The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision in the case of Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools that would appear on first reading to expand the types of cases in which parents of students with disabilities can skip the administrative hearing process and go directly to court. While the court suggests otherwise, it seems to call into question, or at least cause confusion, over how to apply the case of Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools. By way of background, under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) a parent who has a dispute with a school district over the special education services provided to their child typically needs to go to an administrative hearing on their claims prior to going to federal court. The IDEA and case law have expanded this requirement to certain cases brought under Section 504 and Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the context of students in schools.
In Perez, parents of a student with disabilities allege that their child, who was deaf, was supposed to be provided aides who were required to translate instruction in the classroom into sign language. The child was often provided aides who were not qualified and at times the child was not provided an aide at all. The parents attempted to assert this claim in federal court under the ADA, not the IDEA, seeking monetary damages. The lower courts found that the parents were required to exhaust administrative remedies before they could come to court to seek damages because these claims appear to be related to the provision of a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), but the Supreme Court found otherwise.
The court found that because the parents were asserting claims under a different statute, namely the ADA, and were seeking relief that they could not obtain through the administrative hearing process, namely money damages, they were permitted to go directly to federal court. However, while the court suggests otherwise, this finding would appear to be inconsistent with Fry, where the court ruled in determining whether a parent needed to go through the administrative hearing process the focus is on the gravamen of the complaint and asked whether the claim was about the provision of a FAPE. Namely under Fry, the court explained there are two questions to be asked to determine if a FAPE is the true issue “[1] could the plaintiff have brought essentially the same claim if the alleged conduct had occurred at a public facility that was not a school—say, a public theater or library? [a]nd [2] could an adult at the school—say, an employee or visitor—have pressed essentially the same grievance?” Under Fry, if the answer to both questions is yes, the case is likely not about a FAPE and a plaintiff can go directly to court. However, Perez does not even ask those questions, but rather focuses on the statute under which the claims are asserted, and the type of relief sought.
Such an approach is likely to expand the number of cases that arguably could be brought by sidestepping the administrative hearing requirements and is likely to increase the number of cases in which we see “attempts at artful pleading” which the Fry court attempted to avoid in an effort to go directly to federal court. However, it is notable that under Pennsylvania’s regulations, a parent may still choose to proceed through an administrative hearing even if they could go directly to court, meaning parents in these types of cases and not the district will determine where the case will start.
[View source.]
