Supreme Court Ruling Delivers Victory for Students with Disabilities

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court paved a new route for students with disabilities to hold schools responsible—and now, recover damages—when a school fails to provide adequate educational accommodations. In Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the Court held that students with disabilities are not required to exhaust their administrative remedies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) when the plaintiff is also seeking monetary relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for prior discrimination or mistreatment by the school.

Miguel Luna Perez attended public school in Sturgis, Michigan from ages 9-20.  Speaking with reporters, Perez said that during his time in the Sturgis Public Schools, he received “some sign language,” but he wanted more. There was one other deaf student at his school. However, lacking resources and support, the two deaf students could not communicate with each other, much less the rest of the school. According to Perez, “nobody interpreted for me at Sturgis.”

Settling Perez’s IDEA claim, Sturgis schools agreed to send Perez to the Michigan School for the Deaf, where annual tuition exceeds $40,000, and pay for his post-secondary education so that Perez and his parents could learn sign language. The IDEA settlement resolved Perez’s needs moving forward but did nothing to address his prior mistreatment. To obtain compensation for past harm, lost income and damages for emotional distress, Perez sued under the ADA.

Both the ADA and the IDEA protect children with disabilities. Under the IDEA, students with disabilities can petition their school to enact reasonable, additional educational accommodations. But the IDEA does not permit recovery of money damages or remedy prior discrimination or mistreatment of a student with disabilities. Aside from the ADA, no such law provides relief to the nearly 7.5 million students with disabilities in the U.S. This was until Perez decided to challenge his school.

“The question [before the Court] is whether a plaintiff must exhaust administrative processes under IDEA that cannot supply what he seeks,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “We answer in the negative.” Perez, who graduated from the Michigan School for the Deaf in 2020, said that he “learned so many new words and signs [and] learned construction.” Still, he said, “I wish I could have gone to college. I don’t have a job, but I want to have one. I want to make my own choices.”

SCOTUS Holds that Homosexual and Transgender Persons are Protected from Adverse Employment Actions Under Title VII

The United States Supreme Court has handed down a landmark case solidifying the rights of homosexual and transgender individuals within the workplace in Bostock v. Clayton Cty. The Court held that all three of the employers in the underlying cases violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 when each of the employers fired employees shortly after those employee revealed that he or she were either homosexual or transgender. Proceeding on the assumption that the term “sex” as it is used in Title VII refers only to the biological distinction between male and female, the Court turned its focus to analyzing what Title VII says about “sex.”

Title VII says it is “unlawful . . . for an employer to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual’s race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a)(1) (emphasis added). The Court stated that, “[i]n Title VII, Congress adopted broad language making it illegal for an employer to rely on an employee’s sex when deciding to fire that employee.” As such, the Court determined that it is a necessary consequence of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act that an employer who fires an individual merely for being gay or transgender defies the law.