WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a case over whether a deaf student deprived of a qualified sign-language interpreter for 12 years may sue his Michigan school district for damages.
Several justices seemed sympathetic to the arguments by the attorney for Michigan's Miguel Luna Perez that he shouldn't have to complete the administrative process under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act when such "exhaustion" would be futile — that is, when the money damages for disability discrimination he seeks aren't available under that statute.
Justice Elena Kagan asked what more Luna Perez should have done, highlighting the argument by his lawyer saying his client had done "everything right" by going through the administrative process laid out in the law and accepting a settlement offered by the district.
“It’s hard for me to see how that’s not true,” Kagan said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that most of the federal courts of appeals have "gravitated" around a rule that would allow for an exception when administrative exhaustion would be futile. "And what's wrong with that rule?" he said.
The lawyer for Sturgis Public Schools in southwest Michigan urged the justices to affirm a ruling by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, contending that plaintiffs like Luna Perez may not "bypass" the IDEA administrative procedures under the statute. Doing so, the school district argued, would put more focus on money damages over a student's best interests.
"When a plaintiff complains of a (free appropriate public education) denial, relief is available under the IDEA, and the plaintiff must exhaust," Sturgis attorney Shay Dvoretzky told the justices. "Any other test would allow plaintiffs to circumvent the exhaustion requirement Congress carefully crafted by using the magic word 'damages' and go straight to court."
Case history
The case centers on Luna Perez, now 27 and the youngest of nine children who emigrated from Mexico to Michigan with his parents at age 9. He was assigned a teaching aide at Sturgis who had no interpreter training, knew no sign language and whose only qualification was attempting to teach herself a form of signed English from a book, his lawyers allege.
Luna Perez never learned American Sign Language or any other mode of signing at Sturgis, and he effectively couldn’t communicate with teachers or peers to learn from his classes, according to court records.
While he made honor roll and A's and B's on his report cards, in 2016, at age 20, Luna Perez tested at a first- to third-grade level in reading and writing. Court records say a psychologist who evaluated Luna Perez that year surmised that the years he was deprived of language could have a long-term impact on his cognitive, social and academic skills, as well as job prospects.
In 2017, Luna Perez's parents filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education, alleging that the school had denied him an adequate education and broken federal and Michigan disability laws. But the state IDEA hearing officer dismissed Luna Perez's claim under the Americans with Disability Act on the grounds that he lacked the authority to hear it.
In 2018, the school district and Luna Perez’s parents settled the IDEA claim, including an agreement by Sturgis to pay for his attendance at the Michigan School for the Deaf, where he had enrolled in fall 2016. The settlement also covered sign-language instruction for him and his family, and the family’s attorneys’ fees.
Later in 2018, Luna Perez filed a discrimination lawsuit against Sturgis schools and Sturgis Board of Education in federal court under the Americans with Disabilities Act, which unlike IDEA allows for money damages. He claimed that the school discriminated against him by not providing resources for him to fully participate in his classes.
Lower courts sided with the school district. A federal judge in west Michigan dismissed Luna Perez's claim, reasoning that he had not “exhausted” or fully pursued through the state IDEA administrative proceedings process his claim that the district denied him an appropriate education.
A divided three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in June 2021, with the majority concluding that the decision to settle the IDEA claim barred Luna Perez from bringing a similar lawsuit against the district, “even under a different federal law” because of the IDEA’s “exhaustion” requirement.
Oral arguments
Luna Perez attended the arguments in the marble-columned courtroom Wednesday, sitting mid-court and facing two interpreters, who signed to him throughout the hearing.
Wearing glasses and an amber-colored sweater, he occasionally nodded, appearing to intently follow along. His lawyers say he usually requires two layers of interpretation, including one to translate what they hear into American Sign Language for him and a Certified Deaf Interpreter who might use miming or other gestures.
"It felt to me that they really listened well to the lawyers. I appreciated that," Luna Perez said afterward through interpreters. "I want to win and hope that others like me get interpreters.”
