Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-887_k53m.pdf
Page Number: 4

2 

LUNA PEREZ v. STURGIS PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

Opinion of the Court 

from the classroom for hours on end.  Along the way, Stur-
gis  allegedly  misrepresented  Mr.  Perez’s  educational  pro-
gress too, awarding him inflated grades and advancing him 
from  grade  to  grade  regardless  of his  progress.    Based  on 
Sturgis’s  misrepresentations,  Mr.  Perez  and  his  parents 
say,  they  believed  he was  on  track  to  graduate  from  high 
school with his class.  But then, months before graduation, 
Sturgis revealed that it would not award him a diploma.

In  response  to  these  developments,  Mr.  Perez  and  his 
family filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of 
Education.  They alleged that Sturgis had failed its duties 
under IDEA and other laws.  App. 16–45.  Shortly before an
administrative  hearing,  the  parties  reached  a  settlement.
Under its terms, Sturgis promised to provide Mr. Perez all 
the  forward-looking  equitable  relief  he  sought,  including 
additional schooling at the Michigan School for the Deaf. 

After  settling  his  administrative  complaint,  Mr.  Perez
filed a lawsuit in federal district court under the ADA seek-
ing  backward-looking  relief  in  the  form  of  compensatory 
damages.  Id., at 56–57.  That complaint drew a motion to 
dismiss from Sturgis.  The school district argued that a pro-
vision in IDEA, 20 U. S. C. §1415(l), barred Mr. Perez from
bringing  an  ADA  claim  without  first  exhausting  all  of 
IDEA’s administrative dispute resolution procedures.  Ulti-
mately,  the  district  court  agreed  with  Sturgis  and  dis-
missed  the  suit.  Perez  ex rel.  Perez  v.  Sturgis  Public 
Schools,  2019  WL  6907138,  *3–*4  (WD  Mich.  Dec.  19, 
2019).  Bound by circuit precedent already addressing the 
question, the Sixth Circuit affirmed.  Perez v. Sturgis Public 
Schools, 3 F. 4th 236, 241 (2021) (citing Covington v. Knox 
Cty. School System, 205 F. 3d 912, 916–917 (CA6 2000)). 

Whether  §1415(l)  bars  lawsuits  like  ours  holds  conse-
quences not just for Mr. Perez but for a great many children 
with disabilities and their parents.  Because our colleagues 
on the courts of appeals have disagreed about how best to