Miguel Perez is requesting to sue Sturgis schools for damages, and the U.S. Supreme Court seems sympathetic following oral arguments

The United States Supreme Court recently heard arguments in the case of a 27-year-old Sturgis man who is seeking the right to sue Sturgis Public Schools for financial damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). On Wednesday, January 18, Supreme Court justices listened to oral arguments and appeared sympathetic toward Miguel Luna Perez, a deaf man who claims the school district provided him an inadequate education by failing to assign him a qualified sign-language interpreter.

Perez immigrated to the United States with his family from Mexico in 2004, where he attended Sturgis Public Schools. In the official court filing Perez’s attorney Roman Martinez states, “Sturgis failed to provide Miguel with a qualified sign language interpreter at any point during his 12 years at Sturgis. Sturgis failed to provide Miguel with sufficient exposure to any language to enable him to acquire even basic proficiency in that language, whether it be ASL, Signed English, or English.”

Perez’s attorneys also said the school district misled Perez’s parents who believed Perez was succeeding in school due to him consistently being on the Honor Roll and receiving high grades. In reality, Perez had been assigned an “aide” who attempted to teach herself Signed English, but ultimately invented a system of signing only she and Perez understood. This left him unable to communicate with others, according to his lawyers.

By the time of Perez’s graduation in 2016, an advocate brought in representatives from the Michigan School for the Deaf (MSD) to be involved in his Individualized Education Program. It was then that he enrolled as a student at MSD and was taught American Sign Language. After meeting with a psychologist it was determined that Perez had “linguistic deprivation” due to severe neglect from the Sturgis school district. 

Perez’s attorneys had previously filed a claim for a violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) against Sturgis Public Schools, and reached a settlement that included providing financial support for Perez to attend MSD and receive other services. The settlement, however, did not determine whether the school district was liable for damages under a violation of the ADA. Perez’s attorneys filed a claim under the ADA seeking damages and the school district convinced federal courts to throw out the case, arguing Perez did not exhaust all of his processes with the IDEA. 

Perez appealed his case all the way to the Supreme Court. Martinez argued the first settlement did exhaust the IDEA process since that statute doesn’t provide for compensatory damages, but the ADA does. Meanwhile, attorneys for the school district argued that Perez’s claim involved his right to an adequate education, meaning it should begin — if not end — in the IDEA process. 

Supreme Court justices heard arguments from both sides of the case, and conservative judges appeared skeptical of Sturgis Public Schools, according to a report from SCOTUSblog. Questions from Justice Amy Coney Barrett seemed to signal her sympathy toward Perez, acknowledging if he had originally turned down the school district’s settlement offer and instead continued to litigate his IDEA claims in order to preserve his right to bring his ADA claim later, he would risk losing his right to have the district reimburse his attorney’s fees. Barrett said those fees are not available to families that reject “reasonable” settlement offers.

Justice Elena Kagan proved to be one of Perez’s biggest supporters throughout the hearing. Sturgis Public School’s attorney Shay Dvoretzky argued a ruling in favor of the school district would make more sense as a practical matter because a school district has an interest in trying to provide a suitable education as soon as possible, and therefore will be more likely to reach a settlement. Dvoretzky said the winning party could use leverage in order to extract favorable concessions from the other side in settlement negotiations. Kagan pushed back and said, “It strikes me that actually it’s the parents that have the greater incentive to get the education fixed for their child.” She continued her argument by stating, “Special education litigation isn’t being run by a lot of rapacious lawyers. This is litigation run by parents who are trying to do right by their kids.”

SCOTUSblog reported that Justice Samuel Alito displayed the strongest support for the school district’s position. He disagreed with Perez’s contention that the IDEA required plaintiffs to exhaust their claim before going to federal court only when their lawsuit seeks the same relief that would be available under the IDEA. Although Perez argued his lawsuit under the ADA sought financial compensation, which is not available under the IDEA, Alito offered another reading of the IDEA. According to Alito, Perez’s lawsuit in federal court can be construed as seeking the same relief that would be available under the IDEA, if the term “relief” instead means “relief for the denial of” an appropriate education — which, Perez admitted, is also the core of Perez’s ADA claims.

In a video recap of the proceedings by The Daily Moth (the leading news outlet for video-delivered reporting in ASL), Perez said, “My case at the U.S. Supreme Court is hard for me to understand. Part of it is about having no interpreter at Sturgis. Part of it is that some judges said I can’t tell my story about what happened. I want to tell you what happened to me. I wish I could have gone to college to learn more. I don’t have a job, but I want to have one. I want to make my own decisions.” Along with learning many new words and signs at MSD, Perez also studied construction and learned to build furniture. He is passionate about building houses as a career, and is eager to pursue that goal in the future.

Watershed Voice reached out to Perez’s attorney Roman Martinez for comment on what outcome he expects from the Supreme Court. “I very much appreciate the Court’s close attention to this case. Its decision will have important implications not only for Miguel, but for parents and students across the country. Miguel and his family did everything right here, and he should not be penalized for accepting a favorable settlement from the school on his IDEA claims. We are hopeful that the Court will reverse the decision below and allow Miguel to pursue his other claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

The Supreme Court is expected to issue its final decision in June.

Beca Welty is a staff writer and columnist for Watershed Voice.

---

Some information in this article relies on reporting from Amy Howe of Howe on the Court and SCOTUSblog, and a video recap on the case from The Daily Moth.