The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

May 17, 2024 R48068

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under
May 17, 2024
the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Abigail A. Graber
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
Legislative Attorney
1973 (Section 504), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) each play a part in federal

efforts to support the education of individuals with disabilities. These statutory frameworks,
Kyrie E. Dragoo
while overlapping, differ in several ways, including which students they cover and the rights and
Analyst in Education Policy
services they afford. When students with disabilities transition between levels of schooling, or

between public and private schools, the accommodations and services required by federal law
may change. For example, while the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA apply to schools from

preschool through 12th grade, only Section 504 and the ADA apply to institutions of higher
education. Application of the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA to students with disabilities is also determined by each law’s
(1) definition of “disability”; (2) mechanisms to determine whether a student has a qualifying disability; (3) required services,
aids, and accommodations; (4) prohibited conduct; and (5) enforcement mechanisms and available remedies.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
The IDEA, as amended, authorizes federal grants to states to support the education of children with disabilities. As a
condition of receiving IDEA funds, the act requires states to implement a range of services and procedural protections for
students with disabilities. For example, state educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs) must
(1) identify, locate, and evaluate all children residing in their jurisdictions who may have qualifying disabilities to determine
which children are eligible for special education and related services; (2) convene a team, which includes the parents of each
eligible child with a disability, to develop an individualized education program (IEP) spelling out the specific special
education and related services to be provided to that child to ensure a free appropriate public education (FAPE); and
(3) implement procedural safeguards for children with disabilities and their parents, including a right to an administrative
hearing to challenge eligibility determinations and educational placements, with the ability to appeal the ruling to federal
court. Of the three legal frameworks discussed in this report, only the IDEA focuses squarely on education and only the
IDEA funds services for children with disabilities.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504)
Section 504 is an antidiscrimination provision in a broader federal law providing rehabilitation services to people with
disabilities. Section 504 protects individuals from disability discrimination in programs and activities that receive federal
financial assistance (as well as in federal executive branch programs). As Section 504 is linked to federal funding, it applies
to all public elementary and secondary schools, as well as some private ones, and most colleges and universities. While
Section 504 summarily describes covered entities’ obligations, the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) implementing
regulations are more extensive. ED’s implementing regulations and caselaw interpreting Section 504 require covered schools
to ensure that students with disabilities are not excluded, denied services, segregated, or otherwise treated differently because
of their disabilities, unless a school can demonstrate that accommodating a disabled student would fundamentally alter the
nature of the school’s program or cause an undue financial burden. Some overlap exists between ED’s Section 504
regulations and the IDEA’s requirements.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
The ADA broadly protects individuals with disabilities from discrimination in a range of contexts—both public and private—
including employment, state and local government services, transportation, telecommunications, and public accommodations.
In the educational context, the ADA, like Section 504, applies to all public and many private schools, from preschool through
postsecondary education. Courts usually interpret the ADA to provide the same general substantive protections as Section
504. The ADA’s statutory provisions and implementing regulations are, for the most part, not education specific. They
outline some types of modifications that all covered entities must make for people with disabilities, including, for example,
removing certain barriers, allowing service animals, and making available accessible examinations and course materials.
Congressional Research Service

link to page 45 link to page 18 link to page 23 link to page 23 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Introduction
Several federal laws require schools to provide services and accommodations to students with
disabilities and to protect them from discrimination. The application of these laws may change
depending on students’ circumstances. Times of transition—when a student moves to a new
school district or state, or from preschool to kindergarten, elementary to middle school, middle to
high school, or high school to postsecondary education—may result in changes to which law
applies, what the law requires, and what services the student needs. Moving from the services
provided in the preschool through 12th grade (P–12) public education system to those available at
a college or university can be a particularly significant transition.1
At the P–12 level, three main federal laws protect the rights of students with disabilities: the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),2 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
1973 (Section 504),3 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).4 For students receiving
special education under the IDEA or accommodations and services under Section 504 or the
ADA, transitioning from the P–12 public education system to an institution of higher education
(IHE) may affect how a school assesses their disabilities, their eligibility for accommodations or
services, and the services and accommodations available to them. Students may also experience
different treatment in the same educational context depending on which laws apply to them. This
report examines the impact of these laws on students with disabilities in certain key respects:
• how the laws define disability;
• how the laws require schools to determine eligibility for services and protections;
• how the laws ensure students with disabilities receive the accommodations and
services they need;
• the scope of legal protection guaranteed to students with disabilities;
• how families enforce their rights; and
• the available remedies.
For a summary comparing the provisions examined in this report, see Table 1.
Glossary of Abbreviations
Abbreviation
Definition
ADA
Americans with Disabilities Act
DOJ
U.S. Department of Justice
EAHCA
Education for All Handicapped Children Act
ED
U.S. Department of Education
EHA
Education of the Handicapped Act
FAPE
Free appropriate public education
IDEA
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

1 See infra “Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations” and “Postsecondary Education: Transition and
Admissions.”
2 Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975) (as amended by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, tit. I, 118 Stat. 2647, 2647–99) (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482).
3 Pub. L. No. 93-112, § 504, 87 Stat. 355, 394 (codified as amended at 29 U.S.C. § 794).
4 Pub. L. No. 101-336, 104 Stat. 327 (1990) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213).
Congressional Research Service

1

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

IEP
Individualized education program
IHE
Institution of higher education
LEA
Local educational agency
LRE
Least restrictive environment
OCR
Office for Civil Rights
OSEP
Office of Special Education Programs
P–12
Preschool through 12th grade
SEA
State educational agency
Section 504
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Title VI
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Title IX
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972
Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities
While the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA often entitle students to similar services, the laws
have different purposes and scopes of coverage. The distinctions reflect a basic difference in
statutory design: the IDEA “guarantees individually tailored educational services,” while the
ADA and Section 504 are focused on eliminating discrimination in public life.5
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Congress and the President first established a grant program to the states to facilitate the
education of children with disabilities in 1966,6 which they replaced with the Education of the
Handicapped Act (EHA) in 1970.7 In 1975, they enacted the Education for All Handicapped
Children Act (EAHCA),8 which amended the EHA. The EAHCA was the first comprehensive
legislative attempt to attach specific requirements to states’ receipt of federal funds for the
education of children with disabilities.9 At the time it passed the EAHCA, Congress found that
more than half of all children with disabilities were not receiving “appropriate educational
services” and that one million children with disabilities were “excluded entirely from the public
school system.”10 Congress determined that many children participating in public school
programs had undiagnosed disabilities that hindered their educational progress.11 To address these
findings, Congress laid down a clear mandate to any state seeking funds under the act: to receive
those funds, the state must “identify and evaluate” all children with disabilities residing “within
its borders” to ensure those children receive a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE).12 The

5 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017).
6 Elementary and Secondary Education Amendments of 1966, Pub. L. No. 89-750, § 161, 80 Stat. 1191, 1204–08
(1966).
7 Pub. L. No. 91-230, tit. VI, 84 Stat. 121, 175–88 (1970).
8 Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773 (1975).
9 See Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179–80 (1982) (recounting the legislative history of the EAHCA).
10 Pub. L. No. 94-142, sec. 3, § 601(b), 89 Stat. at 774.
11 Id.
12 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 181, 200.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 20 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

EAHCA was later renamed the IDEA, and it has been comprehensively reauthorized five times
since its original enactment in 1975, most recently in 2004.13
The IDEA remains the main federal statute governing special education for children from birth
through age 21.14 It imposes requirements only on public schools, although in some
circumstances it requires public school districts to provide services to children in private settings,
such as hospitals or private schools.15 The statute operates by supplementing state and local
funding with federal funding to pay for some of the additional costs of educating children with
disabilities.16 State educational agencies (SEAs), i.e., the state offices that oversee public P–12
education, and local educational agencies (LEAs), i.e., public boards of education or other public
entities that govern P–12 public schools, primarily implement the IDEA.17
Of particular significance to this report is Part B of the IDEA,18 which protects the right of
individuals with disabilities, from ages 3 through 21, to a FAPE.19 A school provides a FAPE for
each IDEA-eligible student through an individualized education program (IEP), a written plan
developed by a specific group of knowledgeable individuals (the IEP team) setting forth, among
other things, a functional assessment of the child, their educational goals, and the services the
child will receive.20 In this report, references to the IDEA are to IDEA Part B.
In the 2022–2023 school year, approximately 7.6 million children ages 3 through 21 received
special education and related services under Part B of the IDEA.21 Students served under Part B
of the IDEA represent about 14.7% of all P–12 public school students.22
The IDEA is administered by the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Special
Education Programs (OSEP) in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.23

13 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (codified as
amended at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400–1482).
14 For more information on the IDEA, see CRS Report R43631, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Part C: Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2024), and CRS
Report R41833, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory
Provisions, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2019).
15 Lynn M. Daggett, “Minor Adjustments” and Other Not-So-Minor Obligations: Section 504, Private Religious K-12
Schools, and Students with Disabilities, 52 U. LOUISVILLE L. REV. 301, 304 (2014); see infra “P–12 Education.”
16 A “state” within the meaning of the IDEA includes “each of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and each of the outlying areas,” i.e., “the United States Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(22), (31). For more
information on IDEA funding, see CRS Report R44624, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
Funding: A Primer, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2019).
17 20 U.S.C. § 1401(19), (32).
18 Id. §§ 1411–1419.
19 Id. § 1412(a)(1).
20 Id. § 1414(d).
21 IDEA Section 618 Data Products: Static Tables Part B Child Count & Educational Environments Table 1, U.S.
DEP’T OF EDUC., https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products-static-tables-part-b-count-environ-table1/
resources (last updated Feb. 6, 2024) (in the column to the left of the screen, download the XLSX file from 2022–
2023).
22 Digest of Education Statistics, Table 204.70, Number and Percentage of Children Served Under Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by Age Group and State or Jurisdiction: Selected School Years, 1990-91
Through 2021-22, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT. (Feb. 2023), https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d22/tables/
dt22_204.70.asp.
23 U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. FOR CIV. RIGHTS, PARENT AND EDUCATOR RESOURCE GUIDE TO SECTION 504 IN PUBLIC
ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS 41 (2016) [hereinafter OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE],
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/504-resource-guide-201612.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 42 link to page 7 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

