[NFBF-L] FW: [blindLaw] Special education clash: Supreme Court sides unanimously for student with disability - USA TODAY - March 21, 2023

[Camille Tate]

This is an opening for parents with disabled students to bring our country's
educational system into compliance through the IDEA and ADA.

 Sincerely, 
Camille Tate 
2nd Vice President, National Federation of the Blind of Florida 
President, Melbourne Space Coast Chapter, National Federation of the Blind
of Florida 
Phone: 321 372 4899 

-----Original Message-----
From: BlindLaw <blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org> On Behalf Of Nightingale, Noel
via BlindLaw
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2023 1:35 PM
To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
Cc: Nightingale, Noel <Noel.Nightingale at ed.gov>
Subject: [blindLaw] Special education clash: Supreme Court sides unanimously
for student with disability - USA TODAY - March 21, 2023


https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/politics/2023/03/21/supreme-court-s
chools-student-special-education-clash-perez/11513696002/

Special education clash: Supreme Court sides unanimously for student with
disability By John Fritze USA TODAY March 21, 2023

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court sided unanimously Tuesday with a student who
is deaf and who sought to sue his school for damages over profound lapses in
his education, a case that experts say could give parents of students with
disabilities more leverage as they negotiate for the education of their
children.
Central to the case was the story of Miguel Perez, who enrolled in the
Sturgis Public School District in Michigan at age 9 and brought home As and
Bs on report cards for more than a decade. Months before graduation, Perez's
parents learned that he would not receive a diploma and that aides the
school assigned to him did not know sign language.
Though the legal question raised by the case is technical, its outcome
"holds consequences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children
with disabilities and their parents," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the
unanimous court.
What to know about the Supreme Court's special education decision The case,
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, involved the interplay between two federal
laws, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act. At issue was whether students may sue a
school for damages under the ADA when they haven't exhausted the
administrative process required by the IDEA.
In the unanimous decision Tuesday, the high court ruled that Perez didn't
need to exhaust the requirements of the IDEA process before filing a lawsuit
for damages under the ADA.
The decision may help parents and schools clarify one piece of a byzantine
puzzle of laws that govern the nation's 7.2 million special education
students. Experts have predicted it may give parents more leverage in their
negotiation with schools.
What happened with Miguel Perez?
Perez's journey through the 3,000-student school district in Sturgis
highlights the challenges faced by many students who have disabilities.
His family says school officials misrepresented the qualifications of his
aide. They say that aide, in later years, was assigned to other duties,
leaving Perez unable to communicate with anyone for hours every day. And
Perez was promoted through each grade level despite not having a grasp of
the curriculum, his attorneys say.
Perez filed a complaint with Michigan officials in 2017 accusing his school
of violating state and federal laws, including the IDEA. Before that
complaint was resolved, the district offered to settle, agreeing to pay for
Perez to attend the Michigan School for the Deaf.
Perez's family took the settlement.
His family then sued the district under the Americans with Disability Act
for discrimination, seeking unspecified monetary damages. A federal district
court dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Perez had not exhausted the
required IDEA process because he accepted the settlement. A divided panel of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit agreed. Perez appealed to the
Supreme Court in late 2021.
What do school districts say about the impact of the Perez case?
Art Ebert, the district's superintendent, declined to address the claims
raised in the suit - he wasn't leading the district when Perez attended
Sturgis - but he said in an email this month that because of the experience,
the district would "gain knowledge, insight, and understanding that will
help us maximize every student's true potential."
Schools say they are concerned that allowing parents to sue for damages more
easily will inject a legal battle over money into the IDEA process, which is
intended to quickly address students' needs. School districts might be
forced to approach that process differently if their actions could be used
against them in a suit for damages.
What are they saying?
Roman Martinez, a veteran Supreme Court lawyer who argued the case on behalf
of Perez, said the court's ruling "vindicates the rights of students with
disabilities to obtain full relief when they suffer discrimination." Perez
and his family, he said, "look forward to pursuing their legal claims under
the Americans with Disabilities Act."
Attorneys for the school district did not immediately respond to a request
for comment. Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director of the School Superintendents
Association, said the group has "deep concerns with injecting a legal battle
over money into the IDEA process and how this ruling may undermine parents'
willingness to collaborate with districts in crafting an appropriate special
education program for a child. The only thing that's clear from this
decision is that it will lead to more itigation for school districts."
Contributing: Alia Wong

_______________________________________________
BlindLaw mailing list
BlindLaw at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
BlindLaw:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/ctate2076%40att.net