On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a deaf student, Miguel Perez, in his disability discrimination lawsuit against a Michigan public school district. The court unanimously held that students and parents could pursue relief for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in federal court without first exhausting state administrative remedies. In a decision by Justice Neil Gorsuch, the court emphasized the case's significance, stating that it has important ramifications "not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children with disabilities and their families." Perez sued Sturgis Public Schools and its school board for monetary damages, alleging that they failed to provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter, including one who attempted to teach herself sign language. The district also allegedly misrepresented Perez' educational progress, which resulted in him and his family being surprised when they were informed that Perez would not be graduating. The case raises questions at the intersection of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination against those with disabilities, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which seeks to ensure that disabled students receive a "free and appropriate education."
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a deaf student, Miguel Perez, who brought a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Michigan public school district. Perez sued Sturgis Public Schools and its school board for monetary damages for allegedly failing to provide him with a qualified sign language interpreter. The community also misrepresented Perez’s educational progress, causing him and his family to be caught off guard when he was told he would not graduate.
The district argued that Perez’s claims were barred because he had not exhausted all of his options for relief under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) first. However, Perez argued that the IDEA’s exhaustion requirements did not apply to his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) because monetary damages were unavailable under the IDEA.
The lower courts dismissed the case, but unanimously, the Supreme Court said that students and parents could seek relief in federal court for discrimination under the ADA without exhausting state administrative remedies available under the IDEA. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court, saying that if both views are plausible, Perez's better comports with the statute’s terms.
Gorsuch also dismissed the school district’s claim that a ruling for Perez would frustrate congressional purpose in funneling disability claims to expert administrative agencies. He said it was the court's job to apply the law Congress has written and that it cannot replace the actual text with speculation about Congress’ intent. This case has significant consequences not just for Perez but for many children with disabilities and their families, Justice Gorsuch added.