OSEP administers the IDEA’s formula and discretionary grants programs. OSEP also monitors
states’ implementation of the IDEA and collects data and disseminates information on children
served under the IDEA, including through an annual report to Congress.24 Unlike ED’s role with
regard to Section 504 and the ADA, discussed below,25 OSEP does not investigate individual
complaints of IDEA noncompliance.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
In 1973, two federal district court decisions called into question the constitutionality of policies
denying children with disabilities access to public education.26 Subsequently, Congress enacted
the first of a series of civil rights statutes addressing discrimination against individuals with
disabilities: the Rehabilitation Act.27 The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 established the
Rehabilitation Services Administration and funding for projects and studies supporting the
employment of people with disabilities. At the time of its adoption, Section 504 was the only
section concerned with the civil rights of people with disabilities. That provision broadly
prohibits recipients of federal funds from discriminating against individuals with disabilities.28
Indirect federal funding, including federal financial aid that students pass on to schools, triggers
Section 504 responsibilities.29 Section 504’s nondiscrimination guarantee therefore stretches quite
far, covering not just all P–12 public schools (including public charter and magnet schools)30 but
also private schools that accept federal funding and most IHEs.31

24 See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. OF SPECIAL EDUC. & REHABILITATIVE SERVS., 44TH ANNUAL REPORT TO
CONGRESS ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT 2022 (2023),
https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/44th-arc-for-idea.pdf.
25 See infra “Enforcement and Remedies Under Section 504 and the ADA.”
26 See Mills v. Bd. of Educ., 348 F. Supp. 866, 874–75 (D.D.C. 1972) (concluding that “denying [children with
disabilities] not just an equal publicly supported education but all publicly supported education while providing such
education to other children, is violative of the Due Process Clause” of the Fifth Amendment); Penn. Ass’n for Retarded
Children v. Pennsylvania, 343 F. Supp. 279, 293–97 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (concluding that claims based on the denial of
education to children with disabilities were “colorable” under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment). The Supreme Court has held that “[p]ublic education is not a ‘right’ granted to individuals by
the Constitution.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 221 (1982) (citing San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez,
411 U.S. 1, 35 (1973)). A state’s decision to deny access to education to some that it provides to others may be
challenged under the Equal Protection Clause. See generally Plyler, 457 U.S. 202.
27 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–797b.
28 Id. § 794(a) (“No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of
her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination
under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance . . . .”).
29 See Grove City Coll. v. Bell, 465 U.S. 555, 564–69 (1984) (addressing meaning of “federal financial assistance”
under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 (Title IX)), superseded by statute on other grounds; Bennett-
Nelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that Grove City applies to Section 504).
30 B.H. v. Portage Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 1:08-CV-293, 2009 WL 277051, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2009)
(“Because every state receives federal money to operate its public education system, section 504 applies to public
elementary and secondary education programs.”); see Off. for Civ. Rights, Disability Discrimination: Frequently Asked
Questions, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/frontpage/faq/disability.html (last modified
May 17, 2023) [hereinafter Disability Discrimination FAQs].
31 Disability Discrimination FAQs, supra note 30 (“All public colleges and universities are covered by Section 504 and
Title II. Virtually all private colleges and universities are also covered by Section 504 because they receive federal
financial assistance by participating in federal student aid programs.”). As Section 504 coverage follows federal
funding, regardless of the type of program being funded, it can also apply to vocational education programs and
education programs housed in non-educational settings (such as prisons or hospitals). See, e.g., Bennett v. Hurley Med.
Ctr., 86 F.4th 314, 324 (6th Cir. 2023) (applying Section 504 to nursing student’s claims against hospital); Powers v.
MJB Acquisition Corp., 184 F.3d 1147 (10th Cir. 1999) (applying Section 504 to vocational school); Harris v. Thigpen,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

4

link to page 35 link to page 31 link to page 31 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Under Section 504, covered entities must refrain from taking adverse actions on the basis of a
person’s disability, such as refusing students with disabilities equal access to educational
programs.32 They must also grant reasonable accommodations when necessary to afford students
with disabilities “meaningful access” to educational programs.33 Section 504 is not a grant
program and does not provide funding for serving people with disabilities, although schools may
have their federal funding revoked if they engage in disability discrimination.34
Section 504 affects a significant number of students. In the 2017–2018 school year, ED reported
that nearly 1.4 million public school students received some sort of service or accommodation
solely under Section 504.35 While ED does not report the number of students receiving Section
504 services at the postsecondary level, in the 2015–2016 school year, approximately 19.5% of
undergraduates and 12.0% of post-baccalaureate students reported having a disability (although
the survey tool did not use Section 504’s definition of disability).36
ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has a primary role in enforcing Section 504 in the education
context. ED has developed extensive Section 504 regulations, some of which apply generally and
some specific to different levels of education or public versus private schools.37 As discussed
further below, these regulations reflect the influence of the IDEA and give significant detail to
Section 504’s short, general statutory language prohibiting disability discrimination. Where this
report discusses Section 504 requirements, those requirements are often found in ED’s regulations
rather than in the text of the act itself.

941 F.2d 1495, 1522 & n.14 (11th Cir. 1991) (holding that Section 504 applies to prisoner claims related to access to
educational programming).
32 See infra “Disparate Treatment.”
33 See Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985); infra “Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and
Auxiliary Aids and Services.”
34 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (cross-referencing the remedies available under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title
VI), which includes procedures for revoking federal funding from entities engaging in racial discrimination, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d-1).
35 Civ. Rights Data Collection, Off. for Civ. Rights, 2017–18 State and National Tables, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC.,
https://civilrightsdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018 (last updated Mar. 11, 2024) (click on “Tables for Enrollment,”
then click “Section 504 Enrollment” to access table entitled, “Number and Percentage of Public School Students with
Disabilities Served Solely Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Overall and by Race/Ethnicity, and
Those Who Are English Language Learners, by State: School Year 2017–18”).
36 U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., 2015–16 NATIONAL POSTSECONDARY STUDENT AID STUDY:
STUDENT FINANCIAL AID ESTIMATES FOR 2015–16 (NPSAS:16), at 18 (2018), https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/
2018466.pdf; see also DATALAB, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., https://nces.ed.gov/datalab/index.aspx. Estimate
obtained by CRS through the National Center for Education Statistics DATALAB based on student self-reporting on
surveys administered through the NPSAS. NPSAS:16 changed the wording of disability-related questions from prior
NPSAS administrations, resulting in an increase in reported disabilities. In NPSAS:16, students were instructed to
indicate if they had a long-lasting condition such as serious difficulty hearing; blindness or serious difficulty seeing;
serious difficulty walking or climbing; or difficulty concentrating, remembering, or making decisions (examples of
these conditions were added to the interview and students were instructed to include, for example, attention deficit
disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, depression, or a serious learning disability).
37 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.1–104.23 (2023) (general regulations); id. §§ 104.31–104.38 (covering public preschool,
elementary, and secondary education); id. § 104.39 (covering private preschool, elementary, and secondary education);
id. §§ 104.41–104.47 (covering postsecondary education).
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
The ADA38 has been described as “the most sweeping anti-discrimination measure since the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.”39 Its purpose is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for
the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”40 “To effectuate its
sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids discrimination against individuals with disabilities in major
areas of public life.”41 Most relevant to the education context, Title II of the ADA prohibits any
“public entity,” including public schools and universities, from discriminating on the basis of
disability.42 Title III forbids disability discrimination by “public accommodations,”43 a category
that includes private schools and universities44 but exempts religious organizations.45 As many
private primary and secondary schools are religious,46 the ADA often does not apply to P–12
private school students.
Congress modeled Title II after Section 504.47 Courts usually interpret the substantive
requirements of Title II and Title III similarly48 and the requirements of Section 504 and the ADA
similarly.49 Like Section 504, the ADA is not a grant program and does not fund services for
people with disabilities.
ED’s OCR shares enforcement authority with the Department of Justice (DOJ) over Title II of the
ADA in the public education context.50 Only DOJ enforces Title III.51

38 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.
39 Opinion, A Law for Every American, N.Y. TIMES (July 27, 1990), https://www.nytimes.com/1990/07/27/opinion/a-
law-for-every-american.html.
40 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).
41 PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675 (2001).
42 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12132; Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 159 (2017).
43 42 U.S.C. § 12182.
44 Id. § 12181(7)(J) (listing among covered “public accommodation[s]” a “nursery, elementary, secondary,
undergraduate, or postgraduate private school, or other place of education”). As it applies to a “place of education,” id.,
the ADA also generally applies to vocational education programs and education programs housed in non-educational
settings.
45 Id. § 12187 (exempting “religious organizations or entities controlled by religious organizations, including places of
worship”); see, e.g., Marshall v. Sisters of Holy Family of Nazareth, 399 F. Supp. 2d 597, 605–06 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
(holding that the ADA does not apply to a Catholic school).
46 Private School Universe Survey: Table 2. Number and Percentage Distribution of Private Schools, Students, and
Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) Teachers, by Religious or Nonsectarian Orientation of School: United States, 2019–20,
NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/pss/tables/TABLE02fl1920.asp (last visited Mar. 7, 2024).
47 E.g., Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2000); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 166 F.3d
1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 1999).
48 E.g., K.N. v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334, 353 n.17 (D.N.J. 2019).
49 Courts have generally construed “the rights and remedies under both [Section 504 and the ADA to be] the same,” so
that “case law interpreting one statute can be applied to the other.” Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272, 287–
88 (5th Cir. 2005); accord, e.g., Durand v. Fairview Health Servs., 902 F.3d 836, 841 (8th Cir. 2018); Lacy v. Cook
Cnty., 897 F.3d 847, 852 n.1 (7th Cir. 2018) (stating that “because Title II was modeled after section 504, the elements
of claims under the two provisions are nearly identical” (citation omitted)); Jakubowski v. Christ Hosp., Inc., 627 F.3d
195, 201 (6th Cir. 2010).
50 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(2) (2023); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 40.
51 28 C.F.R. § 36.502. For more information on the ADA, see CRS In Focus IF12227, The Americans with Disabilities
Act: A Brief Overview, by Abigail A. Graber (2022).
Congressional Research Service

