The Supreme Court on Tuesday unanimously ruled in favor of a deaf student who sued his school district for not allowing him to graduate after failing to provide him a qualified interpreter, as required under federal law.
In a 10-page opinion, the high court said the student’s initial settlement with the district under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act did not preclude his separate lawsuit against the district under the Americans with Disabilities Act, because he could seek financial compensation through the latter.
“A ‘remedy’ denotes ‘the means of enforcing a right’ and may come in the form of, say, money damages, an injunction or a declaratory judgment,” wrote Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, who wrote the court’s opinion.
Miguel Luna Perez, the deaf student in the legal battle, had asked the justices to let his lawsuit against the district proceed so he can be compensated financially for the violations of federal law.
Mr. Perez attended Sturgis Public Schools in Michigan from age 9 to 20. As a disabled student, he was entitled under federal law to free public education that meets his needs.
Mr. Perez and his parents were under the impression he would be provided with a qualified classroom aide and sign language interpreter and be able to graduate on time. But they were told shortly before graduation that he qualified for only a “certificate of completion,” not a diploma.
They also learned the school district had provided Mr. Perez an unqualified classroom aide, who was not trained to work with deaf students.
After discovering how Mr. Perez had been treated, the family filed a complaint against the school district for violating the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which requires the school to meet a disabled student’s needs to achieve free public education.
The district settled the dispute with the family, agreeing to pay for post-secondary education and sign language instruction. Mr. Perez was placed at Michigan School for the Deaf.
The family then filed a lawsuit in federal court, citing a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and seeking a financial award for violating Mr. Perez’s rights because they could not obtain monetary damages under the first complaint.
The district court and the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Mr. Perez, saying because he settled under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, his other case was barred.
The high court reversed that decision, greenlighting Mr. Perez’s case against the district over his ADA claims.
The district had argued Mr. Perez did not exhaust his claims because he settled the initial complaint.
“Mr. Perez’s improper new argument that ‘settles’ equals ‘exhaustion’ is incorrect. An IDEA plaintiff cannot sue after settling,” said Shay Dvoretzky, who represented the district, during oral arguments this year. “Redress can also bear a different meaning. … It’s the kind of situation where you might not get what you ask for, but you get what you need.”
The case is Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools.
• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.