In Lartigue v. Northside Independent School District, No. 22-50854, 2023 WL 7869124, 86 F.4th 689, 123 LRP 33956 (5th Cir. Nov. 16, 2023), the Fifth Circuit reversed a grant of summary judgment in favor of a school district and held that a student’s ADA Title II claim could proceed even though the student previously failed to establish a denial of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in an IDEA due process hearing. The decision provides important guidance on administrative exhaustion, issue preclusion, and the relationship between IDEA and ADA claims.
The student, who had a hearing impairment, alleged that the district failed to provide effective accommodations during her high school years. She asserted that the district repeatedly failed to provide closed captioning for classroom videos, did not ensure continuous interpreter coverage, provided counseling services in public hallways that lacked privacy, and failed to timely provide Communication Access Realtime Translation services for a debate competition. The student alleged that these failures left her isolated from peers and unable to meaningfully participate in educational programs and activities. She ultimately left the school in March 2019 and was homeschooled.
In May 2019, the student and her parents filed an IDEA due process complaint. The hearing officer concluded that the district satisfied its obligations under the IDEA and provided FAPE. After the student reached the age of majority, she filed suit in federal court alleging violations of ADA Title II, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and constitutional provisions. She sought compensatory damages and did not assert an IDEA claim.
The district court granted summary judgment to the district on the ADA claim. On appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed. The court agreed that the student had exhausted administrative remedies by participating in the IDEA due process hearing and that the gravamen of the complaint involved educational services. However, the court held that exhaustion under 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l) does not bar the assertion of ADA claims seeking relief unavailable under the IDEA, including compensatory damages.
Relying on Fry v. Napoleon Community Schools and Perez v. Sturgis Public Schools, the court explained that the IDEA does not limit a plaintiff’s ability to pursue ADA claims, even when the alleged harm relates to the denial of FAPE. The court emphasized that Perez makes clear that damages claims under the ADA may proceed regardless of whether administrative remedies were fully exhausted.
The court also rejected the district’s argument that the ADA claim was barred by collateral estoppel. The court reasoned that the legal standards governing IDEA FAPE determinations differ from those applicable to ADA failure-to-accommodate claims. Because the hearing officer did not decide whether disability discrimination occurred, the prior administrative findings did not preclude the ADA claim. The court further noted that the student sought only retrospective compensatory damages and not prospective relief.
The court declined to resolve the district’s argument that damages were unavailable under Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, noting that it remains an open question in the Fifth Circuit whether Cummings applies to ADA Title II claims and that the district court had not ruled on the issue.
Judge Jerry E. Smith dissented, concluding that the ADA claim should have been barred by collateral estoppel because, in his view, the ADA standard is more demanding than the IDEA standard.
The Fifth Circuit’s decision aligns with authority from other circuits recognizing that ADA claims may proceed independently of IDEA outcomes where different legal standards and remedies are at issue.