6

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities: Key Takeaways
•
The IDEA is a grant program that funds services for students with disabilities and entitles them to a FAPE.
•
Section 504 and the ADA are general nondiscrimination laws protecting people from disability-based
discrimination and requiring reasonable accommodations. Section 504 and the ADA are usually interpreted
congruently.
•
The IDEA applies to all public P–12 schools. Section 504 applies to all schools that take federal funding
(including federal student aid), which includes all public schools (P–12 and postsecondary) and many private
schools (including most private postsecondary schools). The ADA applies to all public schools (Title II) and all
nonparochial private schools (P–12 and postsecondary) (Title III).
Defining “Disability”
The IDEA’s Categorical, Education-Centered Definition of
“Disability”
The IDEA’s definition of disability has two components. First, the IDEA definition of disability is
categorical. It identifies a covered “child with a disability” as any “child”52 having at least one
condition falling into one or more of 13 enumerated categories.53 ED’s implementing regulations
broadly define each IDEA disability category.54 States have adopted their own clarifying
definitions, although these definitions cannot exclude children otherwise eligible for services
under the IDEA.55 One category that encompasses a particularly diverse array of conditions is
“other health impairments,”56 which the statute does not define. ED defines this term in its

52 Even though the IDEA refers to all covered individuals as “children,” the act applies to some legal adults. See 20
U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(A) (requiring recipient states to provide a FAPE to “all children with disabilities residing [there]
between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive”). In keeping with the statutory terminology, this report at times refers to
covered individuals as “children.”
53 E.M. ex rel. E.M. v. Pajaro Valley Unified Sch. Dist. Off. of Admin. Hearings, 758 F.3d 1162, 1175 (9th Cir. 2014)
(“A ‘child with a disability’ may seek to qualify for special education benefits under more than one of the categories
listed in 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i).”); Pohorecki v. Anthony Wayne Loc. Sch. Dist., 637 F. Supp. 2d 547, 557 (N.D.
Ohio 2009) (“Only children with certain qualifying disabilities are eligible for IDEA’s benefits.”). The statute lists 10
categories of covered disabilities. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(i) (defining a “child with a disability” as one who has
“intellectual disabilities, hearing impairments (including deafness), speech or language impairments, visual
impairments (including blindness), serious emotional disturbance . . . , orthopedic impairments, autism, traumatic brain
injury, other health impairments, or specific learning disabilities”). The implementing regulations break the category of
“hearing impairments” into three separate categories (deafness, deaf-blindness, and hearing impairment) and add a
category for “multiple disabilities,” bringing the total number to 13. 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(1)–(13) (2023). At their
discretion, state and local educational agencies may also define “child with a disability” to include children ages 3
through 9 experiencing certain developmental delays. 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(B).
54 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(1)–(13).
55 See U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. of Spec. Educ. & Rehab. Serv., Opinion Letter on Eligibility Document Requirements
Under IDEA Part B 1 (Jan. 7, 2002), https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/idea/policy/speced/guid/idea/letters/2002-1/
redact010702eligibility.pdf (acknowledging that states may adopt their own definitions of IDEA terms but may not
“implement” those definitions to exclude eligible children). Policy letters are not legally binding. 20 U.S.C. § 1406(e).
At least one commentator argues that states should not have the power to define terms in federal law and claims that
states have adopted certain definitions of disability that are more restrictive than the IDEA allows. Mark C. Weber, The
IDEA Eligibility Mess, 57 BUFF. L. REV. 83, 117 (2009). But see Robert A. Garda, Jr., Who Is Eligible Under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act?, 35 J.L. & EDUC. 291, 299–301 (2006) (supporting reference
to state standards to determine meaning of certain undefined terms in the IDEA).
56 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A).
Congressional Research Service

7

link to page 10 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

regulations57 and lists a number of disorders that may qualify under it.58 States take different
approaches to implementing this disability category. Delaware, for instance, outlines detailed
criteria for determining whether children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder have an
“other health impairment.”59 Other states impose no criteria beyond those found in ED’s IDEA
regulations.60
The regulatory definition of each disability category (except for specific learning disabilities,
which includes, e.g., dyslexia) includes the requirement that the disability “adversely affects a
child’s educational performance.”61 Disabilities that do not interfere with a student’s education do
not qualify the student for IDEA services. The IDEA does not set a clear threshold for how
significantly a student’s disability must interfere with his or her education. Several states have
elaborated on the adverse effect requirement.62
Additionally, to be eligible under the IDEA, a student must “need[] special education and related
services” because of his or her disability.63 When regular classroom instruction or interventions
other than special education can adequately overcome the adverse effects of a child’s disability,
courts may find the child ineligible for IDEA services.64 There is no definition of when a student

57 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(9) (defining an “other health impairment” as a condition of “limited strength, vitality, or
alertness, including a heightened alertness to environmental stimuli, that results in limited alertness with respect to the
educational environment, that . . . is due to chronic or acute health problems . . . and adversely affects a child’s
educational performance”).
58 Id. (listing as examples such conditions “as asthma, attention deficit disorder or attention deficit hyperactivity
disorder, diabetes, epilepsy, a heart condition, hemophilia, lead poisoning, leukemia, nephritis, rheumatic fever, sickle
cell anemia, and Tourette syndrome”).
59 14 DEL. ADMIN. CODE §§ 925.6.14.1–925.6.14.5 (2024).
60 See, e.g., 8 VA. ADMIN. CODE § 20-81-80(S) (2010) (providing that “a child has an other health impairment” if the
alleged impairment satisfies ED’s definition and “there is an adverse effect on the child’s educational performance due
to one or more documented characteristics of the other health impairment”).
61 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c). One commentator states that the adverse effect requirement is “implied” for specific learning
disabilities. Weber, supra note 55, at 103.
62 See, e.g., 707 Ky. Admin. Regs. § 1:002(2) (Mar. 2023); 05-071-101; ME. CODE R. § II(3) (LexisNexis 2023); 22-
006 VT. CODE R. § 2362(d) (2024); see also J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet Sch. Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 66 (2d Cir. 2000)
(“Neither the IDEA nor the federal regulations define the terms ‘need special education’ or ‘adverse effect on
educational performance,’ leaving it to each State to give substance to these terms.”).
63 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(a)(1); see, e.g., Miller v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schs. Bd. of Educ.,
No. 320CV00493MOCDCK, 2021 WL 3561226, at *3 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2021) (“Under the IDEA, the phrase ‘child
with a disability’ is a misnomer because the IDEA defines a ‘child with a disability’ as a child who has been diagnosed
with a qualifying disability and requires special education and related services as a result of the disability. Thus, the
diagnosed disability by itself is not sufficient for a child to be a ‘child with a disability’ under the IDEA.” (citations
omitted)).
64 See, e.g., L.J. by & through Hudson v. Pittsburg Unified Sch. Dist., 850 F.3d 996, 1003–06 (9th Cir. 2017); Alvin
Indep. Sch. Dist. v. A.D. ex rel. Patricia F., 503 F.3d 378, 384 (5th Cir. 2007); T.W. by K.J. v. Leander Indep. Sch.
Dist., No. AU-17-CA-00627-SS, 2019 WL 1102380, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2019); Molly L. v. Lower Merion Sch.
Dist., 194 F. Supp. 2d 422, 427 n.3 (E.D. Pa. 2002). One commentator criticizes courts for “presuming that a disability
that adversely affects educational performance requires remediation through special education,” when many such
disabilities require accommodations other than “special education.” Robert A. Garda, Jr., Untangling Eligibility
Requirements Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 69 MO. L. REV. 441, 489 (2004); see, e.g.,
McIntyre v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 976 F.3d 902, 914 (9th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing between special education, which
must be “specially designed instruction,” and other accommodations, such as “provid[ing] an alternative, quiet location
to take exams,” and “provid[ing] extra time to complete exams” (quoting 20 U.S.C. § 1401(29)). Another commentator
observes that general education and special education “increasingly overlap[],” contributing to the development of
“unprincipled and unpredictable” IDEA eligibility standards in litigation. Perry A. Zirkel, Through a Glass Darkly:
Eligibility Under the IDEA—The Blurry Boundary of the Special Education Need Prong, 49 J.L. & EDUC. 149, 166–67
(2020).
Congressional Research Service

8

link to page 10 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 11 link to page 6 link to page 11 link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

“needs” services.65 School districts must make that determination by “draw[ing] upon information
from a variety of sources, including aptitude and achievement tests, parent input, and teacher
recommendations, as well as information about the child’s physical condition, social or cultural
background, and adaptive behavior.”66 Some decisionmakers appear less likely to find eligibility
when children already perform well in school, while others focus more on whether a child could
benefit from special education regardless of his or her current academic performance.67
Only if students meet both the categorical and educational criteria will they be eligible to receive
special education services.
Section 504 and the ADA’s Cross-Contextual Definition of
“Disability”
Section 504 and the ADA draw on a common definition of “disability.”68 Under both laws, an
“individual with a disability” includes “any person who (i) has a physical or mental impairment
which substantially limits one or more major life activities, (ii) has a record of such an
impairment, or (iii) is regarded as having such an impairment.”69 In some ways, this definition is
broader than the definition of disability under the IDEA.70 As the ADA and Section 504 are
designed to prohibit discrimination and improve accessibility in society generally, their definition
of disability, unlike the IDEA’s, is not restricted to conditions that impact educational progress.71
An “impairment” that affects any “major life activity” can qualify, and major life activities are
broadly defined.72 For example, basic activities like seeing, hearing, walking, bending,
communicating, and thinking; and the function of body systems, such as the immune system,
endocrine system, or neurological function, are “major life activities.”73 The conditions covered
by Section 504 and the ADA are also not confined to those fitting within particular categories as
they are under the IDEA.
The ADA and Section 504 protect people from discrimination when they have a history of
disability or are assumed to be disabled, even when they have no present impairment.74 Thus, for

