Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 598 U.S. 142 (2023),[1] was a United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) lawsuit seeking compensatory damages for denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) can proceed without exhausting the administrative procedures of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), because compensatory damages are not available under IDEA.
[5] Notably, one aide/interpreter assigned to Perez from approximately 2006 to May 2016, Gayle Cunningham, did not know sign language but did attempt to teach herself.
[1] Perez was also excluded from the English Language Learner program that the school district offered as an extracurricular activity because he was deaf.
[7] In response to these revelations, Perez and his family filed an administrative complaint in December 2017 with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE).
[7] The case was argued October 9, 2020, before a three judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The Sixth Circuit held that "sometimes a school falls short in providing a "free appropriate public education (FAPE)".
When this happens, parents can seek redress through the IDEA, which encourages informal conflict resolution, but there is an increasingly formal mechanism if disagreement persists.
The Sixth Circuit held that Perez could sue under federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, including the ADA, but the IDEA's "full administrative process" must be completed (20 U.S.C.
"[9] The court held that under Fry, "it's clear that Perez seeks relief for the school's failure to meet its IDEA obligations.
"[10] The court even noted that Perez was not seeking relief for the denial of FAPE under a specific remedy that was and is not available under IDEA: compensatory damages for emotional distress.
McMillen, 939 F.3d at 648"[10] The court used this logic to buttress the fact that Perez's claim for relief was subject to the IDEA's administrative exhaustion requirements.
It was held that because he settled the matter and did not follow the full Administrative procedures, he could only sue under the ADA only if he could also bring an IDEA action in court.
"Perez, as "master of his claim," filed a cognizable complaint under the ADA that is supported by the governing precedent of the Supreme Court and this Circuit.
The Department of Justice's view was that Section 1415(l)'s exhaustion requirement does not apply because compensatory damages available under the ADA is not available under the IDEA.
[5] Former United States Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Tony Coelho and George Miller filed amici curiae briefs in support of the Perez family.
The legislators stated "Specifically, Congress enacted § 1415(l) to overturn the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984).
Congress did not mean for the IDEA to leave children with disabilities worse off, by preempting their general rights and remedies, or by imposing procedural obstacles that would not otherwise apply.
[19] The brief attempted to claim "weakening the exhaustion requirement will undermine the collaborative nature of the IDEA process, and will shift the parties’ focus to money rather than the student's education needs, will waste money on litigation that could more effectively be spent on students themselves, and will discourage settlements by making them more expensive.
[19] They further attempted to argue that students and parents could avoid the administrative exhaustion requirements by seeking monetary damages and therefore weaken the collaborative approach of IDEA.
The case was sent back to the lower courts to continue litigation, as the administrative exhumation requirements under IDEA §1415(l) did not preclude Perez's lawsuit.
"[1][21] Justice Gorsuch, writing the unanimous opinion, highlighted the case's impact on "a great many children with disabilities and their parents.
"[23] Roman Martinez, the Perez's family lawyer, stated in an email about the case: “We are thrilled with today's decision.
The Court's ruling vindicates the rights of students with disabilities to obtain full relief when they suffer discrimination.