The Legal Lookout
Supreme Court hears case on right to sue school for damages
Feb. 17, 2023
Schools should be on the lookout for a ruling on a case it heard back in the fall regarding special education services. A 27-year-old deaf man who attended Sturgis Public Schools is claiming that he should have the right to sue the district for compensatory damages for failing to provide him an adequate education. This student immigrated from Mexico, and for 12 years, received good grades and was placed on the honor roll. However, the student was not able to read, write, nor did he learn some basic facts. The school assigned him a classroom aide, but the aide was not trained to work with deaf students and she did not know sign language. Shortly before the student was to graduate, the school district notified his parents that he did not qualify for a diploma. The student and his parents filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) arguing that the school district denied him an adequate education and violated several state and federal education laws, such as the IDEA, ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Michigan disability laws.
Before an IDEA hearing, the parties settled with the school district agreeing to pay for the student to attend the Michigan School for the Deaf, any post-secondary education, and for sign language instruction for the student and his family. Even though he and his family reached a settlement with the district, the family sued the school district for financial damages under the ADA.
The school district has taken the legal position that the settlement under the IDEA should prevent any damages clam under ADA. This argument has been successful in lower courts including the 6th Circuit Court of which Michigan is a member. The parents argue that to not endorse the ADA claim is tantamount to the school district being released from its ADA obligations.
The main legal question that is at the core of this case is whether the IDEA and ADA require a student to exhaust his or her administrative proceedings against the school even when such proceedings would be futile? The school district contends that the settlement came after the parents and student filed a lawsuit and they did not exhaust all their remedies under IDEA. “This argument was countered by the student’s attorneys by arguing that the settlement did exhaust the IDEA process since that statute does not provide for compensatory damages. Therefore, to reject the settlement — which could have delayed Perez getting a suitable education — in order to force an IDEA claim that didn't include damages to court — is nonsensical and against Congress' will in enacting the IDEA, which says those filing suits must first exhaust claims with remedies available under that statute, not others.”1
Several Justices, both conservative and liberal, seemed to empathize with the student and parents. The decision should be released in the very near future. 1 Todd Spangler, U.S. Supreme Court Hears Deaf Michigan Man’s Request to Sue Sturgis Schools for Damages, DETROIT FREE PRESS (Jan. 19, 2023) (quoting the attorneys), https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2023/01/18/us-supreme-court-miguel-luna-perez-sturgis-public-schools/69818741007/
This article is the author’s opinion and is not legal advice. As always, consult with your attorney on specific legal issues.
Past Legal Lookouts