On March 21, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously determined that parents do not have to exhaust their IDEA administrative remedies if they seek only monetary damages under Section 504 or the ADA.
In this case (Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools “Sturgis”) the school district was alleged to have denied a qualified interpreter to a deaf student for 12 years and to have misled the parents and student into thinking the student would graduate on time, informing them only in the months prior to graduation that the student would not, in fact, be eligible for graduation. After filing and settling their due process claim with the school district, the student (who was over 18 at the time of filing) filed a federal lawsuit, alleging violations of Section 504 and the ADA, seeking compensatory damages for emotional distress and lost income resulting from the school district’s failures.
Before the U.S. Supreme Court, the student argued that he was not required to exhaust his IDEA administrative remedies because he was not seeking remedies that were available under the IDEA. The school district argued that the student was required to exhaust his IDEA administrative remedies because the student alleged a failure to provide a free and appropriate public education. The entire argument centered on the differences between remedy or relief sought. However, the U.S. Supreme Court did not find that there was any difference between remedy or relief, holding that “relief means remedy.” The Court expressly indicated that if Congress intended to distinguish the two terms, they should have done so.
As a result of this case, parents and students may avoid IDEA exhaustion remedies by filing directly with federal court demanding monetary damages.
An additional note, the Congressional Research Services, a research institute working directly for members and committees of the U.S. Congress, has provided a Legal Sidebar for members of Congress on this case indicating that Congress has a history of legislating in this area in response to Supreme Court decisions and this is an area where Congress could clarify its intent.
What Does This Mean For Your District?
In the daily operations of school districts serving students with disabilities, the Sturgis decision changes nothing about the exemplary services public schools provide every day to students with disabilities. The expectation from many observers is that the Sturgis decision could, however, result in higher settlement demands for school districts. Please reach out to a member of Ennis Britton’s Special Education Team for more information on this case, or obtain a recording of Ennis Britton’s case law update discussing this case.
Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, 143 S. Ct. 859 (2023)
Was it Mrs. Peacock in the library with the candlestick? Sometimes dealing with the exceptions under a MDR can feel like playing a game of Clue. Jeremy and Erin help solve some of the mysteries when dealing with the three primary types of exceptions . They also highlight a recent case in Texas that addresses the importance of proper documentation and training so you are able to accurately determine when one of the exceptions applies that allows for removal even when the behavior is a manifestation of the child’s disability.
You can also listen here or wherever you get your podcasts. Look for new episodes on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
Keep Calm and Just Keep Serving. Understanding the obligation to provide services after an MDR team decision is not always clear to all school employees. Erin and Jeremy discuss the “Black Letter Law” related to MDRs and what happens when MDR teams venture into the realm of behavior not being a manifestation of a student’s disability. teams. They share a recent case from South Dakota which highlights the importance of the IEP team’s involvement in determining what services will be provided in order to meet the IEP goals and the general education curriculum.
You can also listen here or wherever you get your podcasts. Look for new episodes on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
The Special Education Team of Ennis Britton is pleased to announce the rollout of our new podcast “On the Call”. Each episode focuses on a real-life special education scenario you may have encountered or might bump into very soon. Ennis Britton attorneys Jeremy Neff and Erin Wessendorf-Wortman take the call and then discuss applicable cases and laws related to the scenario presented.
The first episode covers the basics of a Manifestation Determination Review or “MDR”. They review a recent case in Connecticut that has implications for MDR meetings and highlights what you should consider related to the behavior which resulted in the MDR and the importance of digging into the details as you prepare for the meeting.
You can also listen to the first episode of the podcast here or on Spotify, Amazon and Google Podcasts. Look for new episodes on the second and fourth Tuesdays of the month.
A complaint was recently filed with the Student Privacy Policy Office (SPPO) alleging a Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) violation when two teachers recorded students in the classroom on their personal cell phones.
Students’ education records are protected under FERPA. The term “education records” is defined, with certain exclusions, as those records that are directly related to a student and which are maintained by an educational agency or institution, or by a party acting for the agency or institution, to which funds have been made available under and program administered by the Secretary of Education.
Under FERPA, a school is prohibited from disclosing personally identifiable information from a child’s education records, without consent, unless the disclosure meets an exception to FERPA’s general consent requirement.
Any complaint must:
be filed by a parent who maintains FERPA rights over the education records which are the subject of the complaint;
be submitted to the SPPO within 180 days of the date of the alleged violation or of the date that the complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged violation; and
contain specific allegations of fact giving reasonable cause to believe that a violation of FERPA has occurred.
Ultimately, the parents failed to establish that the teacher’s recording qualified as part of the student’s education record and SPPO ruled that the videos did not violate FERPA. The SPPO maintained that the recordings did not focus on a specific student, but instead showed students participating in school activities without highlighting a particular student. They further noted that the SPPO has not issued formal guidance on the use of personal devices by school officials and the FERPA regulations do not specifically address this issue.
What Does this Mean for Your District?
While the SPPO determined that the recordings in this case were not prohibited under FERPA, SPPO did indicate that other laws protecting the confidentiality of information in general or personally identifiable student information could come into play. Great caution and care should be exercised by school officials when making recordings or taking photographs in a classroom to ensure that prior consent is obtained to ensure that no federal or state laws are violated.
