K.M. Ex Rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified School District
725 F.3d 1088
| 9th Cir. | 2013Background
- Two consolidated appeals (K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist.; D.H. v. Poway Unified Sch. Dist.) involve deaf/hard-of-hearing high‑school students who requested CART (real‑time word‑for‑word transcription) in class; school districts refused and offered other accommodations.
- Both students are IDEA‑eligible and received IEPs; administrative law judges and the district courts concluded each district provided a FAPE under the IDEA and denied CART as not required by IDEA.
- Plaintiffs sued in federal court asserting Title II of the ADA (effective communications) and related state claims; district courts granted summary judgment for defendants, holding IDEA compliance foreclosed ADA claims.
- On appeal the students did not contest IDEA rulings but argued Title II imposes independent effective‑communication duties (including giving primary consideration to the individual’s request for auxiliary aids such as CART).
- The Ninth Circuit held that IDEA compliance does not automatically establish Title II compliance; the ADA’s effective‑communications regulation can impose distinct obligations and defenses (e.g., undue burden/fundamental alteration) not present under IDEA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IDEA compliance automatically satisfies Title II effective‑communications obligations | Title II imposes independent duties; denial of CART can violate ADA even if IDEA FAPE provided | Compliance with IDEA (FAPE) dooms ADA claim; Title II claims coextensive with IDEA | Rejected: IDEA compliance does not automatically preclude Title II claims; analyze separately |
| Proper interpretive weight of DOJ Title II regulations (including effectiveness standard and giving primary consideration to request) | DOJ interpretation supports that Title II requires giving primary consideration to the individual’s requested auxiliary aid | Districts challenged application but did not attack validity of regulation | Court accords Auer deference to DOJ interpretation of Title II regs; treats regulation as controlling unless plainly erroneous |
| Standard for proving denial of meaningful access under ADA | Meaningful access is assessed under Title II regs (effective communications, provision of necessary auxiliary aids) | Districts argued plaintiffs cannot show lack of meaningful access because they received IDEA services | Court holds meaningful access inquiry is governed by Title II regulations (not foreclosed by IDEA ruling) |
| Availability of Title II defenses vs IDEA | N/A (plaintiffs) | Title II allows defenses: undue burden or fundamental alteration, which IDEA does not provide | Recognized: Title II contains defenses (undue burden/fundamental alteration) absent from IDEA; these can limit remedies under ADA |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretations of their own regulations accord controlling weight unless plainly erroneous)
- Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982) (IDEA requires access to education — a FAPE — not a potential‑maximizing program)
- Schaffer ex rel. Schaffer v. Weast, 546 U.S. 49 (2005) (allocation of burden of proof in IDEA administrative hearings)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (deference to reasonable agency statutory interpretations)
- Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922 (9th Cir. 2008) (adopting a valid IDEA IEP is sufficient to satisfy Section 504 FAPE requirement but does not resolve all Section 504 claims)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II reaches public education among other public services)
- Duvall v. Cnty. of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (analysis of ADA Title II obligations and relation to Section 504)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (meaningful access standard under Section 504 and guidance for disparate‑impact claims)