Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

In response to these revelations, Perez and his family filed an administrative complaint with the Michigan Department of Education.[1] The complaint was filed in December 2017.[4] The complaint alleged Sturgis denied him an adequate education and violated federal and state disability laws: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and two Michigan disabilities laws. The complaint alleged that Sturgis Public Schools had failed to meet its requirements under the IDEA and did not provide Perez with Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).[6]

In June 2018 a written settlement offer was provided.[4] Prior to hearing before the Department of Education, the Perez family and Sturgis Public Schools settled the IDEA/FAPE complaint.[1] Sturgis Schools agreed to provide Perez with all the "forward-looking equitable relief he sought," including paying for Perez to at attended the Michigan School for the Deaf.[6] The school also agreed to pay for "post-secondary compensatory education" and for sign language instruction for Perez and his family. It also paid the family's attorney's fees.[6] The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) dismissed the case and remaining claims in August 2018 with prejudice.[6][4]

Just months after the settlement and dismissal with prejudice in December 2018.[4] Perez and his family filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[1]

It was alleged the school discriminated against him by not providing the resources necessary for him to participate fully in class. Along with declaratory relief, Perez sought compensatory damages for his emotional distress.

Sturgis Schools filed a motion and argued that IDEA 20 U. S. C. §1415(l), barred Perez from bringing an ADA claim without first exhausting all of IDEA's administrative dispute resolution procedures.[1] The district court agreed with Sturgis and granted the Sturgis motion, and dismissed the litigation. The District Court dismissed the ADA claim for failure to exhaust and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims. Perez and his family filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.[6]

The case was argued October 9, 2020, before a three judge panel in the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. The court issued its opinion on June 25, 2021. It was argued before Judge Danny Julian Boggs, Jane Branstetter Stranch, and Amul Thapar. The Sixth Circuit held that "Sometimes a school falls shore" in providing a "free appropriate public education(FAPE). When this happens, parents can seek redress through the IDEA, which encourages informal conflict resolution, but there is an increasingly formal mechanism if disagreement persists.

The Sixth Circuit held that Perez could use under federal laws protecting the rights of children with disabilities, including the ADA, but he must first complete the IDEA's "full administrative process" 20 U.S.C. 1415(l).[1]

Because Perez settled his complaint before completing the administrative process, which according to the court had included compensation for the loss and his other claims.[6]

The court asked if this barred his ADA suit and stated it depended on three questions.[7]

1. Is his case subject to the IDEA's exhaustion provision?
2. If so, has Perez exhausted the IDEA's administrative procedures to the extent necessary?
3. And if he has not, should we allow his suit to proceed anyway?

The court looking to Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools, 580 U.S. 154 (2017). Believing the Supreme Court to hold "Is the crux of the complaint the denial of a free appropriate public education? (describing the key as whether the complaint's (cite removed) essence—even though not its wording—is the provision of a [free appropriate public education]"). If so, the exhaustion requirement should apply."[7]

The court held that under Fry, "it's clear that Perez seeks relief for the school's failure to meet its IDEA obligations."[8]

The court even noted that Perez was not seeking relief for the denial of FAPE under a specific remedy that was and is not available under IDEA: Compensatory damages for emotional distress. So the choice of remedy/relief in the Sixth Circuit at the time did not matter. Covington v. Knox Cnty. Sch. Sys., 205 F.3d 912, 916–17 (6th Cir. 2000). Most other circuits agree. See id. (collecting cases); McMillen v. New Caney Indep. Sch. Dist., 939 F.3d 640, 647–48 (5th Cir. 2019).[8]

The Court then again turned to Fry for support. "The focus of the analysis is not the kind of relief the plaintiff wants but the kind of harm he wants relief from. We thus agree that Fry's analysis "comports with reading ‘relief’ to focus on the conduct the plaintiff complains about." McMillen, 939 F.3d at 648"[8] The court used this logic to buttress the fact that Preze's claim for relief was subject to the IDEA's administrative exhaustion requirements.

It was held that because he settled the matter and did not follow the full Administrative procedures, he could only sue under the ADA only if he could also bring an IDEA action in court.

Perez argued that it would have been futile to file an ADA claim under the IDEA and go through the exhaustion of the IDEA claim because the administrative process can not provide for damages for his emotional distress. Perez argued that judicial estoppel prevents Sturgis from invoking the exhaustion requirement. The court did not find either argument persuasive.[9]

The Court noted, "Section 1415(l) does not come with a "futility" exception, and the Supreme Court has instructed us not to create exceptions to statutory exhaustion requirements."

