K.M. Ex Rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified School District
2013 WL 3988677, 725 F.3d 1088 (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A school district's compliance with its obligation to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not automatically satisfy its separate and distinct obligation under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to provide effective communication.
Facts:
- K.M. and D.H. are high school students with significant hearing disabilities in the Tustin and Poway Unified School Districts, respectively.
- Through their parents, both students requested that their school districts provide them with Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), a word-for-word transcription service, to aid in their comprehension of classroom discussions.
- An auditory-visual therapist for K.M. specifically recommended that she receive CART services in high school.
- Both school districts denied the students' requests for CART but offered other, alternative accommodations.
- The students asserted that without CART, they had to concentrate with such intensity to follow classroom activities that they were left exhausted at the end of each school day.
- In contrast, teachers for both students testified that they believed the students were able to hear, follow classroom discussions well, and were making satisfactory academic progress.
Procedural Posture:
- K.M. and D.H. each filed administrative complaints against their respective school districts, challenging the denial of CART under the IDEA.
- In separate proceedings, a California administrative law judge (ALJ) ruled in favor of the school districts, concluding each student had been provided with a free appropriate public education (FAPE).
- K.M. and D.H. each filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, seeking review of the ALJ decisions on their IDEA claims and adding claims for disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA.
- The respective U.S. District Courts granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant school districts.
- Both district courts held that the failure of the students' IDEA claims necessarily meant their ADA claims also failed as a matter of law.
- K.M. and D.H., as appellants, appealed the district courts' summary judgment rulings on their ADA claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with the school districts as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a school district's compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) automatically satisfy its separate obligations to provide effective communication under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Berzon, Circuit Judge
No. A school district's compliance with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) does not automatically satisfy its separate obligations under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The IDEA and Title II differ in both their ends and means, imposing distinct requirements on public schools. The IDEA provides a substantive floor of access to education by requiring a 'free appropriate public education' (FAPE) that is 'reasonably calculated to enable the child to receive educational benefits.' In contrast, Title II's effective communications regulation requires that communications with disabled students be 'as effective as' communications with others, affording them an 'equal opportunity' to participate. Furthermore, Title II requires public entities to give 'primary consideration' to the specific auxiliary aid requested by the individual with a disability, a requirement absent from the IDEA. Because the statutes establish different standards and procedures, compliance with one does not equate to compliance with the other, and courts must analyze each claim separately.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that the IDEA and the ADA create separate, parallel, and non-substitutable rights for students with disabilities. It prevents school districts from using their compliance with the IDEA's 'educational benefit' standard as a legal shield against claims brought under the ADA's higher 'effective communication' and 'equal opportunity' standards. The ruling empowers students to seek accommodations that facilitate equal participation in the educational environment, even if they are already receiving sufficient services to make academic progress under the IDEA. Consequently, schools must conduct two distinct analyses and cannot assume that a valid Individualized Education Plan (IEP) fulfills all their legal obligations under federal disability law.
