## Facts

- K.M., a high school student with a significant hearing impairment, received special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
- K.M. requested that the school district provide Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART), a real-time, word-for-word classroom transcription service displayed on a monitor.
- The school district denied CART and instead provided other aids and services, including an FM system and additional classroom supports.
- K.M. pursued an IDEA administrative due process hearing challenging the denial of CART as necessary for a free appropriate public education (FAPE); the school district prevailed.
- K.M. then sued in federal court alleging violations of the IDEA, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (failure to provide effective communication), and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment to the school district, reasoning that because K.M. did not establish an IDEA FAPE violation, her ADA and Unruh Act claims failed as well.

## Issues

1. Whether a school district’s compliance with IDEA’s FAPE requirements automatically establishes compliance with Title II of the ADA’s effective-communication requirements for deaf or hard-of-hearing students.
2. Whether an unsuccessful IDEA FAPE claim, as a matter of law, forecloses a student’s separate Title II ADA claim seeking auxiliary aids or services such as CART.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment for the school district on K.M.’s ADA Title II claim and on her Unruh Act claim.
- The court held that IDEA and ADA claims require separate analysis under their distinct statutory and regulatory frameworks.
- The court ruled that compliance with IDEA does not automatically establish compliance with Title II (or § 504) regarding effective communication.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to determine whether, under Title II’s effective-communication standard, the denial of CART violated the ADA (and, correspondingly, the Unruh Act claim).

## Legal Principles

- IDEA’s FAPE inquiry (focused on educational benefit through an IEP) is not coextensive with Title II’s nondiscrimination and equal-access requirements.
- Title II’s effective-communication regulation requires public entities to ensure communications with individuals with disabilities are “as effective as communications with others” and to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary for equal participation.
- A student’s failure to prove an IDEA FAPE violation does not, by itself, defeat a Title II claim; each claim must be evaluated independently.
- Courts may give deference to the responsible agency’s interpretation of Title II’s effective-communication regulation, including the requirement to give primary consideration to the aid or service requested, subject to defenses such as undue burdens or fundamental alteration.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that IDEA compliance does not resolve a school district’s separate Title II duty to provide effective communication, reversed summary judgment that treated the IDEA result as dispositive, and remanded for a fact-specific determination whether denying CART violated the ADA and related state law.


K.M. v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013)