Judge Jane Branstetter Stranch issued a dissent. She highlighted unlike the majority, the Supreme Court in Frye gave lower courts the framework for evaluating the relief plaintiffs seek and exhausting the IDEA's remedies under the law. It was her view on a motion to dismiss reading the complaint in Perez's favor.[10] He was not seeking IDEA relief and should be allowed to move forward. In her dissent, she highlights the difference between who is covered by the IDEA, ADA, and Title II of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.[10]

Judge Stranch read the exhaustion requirement to apply when a suit " "seek[s] relief that is also available" under the IDEA. Id. at 752 (quoting § 1415(l)). And a suit seeks relief available under the IDEA when it seeks relief for the denial of a FAPE, a free appropriate public education."[10]

She then moves on to what was the Gravamen of Perez's complaint.[10]

The dissent went on to highly that because the major was misconstruing Perez's allegation as "simple discrimination in an education context," she highlighters that the major replicates the errors of the Sixth Circuits pre-Fry approach, where the Supreme Court in Fry had reversed the Sixth Circuit before.[11]

The dissent then looks to sister circuits and highlights how the sixth circuit is at odds with them. "Perez, as "master of his claim," filed a cognizable complaint under the ADA that is supported by the governing precedent of the Supreme Court and this Circuit. The majority opinion ignores that precedent and places us at odds with our sister circuits. Because it is wrong to dismiss this case, I respectfully dissent."[12]

The Biden Administration via the Department of Justice filed a brief in support of the Perez family.[4] The Department of Justice highlighted what it saw as areas of the Sixth Circuit opinion. The Department of Justice view was that Section 1415(l)'s Exhaustion requirements does not apply because the monetary relief suit under the ADA litigation is not available under the IDEA.[4]

Former United States Senator Tom Harkin and Representatives Tony Coelhor and George Miller filed an amici curiae in support of the Perez family. The were elected members of Congress when the IDEA was passed and were involved in the amendment and reauthorization.[13]

They argued that the exhaustion provision was darted to be narrow only when seeking relief that is also available under the IDEA. The legislature stated "Specifically, Congress enacted § 1415(l) to overturn the Supreme Court's holding in Smith v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984). In Smith, this Court held that the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (the “EHA”) provided the exclusive rights and procedures for challenging the failure to provide a free appropriate public education, precluding substantively identical claims under both the Constitution and other laws. Id. at 1011–13, 1019–21."[13]

In closing the brief it highlighted "As this case illustrates, children with disabilities have available remedies under the ADA or related laws that often exceed the remedies available under the IDEA. Congress did not mean for the IDEA to leave children with disabilities worse off, by preempting their general rights and remedies, or by imposing procedural obstacles that would not otherwise apply."[13]

A joint Amici Curiae brief filed by The United States, The Autistic Self Advocacy Network, Communication First, the Coelho Center for Disability Law, Policy and Innovation, Council of Parent attorneys and Advocates, Education Law Center, Innisfree Foundation, Learning Rights Law Center, The National Center for Learning Disabilities, The National Center for Youth Law, the National Disability Rights Network, the national disability rights network, the national federation of the blind.[14]

A joint brief of AASA, The School Superintendents Association, the Council of Administrators of Special Education, The American Physicals Therapy Association, the Association of School Business Officials International, The National Association of Pupil Services Administrators, and the National Association of School Nurses.[15] The organization attempted to claim "Weakening the exhaustion requirement will undermine the collaborative nature of the IDEA process, and will shift the parties’ focus to money rather than the student's education needs, will waste money on litigation that could more effectively be spent on students themselves, and will discourage settlements by making them more expensive. "[15]

The brief attempts to shift from the case at hand to a hypothetical case of "Timothy" of a student in a School District in Texas who has autism. Unlike Mr. Perez the hypothetical student had not been in school in years. They hypo then goes on to talk about parents removed "Timothy" from public school to private school and now the district is being asked to pay for education, but that can't know where the money goes.[15] They further attempted to argue that students and parents could avoid the administrative exhaustion requirements by seeking monetary damages and weaken the collaborative benefits of the IDEA.[15]

"Overturning the Sixth Circuit's decision would open the floodgates for parents seeking monetary gain for claims that most likely could have been resolved using the IDEA's collaborative processes of IEP meetings, resolution sessions, mediations, or due process hearings.[15]