65 B.C. v. Mount Vernon Sch. Dist., 837 F.3d 152, 159 & n.8 (2d Cir. 2016) (comparing the IDEA to the ADA and
Section 504, which require a disability to be “substantially limiting”); Weber, supra note 55, at 120; Garda, Untangling
Eligibility Requirements, supra note 64, at 491–92.
66 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(c)(1)(i); see Alvin, 503 F.3d at 383.
67 See Zirkel, supra note 64, at 165–66; Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note 64, at 493–507. Under
ED’s regulations, a student may be IDEA-eligible even if he or she “has not failed or been retained in a course or grade,
and is advancing from grade to grade.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.101(c)(1).
68 42 U.S.C. § 12102 (ADA definition of disability); 29 U.S.C. § 705(9)(B), (20)(B) (incorporating the ADA’s
definition in Section 504).
69 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
70 See CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2014).
71 See, e.g., M.D. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 539 F. Supp. 3d 380, 396 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (observing that Section 504’s
“protections are broader than those under the IDEA with the intent of rooting out disability-based discrimination
against people of all ages, not just students”); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 5 (“School staff
should note, in particular, that a student may have a disability and be eligible for Section 504 services even if his or her
disability does not limit the major life activity of learning.”); Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note
64, at 487 (“Section 504’s coverage is broader than IDEA’s because it does not consider the child’s need for special
education.”).
72 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
73 Id.
74 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(B); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 7–8. Covered entities need not offer
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

9

link to page 6 link to page 11 link to page 12 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

example, the ADA and Section 504 may require a school to accommodate a child’s absences to
attend medical appointments following up on a disabling condition that is cured or in remission.75
A school can also violate the ADA and Section 504 by discriminating against a student on the
basis of a perceived disability.76 For example, a school might offer a student inferior academic
opportunities because it erroneously perceived the student to have an intellectual disability.77 The
IDEA does not cover students who do not, in fact, have any present disability.78
Many courts assume that Section 504 and the ADA cover any child who is eligible for IDEA
services.79 On the other hand, some courts view the ADA and Section 504 as narrower than the
IDEA in at least one respect: the requirement that a disability be “substantially limiting.”80
Congress clarified through the ADA Amendments Act that courts hearing Section 504 and ADA
claims should construe “disability” as broadly as possible and that it did not intend for the
“substantially limiting” requirement to significantly raise the bar.81 Nevertheless, some courts
continue to emphasize that individuals may qualify for coverage under the IDEA without
qualifying under the ADA and Section 504, because IDEA-eligible students need not have a
“‘substantially limiting’ impairment.”82
Even the courts that interpret the ADA and Section 504 to define disability more narrowly than
the IDEA does tend to expect that most students who qualify for services under the IDEA will

reasonable modifications to people who are only “regarded as” disabled, when they do not, in fact, have a disability. 28
C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(ii) (2023) (ADA Title II regulation); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(g) (ADA Title III regulation).
75 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. C §§ 35.108(e), 36.105(e).
76 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C).
77 See Ga. State Conf. of Branches of NAACP v. Georgia, 775 F.2d 1403, 1427 (11th Cir. 1985) (acknowledging that
Section 504 allows students to bring claims that they have been misclassified as intellectually disabled).
78 See Muller v. Comm. on Special Educ. of E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 100 n.2 (2d Cir. 1998); Ga.
State Conf. of Branches of NAACP, 775 F.2d at 1427 n.39.
79 E.g., Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Sch., 936 F.3d 16, 25 n.12 (1st Cir. 2019); D.L. ex rel. K.L. v. Balt. Bd. of Sch.
Comm’rs, 706 F.3d 256, 260 (4th Cir. 2013); Kimble v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181
(D. Colo. 2013); K.M. ex rel. D.G. v. Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 358 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). ED also
appears to take this position. OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 9, 42.
80 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
81 Id. § 12102(4)(A); see id. § 12102(4)(B) (“The term ‘substantially limits’ shall be interpreted consistently with the
findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008.”). The findings and purposes of the ADA Amendments
Act of 2008 expressed Congress’s view that the Supreme Court had adopted too narrow an interpretation of
“substantially limits” and “narrowed the broad scope of protection intended to be afforded by the ADA.” ADA
Amendments Act of 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-325, § 2(a)(5), (7), 122 Stat. 3553. Under the current DOJ ADA
regulations, “[a]n impairment is a disability . . . if it substantially limits the ability of an individual to perform a major
life activity as compared to most people in the general population. An impairment does not need to prevent, or
significantly or severely restrict, the individual from performing a major life activity in order to be considered
substantially limiting.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.108(d)(1)(v) (ADA Title II regulation); accord 28 C.F.R. § 36.105(d)(1)(v)
(ADA Title III regulation).
82 Ellenberg v. N.M. Mil. Inst., 572 F.3d 815, 821 (10th Cir. 2009) (alterations omitted); accord B.C. v. Mount Vernon
Sch. Dist., 837 F.3d 152, 159 (2d Cir. 2016); Mann v. La. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 535 F. App’x 405, 411 (5th Cir.
2013); A.W. ex rel. H.W. v. Middletown Area Sch. Dist., No. 1:13-CV-2379, 2015 WL 390864, at *15 (M.D. Pa. Jan.
28, 2015). In practice, many decisionmakers appear to interpret the IDEA to require impairments to substantially limit
students’ learning: “There is general agreement among decision-makers that failing children need special education and
children performing average to above average do not . . . . Many courts and hearing officers . . . require a child to fail in
regular education before a need for special education exists.” Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note
64, at 504. But see, e.g., Corchado v. Bd. of Educ. Rochester City Sch. Dist., 86 F. Supp. 2d 168, 176 (W.D.N.Y. 2000)
(holding that a child with an average school performance can still be eligible for IDEA services); supra note 67 and
accompanying text.
Congressional Research Service

10

link to page 29 link to page 7 link to page 15 link to page 29 link to page 7 link to page 7 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

also be covered by the ADA and Section 504.83 The reverse is not always true: children who are
protected under the ADA and Section 504 may not qualify for IDEA services.84
Defining Disability: Key Takeaways
•
The IDEA applies to students who fall within at least one of 13 disability categories and who need special
education services as a result of their disabilities.
•
Section 504 and the ADA apply to students with a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a
major life activity, regardless of whether the disability affects educational progress.
•
Section 504 and the ADA protect students with a history of disability or who are perceived to be disabled.
The IDEA does not protect students with no disability.
•
Students protected by the IDEA are likely to be covered by Section 504 and the ADA. The reverse is less
likely to be true.
The Rights of Students with Disabilities
States that accept IDEA funding—which is all of them—must make FAPE available to all eligible
children with disabilities throughout their preschool, elementary, and secondary schooling.85
Children in private schools do not have all of the same IDEA rights as children in public schools,
although they are still eligible for some IDEA services and protections.86 The IDEA does not
extend to students with disabilities in college or other postsecondary education and training
programs.87
Section 504 applies to any educational program that receives federal funding, and the ADA
applies to all public and nonparochial private schools.88 As under the IDEA, some of Section 504
and the ADA’s rules are different for public versus private schools.89 Section 504 and the ADA do
protect students in many, if not most, higher education programs.90
The following sections of this report identify key provisions regarding how educators determine
eligibility for services under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA, and what services and rights
each law guarantees in different educational environments.

83 B.C., 837 F.3d at 159; Mann, 535 F. App’x at 411; Ellenberg, 572 F.3d at 821, 823.
84 See Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Sch., 936 F.3d 16, 25 n.12 (1st Cir. 2019); Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch.
Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 991 (5th Cir. 2014). Among the most common disabilities experienced by students receiving
services exclusively under Section 504 are attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, diabetes, asthma, and dyslexia.
Rachel A. Holler & Perry A. Zirkel, Section 504 and Public Schools: A National Survey Concerning ‘Section 504-
Only’ Students, 92 NASSP BULL. 19, 28 (Mar. 2008).
85 See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1).
86 See infra “FAPE in Private Schools.”
87 See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) (limiting a FAPE to “an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school
education”).
88 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
89 See infra “Identification” and “FAPE in Private Schools.”
90 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” and note 31.
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Identification and Evaluation of Children with Disabilities
Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Education
Identification
Each state receiving IDEA funds must implement policies and procedures to identify, locate, and
evaluate all children residing in the state who may have a qualifying disability.91 ED’s regulations
require LEAs to identify and evaluate children attending private schools within their jurisdictions
even if those children live outside the state.92 These policies and procedures—known as “Child
Find”93—cover all children ages 3 through 21 until they graduate high school, including, for
example, children who are homeless, wards of the state, or highly mobile (such as migrant
children).94 The IDEA’s Child Find obligations apply to children attending both public and private
schools, including parochial schools.95 As a practical matter, LEAs have the most direct role in
the administration of the IDEA at the school level and generally ensure states’ (and their own)
Child Find duties are met.96 An LEA’s duty to provide an IDEA evaluation is triggered when
school officials have reason to suspect that a child has a disability requiring special education
services.97
The regulations implementing Section 504 in public elementary and secondary schools impose
similar duties. They require covered school districts “to identify and locate every qualified
handicapped person residing in the recipient’s jurisdiction who is not receiving a public
education.”98 Courts generally interpret this provision to impose on schools an “affirmative duty
to identify, locate, and evaluate all children with disabilities in order to ensure that they receive a
FAPE.”99 As under the IDEA, a school should initiate a Section 504 evaluation when it has reason
to believe a child may be eligible for Section 504 services.100
The Section 504 regulations do not require private elementary and secondary schools to
proactively identify and evaluate students with disabilities,101 nor does the ADA contain such a
requirement for any covered entity, private or public. Outside of cases applying Section 504 to P–
12 public schools, courts ordinarily require a person with a disability (or a child’s parent) to make

