Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools

Miguel Luna Perez, a deaf student, attended Sturgis Public Schools in Michigan where he was assigned an unqualified sign language interpreter, severely limiting his educational progress for over a decade. After discovering the neglect, his family filed a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) seeking compensatory damages. The school argued that Perez must first exhaust the administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which unanimously ruled on March 21, 2023, that IDEA’s exhaustion requirement does not apply when the plaintiff seeks monetary damages that IDEA cannot provide. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote that exhausting futile remedies is not required, allowing the ADA claim for damages to proceed.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the IDEA exhaustion requirement does not apply to ADA claims seeking monetary damages, as such relief is not available under IDEA. The case was allowed to proceed in lower courts for the damages claim.

Whether the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act’s requirement to exhaust administrative remedies bars a student’s lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act seeking compensatory damages, a remedy the IDEA does not provide.

The decision significantly expanded the legal avenues for students with disabilities to seek monetary relief for discrimination. It clarified that families are not forced to navigate a futile administrative process when the desired remedy is beyond IDEA's scope, thereby strengthening the enforcement of anti-discrimination protections under the ADA and ensuring greater accountability for school districts.