IDEA Settlements and Exhaustion
A party generally cannot bring a civil lawsuit regarding claims that arise under the IDEA unless they have exhausted those claims in a due process hearing first. However, most special education cases settle before hearing, and the IDEA encourages resolution of claims between school districts and parents, with built-in mediation procedures and a resolution meeting requirement. Also, many families wish to bring discrimination claims against school districts for violations of student civil rights, seeking relief that they cannot obtain in a due process hearing (such as financial compensation for harm), for claims that administrative law judges won’t hear. This has been hotly contested, most prominently in the Supreme Court’s decision in Fry v. Napoleon, involving a student’s ability to bring civil rights claims for a school district’s refusal to allow her service dog to accompany her. In a recent 6th Circuit decision, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, a deaf student who settled special education claims under the IDEA was then barred from bringing federal civil rights claims for doing so.
Perez had emigrated from Mexico at nine years old, and enrolled in public school in Michigan. He was provided an untrained aide without knowledge of sign language. After years of schooling, months before he was to graduate, his family learned he did not qualify for a diploma. After bringing a due process complaint with the state board of education, he settled with the school district for compensatory educational services and placement. Notably, as part of his state complaint he brought a claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which the school district successfully moved to dismiss.
He then filed a federal court ADA claim seeking declaratory relief and emotional distress damages, for failure of the school district to provide an interpreter. The district court dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust. On appeal, the 6th Circuit sided with the district court, finding that the crux of Perez’ ADA claim was the denial of an appropriate education, and thus should have been exhausted through IDEA procedures, regardless of the administrative court’s refusal to hear the ADA claim and Perez’ settlement of his IDEA claim.
The dissent highlights the Faustian choice many parents face when offered a due process settlement when they potentially have discrimination claims—accept the special education services their child needs right away, or face months or even a year of needless litigation:
As these authorities recognize, requiring litigants like Perez to “exhaust”—in other words, to reject an acceptable IDEA settlement offer—forces students to choose between immediately obtaining the FAPE to which they are entitled, or forgoing that education so they can enforce their ADA right of equal access to institutions. That is exactly the opposite of what Congress intended: to “reaffirm[] the viability” of the ADA and other federal statutes as “‘separate vehicles,’ no less integral than the IDEA, ‘for ensuring the rights’” of children with disabilities. See Fry, 137 S. Ct. at 750 (quoting H.R. Rep. No. 99-296, p. 4). 3 F.4th at 251 (6th Cir. 2001).
Perez now brings a petition for cert to SCOTUS. The Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA) and the National Federation for the Blind recently filed brief as amici curiae. This is a great read for disability rights advocates, delving into the history and interpretation of the IDEA’s exhaustion provision. It also highlights essential public policy objectives of allowing parents, who often do not have access to legal resources, to settle educational disputes with schools and obtain much needed services in a timely manner. We will be watching this case with interest.