91 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111 (2023); see, e.g., J.M. v. Summit City Bd. of Educ., 39 F.4th 126, 137–
38 (3d Cir. 2022) (describing school districts’ identification and evaluation responsibilities).
92 34 C.F.R. § 300.131(f).
93 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3).
94 Id. § 1412(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111.
95 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.131.
96 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b) (instructing LEAs on how to evaluate students for IDEA eligibility).
97 E.g., D.T. by & through Yasiris T. v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5, 55 F.4th 1268, 1274 (10th Cir. 2022); Leigh
Ann H. v. Riesel Indep. Sch. Dist., 18 F.4th 788, 796 n.6 (5th Cir. 2021); see, e.g., Timothy O. v. Paso Robles Unified
Sch. Dist., 822 F.3d 1105, 1119–20 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The IDEA requires that, if a school district has notice that a child
has displayed symptoms of a covered disability, it must assess that child in all areas of that disability using the
thorough and reliable procedures specified in the Act.”).
98 34 C.F.R. § 104.32(a).
99 Kimble v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181 (D. Colo. 2013); see, e.g., Culley v.
Cumberland Valley Sch. Dist., 758 F. App’x 301, 305–06 (3d Cir. 2018); B.H. v. Portage Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., No.
1:08-CV-293, 2009 WL 277051, at *6 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 2, 2009).
100 W.B. v. Matula, 67 F.3d 484, 500–01 (3d Cir. 1995), abrogated on other grounds by A.W. v. Jersey City Pub. Sch.,
486 F.3d 791 (3d Cir. 2007); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 12, 18.
101 See 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a) (limiting the Child Find requirement to “a recipient that operates a public elementary or
secondary education program or activity”); id. § 104.39 (Section 504 regulation governing private schools).
Congressional Research Service

12

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

a request for an accommodation to trigger a covered entity’s Section 504 or ADA obligations.102
However, under both the ADA and Section 504, all covered entities must provide
accommodations when a person’s need for an accommodation is “obvious,” even absent a
request.103 Accommodations are discussed in further detail below.
Evaluations
An LEA must evaluate a child it suspects has a disability before providing special education and
related services under the IDEA or Section 504.104 The IDEA and Section 504 evaluation
requirements are similar, but not identical. ED indicates that schools may comply with Section
504 by following the IDEA’s evaluation protocols.105 The ADA does not require schools to
conduct disability evaluations.
Under the IDEA, either a child’s parent or an LEA, SEA, or other state agency may request an
initial evaluation.106 In general, the LEA must first obtain informed consent from a child’s
parent.107 (Parental consent to an evaluation does not imply consent to special education and
related services—parents must consent separately to services.)108 Schools must seek parental
consent “within a reasonable time” after their Child Find obligations are triggered, i.e., after the
school has reason to believe the child has a disability.109 The initial evaluation must take place
within 60 days of parental consent or within an alternative time frame established by the state.110
In addition, at the time of the referral or parental request for evaluation, the LEA must provide the
parent with a “Procedural Safeguards Notice,” which is a comprehensive written explanation of
the IDEA’s legal rights and protections for children with disabilities and their parents.111

102 E.g., J.V. v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 813 F.3d 1289, 1299 (10th Cir. 2016); Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health
Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 465 (4th Cir. 2012); Forbes v. St. Thomas Univ., Inc., 768 F. Supp. 2d 1222, 1231 (S.D. Fla.
2010); see P.P. v. Compton Unified Sch. Dist., 135 F. Supp. 3d 1098, 1115 (C.D. Cal. 2015) (collecting cases requiring
notice but observing that “the Ninth Circuit has yet to mandate this notice requirement in the context of ADA lawsuits
against education institutions”).
103 E.g., J.V., 813 F.3d at 1299; Doe v. Tex. A&M Univ., No. CV H-21-3728, 2022 WL 5250294, at *10 (S.D. Tex.
Oct. 6, 2022).
104 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.35(a), 300.301(a).
105 Off. for Civ. Rights, Protecting Students with Disabilities: Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504 and the
Education of Children with Disabilities Qs.18–19, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/
504faq.html (last modified July 18, 2023) [hereinafter Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504].
106 20 U.S.C. §1414(a)(1)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.301(b). The IDEA defines a parent to include a legal guardian (other
than the state) and “an individual acting in the place of a natural or adoptive parent (including a grandparent,
stepparent, or other relative) with whom the child lives, or an individual who is legally responsible for the child’s
welfare.” 20 U.S.C. § 1401(23). Where this report refers to “parents,” it adopts the IDEA’s definition. The LEA may
refuse the parent’s request for an initial evaluation if it does not suspect that the child has a disability. The parent may
challenge such a refusal through an administrative hearing. See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1415; 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.507–
300.508.
107 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(i)(I). As defined in ED’s regulations, “consent” means, in part, that “the parent has been fully
informed of all information relevant to the activity for which consent is sought, in his or her native language, or other
mode of communication.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.9. For further requirements regarding parental consent, see 34 C.F.R.
§ 300.300.
108 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (ii)(II).
109 Spring Branch Indep. Sch. Dist. v. O.W. by Hannah W., 961 F.3d 781, 791 (5th Cir. 2020); accord D.T. by &
through Yasiris T. v. Cherry Creek Sch. Dist. No. 5, 55 F.4th 1268, 1274 (10th Cir. 2022); J.M. v. Summit City Bd. of
Educ., 39 F.4th 126, 137 (3d Cir. 2022).
110 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(C)(i)(I).
111 See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d).
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 16 link to page 11 link to page 16 link to page 6 link to page 16 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

ED’s Section 504 regulations also require public schools to undertake an evaluation before
determining a child with a disability’s placement in regular or special education, although schools
may be able to provide other kinds of accommodations prior to an evaluation.112 Private schools
receiving federal funds that choose to provide special education services must also follow Section
504’s evaluation procedures.113 Neither Section 504 nor the implementing regulations explicitly
call for parental consent to an evaluation or for an evaluation to take place within a specific
period of time. ED’s OCR nevertheless interprets Section 504 to require LEAs to obtain parental
consent to an initial evaluation.114 A school district can violate Section 504 by unreasonably
delaying an evaluation and accommodations.115
Under both Section 504 and the IDEA, a parent’s refusal to consent to an evaluation may not be
the final word. An LEA may initiate a due process hearing to seek permission to evaluate a child
in the face of parental opposition, unless state law provides otherwise.116
In conducting an initial evaluation under the IDEA or Section 504, LEAs must use valid and
reliable assessment tools tailored to assess a child’s “specific areas of educational need.”117 The
IDEA emphasizes that schools should assess a child “in all areas of suspected disability.”118 Both
laws emphasize the importance of considering a variety of assessments and sources of
information.119 Schools must ensure that their evaluations validly measure a child’s abilities and
needs and that the evaluations are culturally sensitive.120 Both Section 504 and the IDEA require

112 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(a); see Spring Branch, 961 F.3d at 794 (“Though compliance with § 504 does not absolve a
school district of its duty to comply with the IDEA, we do recognize that there may be cases where intermediate
measures are reasonably implemented before resorting to evaluation.”); Zamora v. Hays Consol. Indep. Sch. Dist., No.
1:19-CV-1087-SH, 2021 WL 2531011, at *10 (W.D. Tex. June 20, 2021) (recognizing that schools may “pursue[]
§ 504 accommodations before pursuing a special education evaluation”); Frequently Asked Questions About Section
504, supra note 105, at Q.30 (indicating that “school districts may always use regular education intervention strategies
to assist students with difficulties in school” but that schools must refer students for an evaluation for special education
or “modification to regular education”). Distinguishing between special education and other kinds of accommodations
may be difficult. See supra note 64.
113 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c).
114 Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 105, at Qs.26, 42.
115 See B.M. ex rel. Miller v. S. Callaway R-II Sch. Dist., 732 F.3d 882, 888 (8th Cir. 2013); S.L.-M. ex rel. Liedtke v.
Dieringer Sch. Dist. No. 343, 614 F. Supp. 2d 1152, 1161 (W.D. Wash. 2008); cf., e.g., Keith-Foust v. N.C. Cent.
Univ., No. 1:15CV470, 2016 WL 4256952, at *10 (M.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2016) (delaying accommodations can violate
Section 504 in the university context); Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 115, 153–54 (D. Mass. 1997)
(same). Under Section 504, “OCR generally looks to the IDEA timeline, or if applicable, to State requirements or local
district policy to assess the reasonableness of the time it takes the school to evaluate the student once parental consent
has been obtained.” OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 17.
116 Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 105, at Q.26; see 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(a)(3)(i) (allowing
a public school district to “utiliz[e] the procedural safeguards” of the IDEA regulations to “pursue the initial evaluation
of a child” “enrolled in public school or seeking to be enrolled in public school” absent parental consent). Schools may
not seek to override parental refusals to conduct an evaluation when the parents refuse IDEA services and seek to
privately educate their children at the parents’ expense. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(d)(4); Fitzgerald v. Camdenton R-III Sch.
Dist., 439 F.3d 773, 776–77 (8th Cir. 2006); Durkee v. Livonia Cent. Sch. Dist., 487 F. Supp. 2d 313, 317 (W.D.N.Y.
2007).
117 34 C.F.R. § 300.304(c)(2); accord id. § 104.35(b)(2); see generally 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)–(c) (evaluation
requirements under the IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)–(c) (evaluation requirements under Section 504).
118 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B).
119 Id. § 1414(b)(2)(A); see id. § 1414(c) (requiring school officials conducting an initial IDEA evaluation to also
“review existing evaluation data on the child” from multiple sources “if appropriate”); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c)(1)–(2).
120 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(i)–(v) (IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(1), (c) (Section 504).
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

school officials to administer evaluations in a way that measures what the tests purport to
measure, not a student’s disability (e.g., the student’s impaired sight, hearing, or speech).121
After completing an evaluation under the IDEA, the LEA should consult qualified professionals
and the child’s parents to determine whether the child is a “child with a disability” under the act
and, if so, what his or her educational needs are.122 Section 504, by contrast, does not expressly
require that a child’s parents participate in decisions about placement and services, although OCR
“urges schools” to involve parents in such decisions.123 Section 504 instead provides only that
placement decisions be made “by a group of persons, including those knowledgeable about the
child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options.”124 ED does mandate that
LEAs give notice to parents and an opportunity for them to contest their child’s Section 504
eligibility determination and services plan.125
Reevaluations
Under the IDEA, an LEA must conduct a reevaluation if a child’s teacher or parent makes a
request or if the LEA determines that a child warrants reevaluation.126 For example, a
reevaluation might be warranted if a child’s performance in school significantly improves,
suggesting that he or she no longer requires special education and related services, or if a child is
not making appropriate progress, suggesting that he or she needs different services. Reevaluations
may take place no more than once per year and no less than once every three years unless the
parents and LEA agree otherwise.127 In general, parents must consent to reevaluations.128 Before
any such reevaluation, an LEA may not change a child’s eligibility for IDEA services, unless the
child graduates from high school with a regular diploma or ages out of IDEA coverage.129
The briefer Section 504 regulations require LEAs to establish procedures consistent with their
evaluation procedures for “periodic” reevaluations of students receiving Section 504 services.130
Reevaluation procedures consistent with the IDEA satisfy this obligation.131
Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations
The IDEA does not apply after high school,132 and neither Section 504 nor the ADA require
postsecondary institutions to affirmatively identify or evaluate students with disabilities.133 As

