The Supreme Court gave an elementary school student with disability-related behavioral issues permission to move forward with a discrimination lawsuit against a California school district under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The Supreme Court ruled April 3 that a young student identified as D.D. may move forward with his lawsuit against the Los Angeles Unified School District under the federal American with Disabilities Act (ADA), even though he already took action against the district under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
The decision reverses a November 2021 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that prevented the legal claim from going ahead.
The decision comes as parents nationwide have become increasingly protective of the rights of their children and are taking legal action and demanding accountability from government officials.
The IDEA provides that disabled students must be educated according to their specific needs, while the ADA forbids discrimination against disabled individuals.
The IDEA offers federal funding to the states in exchange for a commitment to furnish a FAPE—an acronym standing for a free appropriate public education—to all children who have certain physical or intellectual disabilities. A FAPE “comprises ‘special education and related services’—both ‘instruction’ tailored to meet a child’s ‘unique needs’ and sufficient ‘supportive services’ to permit the child to benefit from that instruction,” according to court documents.
In this case, D.D. has “an emotional disability that interferes with his ability to learn.” At one point he reportedly spent a week in a psychiatric facility. He claims the school district denied him a FAPE by, among other things, failing to provide a one-to-one behavioral aide and related supportive services, court papers say.
D.D. pursued an administrative complaint under the IDEA against the school district before the Office of Administrative Hearings, Special Education Division for the State of California. The parties signed a settlement that he says preserved his ability to raise non-IDEA discrimination claims. He also filed a claim under the ADA for discrimination and emotional distress. A federal district court dismissed the legal complaint under the ADA, finding that D.D. had failed to exhaust all available legal remedies under the IDEA. An appeals court upheld the ruling.
The new decision came after the Supreme Court ruled unanimously on March 21 in a similar case, Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, that a deaf former student who accuses a Michigan public school system of failing to properly educate him may move forward with his discrimination lawsuit. That decision reversed a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court summarily disposed of D.D. v. Los Angeles Unified School District, court file 21-1373, in an unsigned order that remands the case to the 9th Circuit “for further consideration in light of” the Perez ruling. No justices dissented. The court simultaneously granted D.D.’s request seeking review while skipping over the oral argument phase when the merits of the case would have been considered. Some lawyers call this process GVR, which stands for grant, vacate, and remand.
D.D.’s attorney, Patsy Van Dyke of Pacific Grove, California, hailed the new decision.
“This is a huge victory for children with disabilities and their families,” she told The Epoch Times by email.
“The decision puts to rest a simple issue that has been needlessly litigated, and denied countless children of access to justice.”
The Epoch Times has reached out for comment to the school district’s attorney, Matthew Raymond Hicks of Los Angeles.