In Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, published March 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed a lower court decision dismissing a suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The plaintiff, a deaf student, alleged that his school district deprived him of a Free and Appropriate Public Education by providing him with inadequate sign language interpreters, with the result that he was unable to graduate from high school with his class. He and his family filed a complaint with the state department of education, alleging that the school had failed its duties under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and other laws. Before an administrative hearing was held, the district and family entered into a settlement under which the district agreed to provide him the forward-looking equitable relief he sought. The plaintiff then sued the district under the ADA, seeking compensatory damages. The district court and circuit court held that the suit was barred under 20 U.S.C. section 1415(l), part of IDEA. This statute provide that nothing in IDEA shall be construed to restrict individuals from seeking "remedies" under the ADA or other federal laws protecting rights of children with disabilities, except that before filing an action under one of those laws, seeking "relief" that is also available under the IDEA, the procedures under section 1415 for administrative remedies shall be exhausted. The courts have split on whether this provision requires exhaustion of administrative remedies under IDEA when seeking damages (which are not available under IDEA).
The Supreme Court held that under the statutory language, "relief" and "remedies" have the same meaning. Therefore, IDEA's administrative remedies must be exhausted only when seeking remedies (such as forward-looking equitable relief) that is available under IDEA. Because backward-looking compensatory damages are not available under IDEA, plaintiffs do not need to exhaust IDEA's administrative remedies before suing under other federal statutes for such damages.
Comments