121 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(3) (Section 504); accord id. § 300.304(c)(3) (IDEA).
122 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(A).
123 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 19.
124 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c).
125 Id. § 104.36.
126 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a).
127 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b).
128 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c).
129 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.305(e).
130 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(d).
131 Id.
132 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5)(B)(i) (indicating that graduation from high school terminates a child’s IDEA eligibility).
133 Pierre v. Univ. of Dayton, 143 F. Supp. 3d 703, 709 (S.D. Ohio 2015); see Shaikh v. Lincoln Mem’l Univ., 608 F.
App’x 349, 353 (6th Cir. 2015); OFF. OF SPEC. EDUC. & REHABILITATIVE SERVS., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., A TRANSITION
GUIDE TO POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES 25 (2020)
[hereinafter TRANSITION GUIDE], https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/postsecondary-transition-guide-august-2020.pdf; Off. for
Civ. Rights, Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education: Know Your Rights and
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 15 link to page 18 link to page 18 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

indicated above, in most contexts outside of P–12 public schools, a person’s request for an
accommodation ordinarily triggers a covered entity’s ADA and Section 504 obligations.134
Regulations say little about how IHEs may confirm eligibility.135 Few courts have addressed the
subject. The existing case law suggests that if a student requests modifications, accommodations,
or auxiliary aids or services (addressed in more detail below),136 IHEs may (but do not have to)
request that the student provide “reasonable” documentation of his or her disability and need for
the requested accommodations or services.137 IHEs set their own documentation requirements,
and some commentators observe that students may have trouble securing the necessary
paperwork.138 For example, IHEs may request that students with dyslexia or other learning
disabilities provide psychoeducational testing that is no more than three years old establishing
their disability. A full psychoeducational battery of tests can take weeks to administer and cost
thousands of dollars. Students have successfully challenged triennial evaluation requirements in
court, as well as requirements that they be regularly reevaluated even when their disabilities are
permanent and they have sufficient (but not recent) proof of their disability status.139
IHEs and professional organizations have prepared their own informal guidance for disability
support services staff, professors, and anyone else responsible for confirming a student’s
disability and need for accommodations.140 Guidance for IHEs from the Association on Higher
Education and Disability emphasizes that documentation requirements should be “non-
burdensome,” that a variety of forms of documentation (including self-reports and past Section
504 or IDEA evaluations) may reliably support a student’s eligibility, and that, when required,
“[d]isability documentation should be current and relevant but not necessarily ‘recent.’”141

Responsibilities, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/transition.html (last revised Jan. 10,
2020) [hereinafter Preparing for Postsecondary Education].
134 See supra “Identification.”
135 See 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(4) (Section 504 regulation allowing IHEs to make post-admission, confidential inquiries
as to a person’s need for a disability accommodation); 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(iv) (2023) (ADA Title III regulation
allowing “reasonable” documentation requests for accommodations for exams). The ADA regulations restrict the
documentation that schools can request when people with disabilities seek to use service dogs, wheelchairs, or power-
driven mobility devices. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.136(f), 35.137(c), 36.302(c)(6), 36.311(c).
136 Auxiliary aids and services allow a person with a disability to communicate effectively. They can include everything
from screen reading software or braille materials for blind people to interpreters or real-time computer-aided
transcriptions for Deaf people, or any other technology or service that facilitates effective communication. See 34
C.F.R. § 104.44(d) (ED Section 504 regulation); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (ADA Title II regulation); id. § 36.303(b) (ADA
Title III regulation).
137 Vinson v. Thomas, 288 F.3d 1145, 1153 (9th Cir. 2002) (“A public agency may require reasonable evidence of a
disability before providing accommodations. . . . A public agency may not, however, insist on data supporting a claim
of disability beyond that which would satisfy a reasonable expert in the field.”); Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 974 F.
Supp. 106, 135 (D. Mass. 1997) (“The ADA permits a university to require a student requesting a reasonable
accommodation to provide current documentation from a qualified professional concerning his learning disability. . . .
Nevertheless, a university cannot impose upon such individuals documentation criteria that unnecessarily screen out or
tend to screen out the truly disabled.”); TRANSITION GUIDE, supra note 133, at 25–26; Preparing for Postsecondary
Education, supra note 133.
138 Debi Gartland & Roberta Strosnider, Considerations for Transition from High School to Postsecondary Education,
46 LEARNING DISABILITY Q. 230, 234–35 (2023).
139 See Guckenberger, 974 F. Supp. at 135–36 (concluding that a private university’s “requirement mandating retesting
for students with learning disabilities [every three years] screened out or tended to screen out the learning disabled
within the meaning of the federal law,” violating the ADA).
140 See Supporting Accommodation Requests: Guidance on Documentation Practices, ASS’N ON HIGHER EDUC. &
DISABILITY (2012), https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/accommodations/documentation.
141 Id.
Congressional Research Service

16

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Identification and Evaluation of Children with Disabilities: Key Takeaways
•
State and local educational agencies must timely identify and evaluate all children with disabilities residing or
attending private schools in their jurisdictions for IDEA eligibility and services.
•
Section 504 regulations impose similar “Child Find” obligations on P–12 public schools.
•
The ADA does not require schools to proactively identify and evaluate children with disabilities.
•
Private and postsecondary schools do not have an affirmative obligation to identify and evaluate children with
disabilities under any law. Section 504 and the ADA require them to respond to requests for
accommodations and to offer accommodations when a student’s need is obvious.
Placement
P–12 Education
Public School P–12 Placement
The IDEA and Section 504 set forth similar considerations for determining an appropriate
placement for a child with a disability. Placement refers to both the school the child attends (e.g.,
public or private) and the classrooms, programs, or educational environments the child is in
within that school. Perhaps most significantly, both the IDEA and Section 504 require that
schools educate children with disabilities in the regular educational environment to the maximum
extent appropriate to students’ needs.142 In other words, schools are to educate students with
disabilities alongside children without disabilities, and schools are not to place them in separate
schools or classes or remove them from the regular classroom unless “education in regular classes
with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily.”143 In IDEA
terminology, schools must provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).144 Both
Section 504 and the IDEA also require schools to avoid unnecessarily separating children with
disabilities from their peers in nonacademic settings, such as lunch, recess, and extracurricular
activities.145 Section 504’s rules requiring the integration of students with disabilities apply to
covered public and private schools alike.146
Related to the LRE requirement, schools must implement a student’s accommodations, special
education, and/or related services in all of the student’s classes as appropriate, whether they are

142 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5) (IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.34 (2023) (Section 504).
143 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); accord 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.34(a), 300.114(a), 300.116(a)(2), (e); see, e.g., T.M. ex rel.
A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 161 (2d Cir. 2014); Off. for Civ. Rights, Free Appropriate Public
Education for Students with Disabilities: Requirements Under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, U.S.
DEP’T OF EDUC., http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/edlite-FAPE504.html (last revised July 2023)
[hereinafter FAPE Requirements Under Section 504] (“It is illegal to base individual placement decisions on
presumptions and stereotypes regarding persons with disabilities or on classes of such persons. For example, it would
be a violation of the law for a recipient to adopt a policy that every student who is hearing impaired, regardless of the
severity of the child’s disability, must be placed in a state school for the deaf.”).
144 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.114, 300.116. Section 504 does not use the term LRE, but the
requirements are similar. 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a).
145 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.34(b), 300.117; see also id. § 104.37(a)(1), (c) (Section 504 regulation requiring that students with
disabilities have an equal opportunity to participate in extracurricular activities, including integrated athletics); see
generally U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. for Civ. Rights, Dear Colleague Letter on Students with Disabilities in
Extracurricular Activities (Jan. 25, 2013) [hereinafter DCL re Extracurriculars], https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ocr/letters/colleague-201301-504.pdf (reviewing schools’ Section 504 obligations regarding extracurricular activities).
146 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c) (requiring covered private schools to comply with 34 C.F.R. § 104.34).
Congressional Research Service

