading
Related Services
Research Based
  Instruction

Response to Intervention
  (RTI)

Restraints / Seclusion
   and Abuse

Retention
Retaliation
School Report Cards
Section 504
Self-Advocacy
Teachers & Principals
Transition
Twice Exceptional (2e)
VA Special Education

Resources & Directories

Advocate's Bookstore
Advocacy Resources
Directories
  Disability Groups
  International
  State DOEs
  State PTIs
Free Flyers
Free Pubs
Free Newsletters
Legal & Advocacy
Glossaries
   Legal Terms
   Assessment Terms
Best School Websites

 

Supreme Court to Decide Damages Case Brought by a
(Former) Child with a Disability
by Pete Wright & Pam Wright
Wrightslaw.com

Print this page

On January 18, 2023, with Pete and Pam in attendance, the Supreme Court heard Oral Argument in the unusual case brought by Miguel Luna Perez, a 23-year-old deaf man who filed a lawsuit against his school district for compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

This appears to be the first case brought by a former student on his own behalf.

The lower courts dismissed Miguel Perez's case because he failed to "exhaust his administrative remedies," although attempting to exhaust them would be "futile" because compensatory damages are not available under IDEA.

Perez v. Sturgis is also unusual because it re-opens the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in federal court. The issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies in IDEA cases was the essence of the 2017 Supreme Court decision in the Fry v. Napoleon case. Five years after the decision in Fry, SCOTUS agrees to hear another exhaustion case, possibly to clear up lingering confusion around this issue.


Supreme Court and Lady Justice width=

Facts in Miguel Perez' Case

In 2004, the Perez family immigrated to the United States and settled in Sturgis, a city in St. Joseph County, Michigan.

When Miguel Luna Perez enrolled in Sturgis Public Schools, he was a nine year old child who was deaf. His parents spoke Spanish so they needed an interpreter to communicate with school personnel who were not fluent in Spanish. IDEA requires schools to "take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the parent understands the proceedings of the IEP Team meeting, including arranging for an interpreter for parents. . ." who are deaf or do not speak English. (34 CFR § 300.322(e). Although Miguel's parents didn't speak English, Sturgis did not provide an interpreter, so the parents could not participate in decisions about their child's education.

Miguel needed a qualified interpreter and sign language instruction. If he didn't receive these services, he could not communicate with his teachers, classmates, and others in the school community. Sturgis did not provide a qualified interpreter or sign language instruction. The school district provided Miguel with an 'educational assistant' who 'did not know sign language . . . had no credentials whatsoever . . . [and] invented her own system of signing."

The aide worked with Miguel for more than a decade. He did not learn to read and write. The aide was his only communication facilitator from 2006 to May 2016. When the aide was assigned to work with other students, the school placed Miguel in "web-based learning" although he couldn't use online instruction because he didn't know how to read or write.

For twelve years, Miguel was not able to communicate with his teachers and classmates. He couldn't ask questions and get answers. He couldn't have personal relationships with his teachers and his fellow students. He had no friends at school. He wasn't able to participate in extra-curricular activities. Miguel was completely isolated which caused him severe emotional distress, humiliation, frustration, anxiety, sadness, and hopelessness.

Although Miguel could not read, write, or communicate, he received As and Bs. He was on the Honor Roll every semester. Because the school district inflated his grades and misrepresented his educational progress, Miguel and his parents believed he was on track to earn a high school diploma when he completed 12th grade.

A few weeks before graduation, school officials advised Miguel and his parents that he would not graduate with a diploma but would only receive a "certificate of completion."

Due Process Hearing and Settlement of IDEA Claims

In 2017, Miguel Perez and his parents requested a special education due process hearing against Sturgis School District, alleging violations of IDEA, Section 504, the ADA, and state laws and compensatory damages.

In June 2018, Miguel and his family entered into a settlement with the district that resolved their IDEA claims.

"Under the settlement, respondents agreed to pay for petitioner's attendance at the Michigan School for the Deaf, any post-secondary compensatory education, sign-language instruction for the petitioner and his family, and the family's attorneys' fees."

