Satisfying IDEA's Requirements for Free and Appropriate Public Education Does Not Necessarily Dispose of Title II ADA or Section 504 Claims

In K.M. v. Tustin Unified School Dist., published August 6, 2012, the Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgments in favor of school districts in two cases in which deaf or hard-of-hearing children argued that their schools had an obligation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act to provide them with a word-for-word transcription service.  In each case, the district courts concluded that the services the students received satisfied the requirements for a Free and Appropriate Public Education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and therefore satisfied  Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Title II of the ADA, and California's Unruh Act (which is coextensive with the ADA).  The appellate court held that Section 504 and Title II ADA claims are not coextensive with IDEA claims.  The statutory schemes have different purposes and requirements.  The IDEA is designed to give the child the services and opportunities the child requires to meet minimum academic levels.  The ADA, on the other hand, gives primary consideration to the desires of the disabled person (or in this case, the parents of the disabled child); does not require public entities to change the basic nature of programs and services to meet ADA requirements, or incur undue financial burdens; and puts the burden on the public entity to prove alteration or financial burden.  IDEA has no analog.  Further, while the IDEA and Section 504 FAPE requirements are coextensive, other parts of Section 504's requirements might not be satisfied by services that satisfy the IDEA.  The court declined to make a broad ruling as to what sort of services would satisfy both the IDEA and TItle II of the ADA, and remanded the cases to the district courts for further proceedings.