17

link to page 31 link to page 31 link to page 22 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

special education classes, regular education classes, or accelerated classes.147 Schools cannot
refuse to provide needed services and modifications in the general education environment.148 For
example, denying students with disabilities access to accelerated programs such as Advanced
Placement and International Baccalaureate classes solely because of students’ need for special
education or related aids and services violates Section 504 and the IDEA.149 Schools must also
provide “supplementary aids and services” and “reasonable accommodations” to ensure that
children with disabilities can participate in nonacademic activities with their peers who do not
have disabilities.150
The IDEA and Section 504 contemplate that some children with disabilities may not receive all of
their education in the regular classroom. Under the IDEA, LEAs must maintain “a continuum of
alternative placements.”151 This range includes regular classroom instruction, with the provision
of supplementary services when appropriate, as well as “special classes, special schools, home
instruction, and instruction in hospitals and institutions.”152 A school district is to educate an
IDEA-eligible child in the placement along this “continuum” that is the LRE “that is consonant
with his or her needs.”153
In contrast to the IDEA’s focus on ensuring an appropriate placement for each child with a
disability, Section 504’s main concern is to ensure that schools do not discriminate against
children with disabilities when making placement decisions.154 Section 504 does not require that
schools maintain a continuum of placement options. It requires instead that, when a child with a
disability does need to attend a facility specifically for children with disabilities, the LEA ensures
that the facility and the services and activities it provides are “comparable to the LEA’s other
facilities, services, and activities.”155
The IDEA is somewhat more specific than Section 504 as to how LEAs should make placement
decisions. For example, the IDEA regulations require that a placement decision for a child with a
disability be determined at least annually; be based on the child’s IEP; and be made by a group of
people, including the child’s parents, who are knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the

147 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5)(A) (contemplating that schools will provide “supplementary aids and services” in “regular
classes”); 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.34(a), 300.114(a)(2)(ii) (same).
148 34 C.F.R. § 300.116(e) (“Public agenc[ies] must ensure that . . . a child with a disability is not removed from
education in age-appropriate regular classrooms solely because of needed modifications in the general education
curriculum.”); see, e.g., T.M., 752 F.3d at 161–62.
149 U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. for Civ. Rights, Dear Colleague Letter on Access by Students with Disabilities to
Accelerated Programs (Dec. 26, 2007) [hereinafter DCL re Accelerated Programs], http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/
list/ocr/letters/colleague-20071226.html.
150 34 C.F.R. § 300.117; see id. § 104.37(a) (requiring schools covered by Section 504 to “provide non-academic and
extracurricular services and activities in such manner as is necessary to afford handicapped students an equal
opportunity for participation in such services and activities”); infra “Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and
Auxiliary Aids and Services.”
151 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a).
152 Id. § 300.115(b). A school district need not operate the full “continuum” of placements itself; it can meet its
obligations by providing for “free public placements at educational programs operated by other entities, including other
public agencies or private schools.” T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752 F.3d 145, 1615–66 (2d Cir.
2014); see infra “Private School P–12 Placement” (discussing placements in private schools).
153 T.M., 752 F.3d at 161; see, e.g., Falmouth Sch. Dep’t v. Doe ex rel. Doe, 44 F.4th 23, 29 (1st Cir. 2022) (stating that
schools must “strike[] an appropriate balance between the restrictiveness of the placement and educational progress”
(citation omitted)).
154 See, e.g., Durbrow v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 887 F.3d 1182, 1190 (11th Cir. 2018); Est. of Lance v. Lewisville
Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 990 (5th Cir. 2014); CG v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 734 F.3d 229, 234 (3d Cir. 2013);
Ellenberg v. N.M. Mil. Inst., 572 F.3d 815, 821–22 (10th Cir. 2009).
155 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(c).
Congressional Research Service

18

link to page 21 link to page 20 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

evaluation data, and the placement options.156 In comparison, Section 504 does not require
placement decisions to be determined at any particular interval, nor does it require those decisions
be based on a written plan like an IEP. ED’s Section 504 regulation has a requirement similar to
the IDEA’s outlining who should make placement decisions, but it omits that the parents must be
involved.157
The ADA’s requirements align with Section 504’s, although they are less specific.158 While
neither the ADA nor its regulations speak specifically to educational placement decisions, the
ADA forbids the unnecessary segregation of people with disabilities from their peers: schools
should serve people with disabilities “in the most integrated setting appropriate to the[ir]
needs”159 and may not provide separate services unless necessary.160
Private School P–12 Placement
An LEA can place a child in private school, at the LEA’s expense (and with parental consent161),
in order to meet its IDEA obligations.162 Parents may enroll their children in private schools at an
LEA’s expense, even without the LEA’s consent, if an LEA does not provide a FAPE to an
eligible child in a public school setting.163 Parents must meet certain procedural requirements
before enrolling their children in private schools if they seek full reimbursement from LEAs.164
Courts have wide leeway to determine appropriate reimbursement levels.165 For example, a court
may reduce reimbursement if it determines that parents chose an unreasonably expensive
placement in light of the available options,166 or if a parent seeks reimbursement for elements of a
private education (such as residential boarding or expensive extracurricular activities) that are
unnecessary in light of the student’s educational needs.167 Parents who unilaterally enroll their

156 Id. § 300.116(a)–(b).
157 ED’s Section 504 regulations speak in more general terms about how a school should determine the placement of an
eligible child with a disability. 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c) (requiring a recipient to “(1) draw upon information from a
variety of sources, . . . (2) establish procedures to ensure that information obtained from all such sources is documented
and carefully considered, (3) ensure that the placement decision is made by a group of persons, including persons
knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options, and (4) ensure that the
placement decision” allows the child, “to the maximum extent appropriate,” to receive his or her education alongside
children without disabilities).
158 See, e.g., DCL re Accelerated Programs, supra note 149 (“Title II provides no lesser protections than does Section
504.”); DCL re Extracurriculars, supra note 145, at 2 n.3 (“Violations of Section 504 that result from school districts’
failure to meet the obligations identified in this letter also constitute violations of Title II.”).
159 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B); accord 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(d), 36.203(a) (2023).
160 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(iv), 36.202(c).
161 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b).
162 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(B); see, e.g., Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist. v. S.W., 21 F.4th 1125, 1138 n.5 (9th Cir.
2021).
163 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c); Forest Grove Sch. Dist. v. T.A., 557 U.S. 230, 241–43, 247
(2009); Sch. Comm. of Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369 (1985). Parents are entitled to
reimbursement only if the private placement is “appropriate.” 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(c); see, e.g., Florence Cnty. Sch.
Dist. Four v. Carter By & Through Carter, 510 U.S. 7, 15 (1993); T.M. ex rel. A.M. v. Cornwall Cent. Sch. Dist., 752
F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir. 2014); Mr. I. ex rel. L.I. v. Me. Sch. Admin. Dist. No. 55, 480 F.3d 1, 23–25 (1st Cir. 2007).
164 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)–(iv); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)–(e).
165 Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 16 (quoting Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369).
166 Id. (“Total reimbursement will not be appropriate if the court determines that the cost of the private education was
unreasonable.”); accord, e.g., Doe v. Newton Pub. Sch., 48 F.4th 42, 59 (1st Cir. 2022); Leggett v. District of
Columbia, 793 F.3d 59, 63, 66–67, 70, 73 (D.C. Cir. 2015).
167 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 (stating that the IDEA may require a residential placement at public expense only when a
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

19

link to page 20 link to page 19 link to page 23 link to page 18 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

students in private schools are not entitled to reimbursement if their LEA made a FAPE available
in a public school setting.168
Whether parents can demand private placements at public expense under Section 504 or the ADA
is unsettled. The Section 504 regulations and ED guidance strongly suggest that they can if school
districts cannot meet an eligible child’s needs.169 Courts, on the other hand, have reached different
conclusions. Some courts rely on the Section 504 regulations and their similarity to the IDEA to
conclude that Section 504, and sometimes the ADA, can mandate private school placement or
tuition reimbursement in certain circumstances.170 Other courts disagree, holding that private
school placement is a fundamental alteration of a school district’s services, or that it unduly
burdens school district finances, and is therefore beyond what Section 504 and the ADA
require.171 More information on the fundamental alteration and undue burden limitations on
school districts’ Section 504 and ADA obligations is provided below.
Postsecondary Education: Transition and Admissions
The IDEA requires IEPs to include postsecondary transition goals and services beginning no later
than when students are 16 years old.172 Transition goals and services must be individualized and
may differ depending on a student’s goals, whether they be continuing education, employment,
independent living, or something else.173 For a student planning to pursue postsecondary
education, transition services could include helping the student select colleges to apply to;
complete applications; obtain accommodations, such as extended time on standardized college
placement tests; practice self-advocacy skills; or any other services that would help the student
prepare for postsecondary life, education, or employment.174 No matter what IDEA transition

“residential program is necessary to provide special education and related services to a child with a disability”); see,
e.g., Leggett, 793 F.3d at 71 (“The school system may, on remand, seek to demonstrate that specific components of the
placement, such as extracurricular activities or the horseback riding to which DCPS so vociferously objects, were not
primarily oriented toward educating K.E. and were therefore not necessary under the Act.” (citations omitted));
Ashland Sch. Dist. v. Parents of Student R.J., 588 F.3d 1004, 1009–10 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying reimbursement for
residential placement when the placement was “a response to medical, social, or emotional problems quite apart from
the learning process” (citation and alteration omitted)).
168 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(a); Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374.
169 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(2)–(4); FAPE Requirements Under Section 504, supra note 143 (“If a student is placed in a
private school because a school district cannot provide an appropriate program, the financial obligations for this
placement are the responsibility of the school district.”).
170 E.g., Hannah L. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., No. CIV.A. 12-4595, 2014 WL 3709980, at *7 n.5 (E.D. Pa. July
25, 2014), aff’d sub nom. H.L. v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist., 624 F. App’x 64 (3d Cir. 2015); Lauren G. ex rel.
Scott G. v. W. Chester Area Sch. Dist., 906 F. Supp. 2d 375, 390–91 (E.D. Pa. 2012); Molly L. ex rel. B.L. v. Lower
Merion Sch. Dist., 194 F. Supp. 2d 422, 429 n.5 (E.D. Pa. 2002); Borough of Palmyra, Bd. of Educ. v. F.C. Through
R.C., 2 F. Supp. 2d 637, 642–43 (D.N.J. 1998); see also Freeman v. Cavazos, 939 F.2d 1527, 1532 (11th Cir. 1991)
(declining to hold that Section 504 can never require a school district to fund a residential placement but determining
that whether such a placement was required in the case before it depended on undeveloped facts).
171 Colin K. by John K. v. Schmidt, 715 F.2d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1983); Ibata v. Bd. of Educ. of Edwardsville Cmty. Sch.
Dist. #7, No. CV 06-173-GPM, 2008 WL 11508975, at *5 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2008); see also Janet G. v. Haw., Dep’t of
Educ., 410 F. Supp. 2d 958, 967 (D. Haw. 2005) (interpreting the Section 504 regulations to not require private school
placement).
172 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A)(i)(VIII); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320(b). Many states require transition planning to start earlier.
Mariya T. Davis & Yewon Lee, Journey into Adulthood: Understanding the Changing Landscape of Transition
Planning, 96 CLEARING HOUSE 137, 139 (2023).
173 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.43(a)(2) (requiring transition services to be “based on the individual child’s needs, taking into
account” various personal factors).
174 See, e.g., Gartland & Strosnider, supra note 138, at 233, 236; Davis & Lee, supra note 172, at 140–41; TRANSITION
GUIDE, supra note 133, at 23–26.
Congressional Research Service

