IDEA vs. ADA: Excessive and Exhaustive Legal Loop-Holes Endanger the Right to Education for Disabled Students

The ongoing struggle for basic access for students with disabilities in public schools continues as the U.S. Supreme Court crafts its ruling in the case of Miguel Luna Perez v Sturgis Public School. We must now address how the current system that separates education laws from civil rights laws compromises the promise of protection from discrimination afforded by the ADA that is undermined by the exhaustive legalistic intricacies of IDEA. 

On January 23rd, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the interplay between the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in the case of Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, et al. At 9, Miguel Perez emigrated from Mexico and began school in the Sturgis Public School District. Since Perez is Deaf, the school assigned him an aide to assist him with sign language, however, the aide did not know sign language, stripping Perez of his right to communication—as specified in the ADA. 

Instead of promoting a greater understanding of Perez’s strengths and placing him in contact with the necessary support services to achieve success—the Sturgis School District failed to provide him with critical life and social development skills. Without these essential skills, Perez cannot gain economically from the education he received from the district. In fact, he must actively redo years of learning since he was never made aware that he did not fulfill his graduation requirements.

As the General Comment No. 13 of the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) defines, “Education is…an empowerment right… the primary vehicle by which economically and socially marginalized adults and children can… participate fully in their communities.” Education that is conducted under the illusion of full participation, like Perez’s, does not truly allow persons with disabilities to access an inclusive, quality, and free education.

While the Sturgis School District failed to facilitate the learning of sign language to promote Perez’s linguistic identity as a Deaf individual, simply providing resources moving forward that aim to promote his full inclusion does not negate the fact that equal access under the ADA was not provided. Elaborated further in the Convention for the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (CRPD), education that does not enable a person with a disability to participate effectively, excludes them from the education system based on disability, denies them adequate support services, and stifles their social/linguistic identity development, is discriminatory. 

By denying Perez the same kind of education as his peers, Sturgis violated several U.S. statutes, including IDEA and ADA. The school, refusing to provide him with a proper aide under the CRPD, denied him the tools necessary to succeed and failed to inform his family that such needs were not being met—making his receipt of a certificate of completion over a diploma dually discriminatory. 

Sturgis is fully responsible for its lack of compliance with the ADA and IDEA. Perez demanded monetary damages and declaratory relief for emotional distress, however, when he settled with the school before the IDEA hearing he was barred from bringing any other claims forward without exhausting the IDEA’s administrative procedures. 

The “lack of exhaustion” cop-out in IDEA is a convenient way for schools to “get out” of redressing the discrimination and harm they inflict on their disabled students by retrofitting access via redirection to new resources where they must repeat years of learning. The ADA and IDEA are both designed to “protect” disabled students, but the lack of exhaustion loop-hole prevents disabled students from achieving full justice since both laws work separately, not together. 

If the Court rules in favor of Sturgis, it sets the precedent that schools get a full release from ADA liability if one accepts a settlement on the IDEA claim. What Roman Martinez describes as a “get out of jail free card,” the implications for this decision suggest that students who faced disability discrimination in school cannot seek monetary damages under the ADA, even though IDEA does not provide monetary relief. If we are to truly provide equal access to students with disabilities in the U.S., we must realize that equal participation and protection do not always follow a single track.

Civil rights laws and educational laws must be able to work with one another to achieve justice for disabled students who have been discriminated against, only then can we move toward a fully accessible education as envisioned in the CRPD and ICESCR.