The Administrative Law Judge dismissed the Perez's IDEA claims because of the settlement. He also dismissed Miguel's ADA claim.

Miguel Perez Files Suit for Compensatory Damages in Federal Court

In December 2018, Miguel Perez filed suit in federal court, seeking compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act for the school district's failure to provide the resources he needed to participate fully in his classes.

The district court dismissed Miguel's ADA suit because he settled the IDEA claims before going through IDEA's administrative procedures (due process hearing).

A Word or Two About "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies"

What does the term "exhaustion of administrative remedies" mean? The answer will depend on the law in the plaintiff's circuit but in general, it means parents / plaintiffs must request a special education due process hearing and go through the hearing until a final decision is issued. After the independent hearing officer or Administrative Law judge issues a final decision, the parents / plaintiff can file suit in court.

If IDEA cannot provide the relief the plaintiff seeks (i.e., monetary damages are not available under IDEA), the plaintiff can file suit in federal court and bypass the requirements for exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Miguel Perez Appeals to the Court of Appeals

Miguel appealed the adverse decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In a split decision, the three-judge appeals panel upheld the district court.

Two of the judges on the panel held that "the gravamen of the ADA complaint" was that the school district violated Miguel's right to a FAPE under the IDEA by denying him an appropriate education. "Although the petitioner sought only compensatory damages' on his ADA claim— - a remedy that is unavailable under the IDEA - the choice of a remedy makes no difference."

The two judges concluded that even if a futility exception existed, "it would not apply where . . . a plaintiff settles his claim before allowing the administrative process to run its course . . ."

BUT one judge issued a powerful dissent. Judge Stranch held that Miguel's ADA claim for damages did not trigger IDEA's exhaustion requirement because it is a "classic ADA claim" alleging disability discrimination and "plainly does not seek IDEA relief."

Judge Stranch cited the 1998 Supreme Court decision in Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305 to support her position that the IDEA does include a futility exception to exhaustion and "every single one of [the Sixth Circuit's] sister circuits recognize that exception."

"It is true that judicial review is normally not available under 1415(e)(2) until all administrative proceedings are completed, but as we have previously noted, parents may by-pass the administrative process where exhaustion would be futile or inadequate. See Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992, 1014, n. 17 (1984) (citing cases); see also 121 Cong. Rec. 37416 (1975) (remarks of Sen. Williams) ("[E]xhaustion . . . should not be required . . . in cases where such exhaustion would be futile either as a legal or practical matter"). (Honig v. Doe, 484 US 305, 1988)"

Judge Stranch emphasized that other courts of appeals have applied the futility exception when plaintiffs settle their IDEA claims. She concluded that the majority's holding ". . . is exactly the opposite of what Congress intended when it enacted Section 1415(l) to reaffirm the viability of the ADA as a separate vehicle for protecting children with disabilities." (Emphasis added)

Miguel Perez Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court

Miguel Perez filed a request that the U.S. Supreme Court accept his case. He asserted that the Sixth Circuit ruling "conflicts with precedent from the First, Third, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits . . . [and] defies common sense."

"From 2004 to 2016, the district engaged in an ongoing practice of failing to provide Miguel with the auxiliary aids and services necessary for him to participate in and receive the benefits of Sturgis Public Schools and discriminated against Miguel solely because he is deaf."

"Because Sturgis's twelve years of severe neglect caused compensable pecuniary harm by dramatically limiting Miguel's vocational prospects and earning capacity, and by forcing Miguel to forego years of income during the high school years he had to redo . . . At a minimum, Miguel may seek compensatory damages for lost income."

Legal Questions Presented

The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case to answer two legal questions and to resolve a split between the Courts of Appeals.

(1) Whether, and in what circumstances, courts should excuse further exhaustion of the IDEA's administrative proceedings under Section 1415(l) when such proceedings would be futile.

(2) Whether Section 1415(l) requires exhaustion of a non-IDEA claim seeking money damages that are not available under the IDEA.

(OR paraphrased)
Does the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act require families who have settled their IDEA claims with a school district to exhaust all administrative proceedings under the IDEA before they can file a claim under other federal statutes, although doing so would be futile?

