Abstract
For years, the majority of courts have ruled that parents of children with disabilities were required to exhaust special education due process procedures before filing civil actions under other disability statutes. Change would come through Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools. In Luna Perez, a deaf student, Miguel Luna Perez, was denied a free and appropriate education for eleven years. After settling the case under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Mr. Luna Perez (initially through his mother, but later continuing on his own) filed a claim for compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Originally, Mr. Luna Perez’s ADA/Section 504 claim was primarily for emotional distress damages but, after an interceding case disallowed such damages to be collected, he modified the claim to one seeking future lost wages. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, stated that because the relief requested was not one IDEA could provide, Mr. Luna Perez’s claim was not barred by IDEA. In the aftermath, Sturgis Public Schools and Mr. Luna Perez agreed to an undisclosed settlement. This Note focuses on how attorneys can use the Luna Perez decision to advocate for clients in the most egregious cases of denial of a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Though Congress may eventually amend IDEA to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision, and there may be instances of pushback from school districts, proper advocacy will be able to mitigate these issues.
Recommended Citation
Kevin R. Hart,
A New Way for Justice for Families of Schoolchildren with Disabilities? A Case Note on Luna Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools,
55
N.M. L. Rev.
243
(2025).
Available at:
https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol55/iss1/7