Attorney Roman Martinez, who argued on behalf of Luna Perez, said the 6th Circuit’s holding would effectively force parents to make a choice between pursuing their rights under the IDEA statute — which is meant to provide educational relief swiftly — and preserving their rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
"The effect of Sturgis' rule is that if you accept the settlement on the IDEA claim, it … essentially gives the school a full release — a Get-Out-of-Jail-Free card on the ADA liability," Martinez told the justices. "And that's just not right."
Kagan asked Martinez to respond to the school district's claim that, under his rule, parents would simply insert a demand for compensatory damages into their complaint and head straight to federal court.
Martinez said he didn't think that would happen because, under the IDEA, a claim that asks for relief that is available under the IDEA and that's not been exhausted may not move forward.
"We think there will be rare cases where parallel proceedings are pending," Martinez said. "In the real world, the way these cases tend to be litigated, parents do not typically have a lot of resources. Their lawyers are busy. They're busy, and usually they're not going to try to be litigating simultaneously similar sets of facts in two different forums."
Chief Justice John Roberts noted that it would be "reasonable" for the settlement process under the IDEA to be "significant" in resolving other claims also alleging denial of adequate special education services, even though that didn't happen in this case.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Wednesday it would be "reasonable" for the settlement process under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to be "significant" in resolving other claims also alleging denial of adequate special education services, even though that didn't happen in the case of Sturgis student Miguel Luna Perez.
"It's not clear to me why you would necessarily or artificially separate those two," Roberts said.
Martinez responded that Luna Perez in settlement talks would have turned down a request to "give up" his ADA rights without any compensation for them.
Sturgis Public Schools urged the justices to affirm the 6th Circuit decision, arguing that in amending the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Congress didn’t include an exception to the exhaustion requirement.
The district's attorney argued the text of the IDEA statute supports its position that the exhaustion requirement centers on the right to an education that the plaintiff is seeking to enforce and not the remedy (damages) that the plaintiff would choose or prefer.
Dvoretzky cited practical concerns about plaintiffs being allowed to "bypass" the IDEA administrative procedures — that judges are not experts on special education, and that the bypass route would put too much focus on damages.
"Exhausting a non-IDEA claim means obtaining an administrative decision from an educational expert, just as an IDEA plaintiff must do before going to court," Dvoretzky told the justices. "That's why Mr. Perez's improper new argument that 'settlement equals exhaustion' is incorrect. An IDEA plaintiff cannot sue after settling."
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson offered a hypothetical situation involving a student with viable IDEA and ADA claims but drops out of school and only wants compensatory damages under the ADA for the harm that was caused by the school. Does the student have to exhaust using the IDEA procedures?
Dvoretzky said, yes, the student would have to go before a hearing officer.
"And you don't see yourself as reading out the first part of the statute that says, 'Nothing about this limits theperson's remedies or rights under the non-IDEA statute'?" Jackson said.
No, Dvoretzky replied, saying the statute goes on to create a "carveout" that claims related to a right to an education be "channeled" through the IDEA.
"That may result in a situation, as I say, where the plaintiff doesn't get right off the bat whatever their first choice specific remedy is. They get what the IDEA provides," he said, adding that later on the plaintiff may go to court and seek damages.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned how a discrimination claim under the Americans with Disabilities Act could be successfully brought in such instances. "I guess it's just hard for me to see how the ADA claim ever gets asserted," she said.
Dvoretzky said it's not clear that compensatory damages are even available under the ADA, though Kagan cautioned that "no one has decided that question yet."
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan on Wednesday highlighted the argument by Sturgis deaf student Miguel Luna Perez's lawyer that Luna Perez had done "everything right" by going through the administrative process laid out in the federal law and accepting a settlement offered by the district while still suing under a separate federal law.
"So while those damages remain open and potentially available, the question is, what should Miguel have done?" Kagan asked.
Dvoretzky said Luna Perez could have negotiated as part of the settlement whatever compensation he thought he was entitled to for his ADA claim, or he could have negotiated from the school a waiver of the exhaustion requirement and then gone to court.
Kagan responded that Sturgis "was not, for all we know, offering any of those things."
A decision in the case is expected by June.
-------
(Detroit News staff Writer Riley Beggin contributed to this story.)
-------