Are families who sue for monetary damages under the ADA or other federal disability laws required to comply with IDEA's requirements for exhaustion when damages are not allowed or available under IDEA?

When the Supreme Court issues a decision in Perez v. Sturgis, we expect it will clarify the Supreme Court's 2017 ruling in Fry. The decision may affect the "favorable public policy" of settlement agreements because Miguel and his parents settled their IDEA issues and because IDEA encourages settlements of parent-school disputes.

The facts in this article are from these legal documents.

Complaint in Miguel Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and Sturgis Public Schools Board of Education filed U.S. District Court of Western Michigan on 10/02/2018

The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in Miguel Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and Sturgis Public Schools Board of Education filed on December 13, 2021

The decision in Perez v. Sturgis from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on June 25, 2021.

Oral argument in Perez v. Sturgis School District was held on Wednesday, January 18, 2023.

Link to Pete and Pam's impressions based on the Oral Argument including Pete's predictions as to the outcome. A decision is expected prior to July.

Above URL link is at: https://www.wrightslaw.com/blog/perez-v-sturgis-will-supreme-court-help-or-harm-students-with-disabilities/

Pleadings and Links to Decisions and Amicus Briefs below -

The Complaint in Miguel Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools and Sturgis Public Schools Board of Education, (October 2, 2018).
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2018.1002.complaint.by.perez.us.district.ct.pdf

Motion to Dismiss: Magistrate's Report and Recommendations (June 20, 2019).
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2019.0620.magistrate.report.recommend.dismiss.pdf

Defendant School District's Motion to Dismiss (June 28, 2019)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2019.0628.school.mot.to.dismiss.pdf

Opinion and Order from the U.S. District Court in Perez v. Sturgis (December 19, 2019)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2019.0628.school.mot.to.dismiss.pdf

Decision in Perez v. Sturgis from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (June 25, 2021)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2021.0625.6th.cir.opinion.pdf

Petition for Certiorari (December 13, 2021)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2021.1213.perez.petition.for.certiorari.pdf

Amicus Brief of Law Professors Mark C. Weber and Bernard P. Perlmutter in Support of Petitioner (January 4, 2022)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0104.brief.amicus.law.profs.pdf

Amicus Brief of 23 Law Professors in Support of Petitioner (January 4, 2022)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0112.brief.amicus.23law.profs.pdf

Amicus Brief of the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. and National Federation for the Blind in Support of Petitioner (January 12, 2022)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0112.brief.amicus.copaa.pdf

School District's Brief in Opposition to Cert (May 4, 2022)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0504.sturgis.brf.in.opposition.to.cert.pdf

Petitioner's Reply Brief (May 24, 2022)
https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0524.perez.reply.brief.pdf

Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae (August 24, 2022). https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0824.brief.amicus.usdoe.usdoj.pdf

School District's Supplemental Brief (September 7, 2022). https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.0907.sturgis.brief.supplemental.pdf

Amicus Brief by Twelve National Organizations (November 16, 2022). https://www.wrightslaw.com/law/scotus/sturgis/2022.1116.brief.amicus.12natl.orgs.pdf

Created: 12/09/22
Revised: 01/31/23



Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon The Special Ed Advocate: It's Free!

Visit the
Wrightslaw Store!


Check Out
The Advocate's Store!

Wrightslaw on FacebookWrightslaw on TwitterWrightslaw YouTube Channel 

Wrightslaw Books
Wrightslaw: Special Education Law, 2nd Edition, by Pam and Pete Wright

About the Book

Wrightslaw: From Emotions to Advocacy, 2nd Edition
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About IEPs
About the Book

Wrightslaw: All About Tests and Assessments
About the Book

Wrightslaw: Special Education Legal Developments and Cases 2019
About the Book

Surviving Due Process: Stephen Jeffers v. School Board
About the DVD Video

Student Discounts

Military Discounts


The Advocate's Store

Wrightslaw Multimedia Training


Understanding Your Child's
Test Scores (1.5 hrs)

Wrightslaw Special: $14.95

Wrightslaw Mutimedia Training Download


Special Education Law & Advocacy Training
(6.5 hrs)

Wrightslaw Special: $49.95