Increasing the dialogue among stakeholders in New Jersey’s special education system

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case centering on how families and schools go about resolving disputes over services for students with disabilities.

The case, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, raises two important questions under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The Court will consider whether families that have settled IDEA claims can pursue lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) without fully exhausting all administrative proceedings under IDEA. In addition, the justices will consider if families must exhaust administrative procedures under IDEA before seeking monetary damages that are not available under that law.

The case was brought by the family of Miguel Luna Perez, who is deaf, after a Michigan school district failed for 12 years to provide him a qualified sign language interpreter. According to court filings, the family was led to believe that Perez was on track to earn a high school diploma, but just months before graduation learned he would receive a certificate of completion instead.

While the family settled with the school district over Perez’ claims of discrimination under IDEA, they later brought suit under the ADA in an effort to seek monetary damages for the harm suffered.

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the ADA claim, determining that in taking the settlement, the family had not fully exhausted all options under IDEA. In asking the US Supreme Court to consider the case, lawyers for Perez argue the lower court’s ruling conflicts with precedent from other circuit courts and “defies common sense.”

The Sturgis Public Schools filed a brief asking the Supreme Court to decline the case, arguing that the questions at hand were moot anyway in light of a recent decision from the high court finding that “emotional distress damages are not recoverable” under the Rehabilitation Act. The district said that because remedies under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA “are coextensive,” Perez’ case would fail regardless.

A decision likely by June.