20

link to page 18 link to page 36 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

services students with disabilities receive in high school, those services will end once they exit
the P–12 public school system.
Section 504 and the ADA do not require transition services.175 Rather, they protect students
applying to postsecondary institutions from discrimination in recruitment and admissions policies
and procedures, including with regard to specific academic programs or courses of study.176 IHEs
must grant students with disabilities reasonable accommodations, including potential waivers
from certain admissions requirements; however, they are not required to waive the “essential
eligibility requirements” for their programs, including the academic standards.177
IHEs may have to modify their admissions policies to avoid disparate impacts on people with
disabilities, although the law in this area has become unsettled. The current ADA and Section 504
regulations prohibit IHEs from adopting admissions policies or criteria, including tests, that
“screen out or tend to screen out,” or “ha[ve] a disproportionate, adverse effect on,” applicants
with disabilities, unless such policies are necessary to achieve the IHE’s goals and no option with
a lesser adverse impact is available.178 Whether ED has properly interpreted Section 504 to allow
for disparate impact liability is a subject of debate in the courts, discussed further below.179
The ADA also requires private entities offering educational, professional, or trade examinations
or courses to provide accessible services.180 These rules apply to entities like the College Board,
ACT, Inc., and others that offer tests used in undergraduate and graduate admissions.181 Testing
providers must provide reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids and services.182
Admissions and other tests must be designed so that they measure the skills the tests purport to
measure, not students’ disabilities.183

175 While Section 504 does not entitle students with disabilities to transition services (unless schools provide those
services to all students), other parts of the Rehabilitation Act governing programs administered by state vocational
rehabilitation agencies authorize and fund transition services. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 723(a)(15), (b)(7), 730(d), 733;
TRANSITION GUIDE, supra note 133, at 12–16. Vocational rehabilitation services are beyond the scope of this report. For
more information on this subject, see CRS Report R43855, Rehabilitation Act: Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants,
by Benjamin Collins (2014).
176 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.42, 104.43(c); see, e.g., Power v. Univ. of N.D. Sch. of L., 954 F.3d 1047, 1052 (8th Cir. 2020)
(analyzing ADA claims regarding law school admissions); Sjostrand v. Ohio State Univ., 750 F.3d 596, 599, 602 (6th
Cir. 2014) (analyzing ADA and Section 504 claims regarding graduate program admissions).
177 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (2023) (defining “qualified individual with a disability” as “an individual with a disability
who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices . . . meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity”); id.
§§ 35.130(b)(7)(i), 36.302(a) (requiring reasonable modifications so long as they do not fundamentally alter program
requirements); 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a) (similar); id. pt. 104 app. A (explaining that individuals are “qualified” for
postsecondary programs when they meet both the academic program standards and “all nonacademic admissions
criteria that are essential to participation in the program in question”); Se. Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 412–13
& n.12 (1979); Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 462 & n.3, 464 (4th Cir. 2012).
178 See 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(8), 36.301(a); 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(2); see 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(4)(i) (prohibiting
entities covered by Section 504 from “utiliz[ing] criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting
qualified handicapped persons to discrimination on the basis of handicap”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3) (similar ADA
Title II regulation); id. § 36.204 (similar ADA Title III regulation). ED specifically requires that IHEs covered by
Section 504 use only admissions tests and criteria that have “been validated as a predictor of success in the education
program or activity in question.” 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(2)(i).
179 See infra “Disparate Impact.”
180 42 U.S.C. § 12189; 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(a).
181 See, e.g., Valles v. ACT, Inc., No. 4:22-CV-00568, 2022 WL 2789900, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2022); Rumbin v.
Ass’n of Am. Med. Colleges, 803 F. Supp. 2d 83, 92 (D. Conn. 2011).
182 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b).
183 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(1)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(3)(i).
Congressional Research Service

21

link to page 9 link to page 20 link to page 18 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Placement: Key Takeaways
•
The IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA all require P–12 schools to serve students with disabilities in integrated
environments to the maximum extent appropriate to students’ needs.
•
The IDEA requires LEAs to maintain a continuum of placement options to ensure they can provide a FAPE to
students with a variety of disability-related needs. Section 504 and the ADA require only that placement
decisions be nondiscriminatory.
•
The IDEA may require LEAs to pay for private placements. Whether Section 504 or the ADA impose similar
obligations is unsettled.
•
Only the IDEA requires schools to engage in transition planning for students with disabilities. Only Section
504 and the ADA require nondiscriminatory admissions programs to postsecondary schools.
Services for Students with Disabilities
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE)
The IDEA’s “core guarantee” is that public schools will provide eligible students with a FAPE.184
ED interprets Section 504 to also require federally funded P–12 public schools to provide a
FAPE.185 The ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions are largely not education specific,186 and
none mention the concept of a FAPE. Nevertheless, reflecting the general rule that the ADA and
Section 504 should be interpreted congruently,187 some (but not all) courts have held, and ED
agrees, that the ADA requires schools to meet the same FAPE requirements as Section 504.188
None of these laws extend the right to a FAPE to postsecondary education programs.189
While in practice these three laws may entitle students to similar services,190 the concept of a
FAPE under the IDEA is different from that under Section 504 and the ADA. The distinctions
reflect a basic difference in statutory design: “the IDEA guarantees individually tailored

184 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 158 (2017).
185 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a).
186 The exceptions are 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181(7)(J), 12189, and 12201(f); and 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.151(f), 36.309, and
36.406(e).
187 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.103(a) (providing that Title II of the ADA “shall not be construed to apply a lesser standard than
the standards applied under” Section 504); supra note 49 and accompanying text.
188 A. ex rel. A. v. Hartford Bd. of Educ., 976 F. Supp. 2d 164, 190, 194 (D. Conn. 2013); see ARC of Iowa v.
Reynolds, 559 F. Supp. 3d 861, 875 (S.D. Iowa 2021); J.M. by & Through Mata v. Tenn. Dep’t of Educ., 358 F. Supp.
3d 736, 750 (M.D. Tenn. 2018); Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Post, 262 F. Supp. 3d 178, 199 (E.D. Pa. 2017); FAPE
Requirements Under Section 504, supra note 143, at n.1 (“The requirements regarding the provisions of a free
appropriate public education (FAPE), specifically described in the Section 504 regulations, are incorporated in the
general non-discrimination provisions of the Title II regulation.”). But see K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch.
Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 1099 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Title II does not impose any FAPE requirement.”).
189 See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) (2023) (limiting a FAPE to “an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary
school education”); 34 C.F.R. § 104.33 (requiring a FAPE only from a “recipient that operates a public elementary
school or secondary education program or activity”); Preparing for Postsecondary Education, supra note 133. Under
the IDEA, states must provide a FAPE to children ages 3 through 5 and 18 through 21, unless providing FAPE to
children in those age ranges is inconsistent with State law or practice. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B). According to
information provided to CRS by the U.S. Department of Education Budget Service, in 2024, 20 states provided
children with disabilities a FAPE until the age of 21. The remaining states ended their provision of a FAPE once
students reached either 18, 19, or 20 years old.
190 See, e.g., Durbrow v. Cobb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 887 F.3d 1182, 1190 (11th Cir. 2018) (“The same misconduct
committed by a school district may warrant relief under the IDEA, § 504, or the ADA.”); Ridgewood Bd. of Educ. v.
N.E. ex rel. M.E., 172 F.3d 238, 253 (3d Cir. 1999) (“We have held that there are few differences, if any, between
IDEA’s affirmative duty and § 504’s negative prohibition . . . .”).
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 16 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

educational services, while Title II [of the ADA] and [Section] 504 promise nondiscriminatory
access to public institutions.”191 The following sections review the differences between the IDEA
and Section 504 and ADA FAPE requirements.
FAPE Requirements Under the IDEA
Part B of the IDEA requires every state receiving IDEA funds to offer a FAPE to each child with
a disability living in the state.192 The IEP, a written document specifying the particular services
that an LEA will provide, is the “primary vehicle” for making sure children with disabilities
receive a FAPE.193 The IDEA details with considerable specificity the persons who must be
involved when developing an IEP (the IEP team), the process the IEP team should follow, and the
information an IEP must include.194 At a basic level, an IEP details the child’s present academic
and functional performance, establishes goals for the child and how educators will measure
progress, and describes the child’s placement and services.195 Parents must be included on the IEP
team and must consent to IDEA services.196 Unlike with evaluations, LEAs may not seek to
override parental refusals to consent to the initial provision of IDEA services.197
What a FAPE entails, and what it demands of a school district, varies from student to student.
Fundamentally, a FAPE consists of “special education and related services.”198 “Special
education” is “specially designed instruction” that “meets the unique needs of a child with a
disability.”199 It may include instruction conducted in both academic and nonacademic settings,
including in the classroom, in the home, or in hospitals or institutions, as well as instruction in
physical education.200 “Related services” are “supportive services . . . required to assist a child
with a disability to benefit from special education.”201 Nursing services during the school day for

191 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017).
192 Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200, 181 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414. The IDEA does provide some age-
related exceptions to its otherwise blanket requirement that schools provide a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(1)(1)(B); 34
C.F.R. § 300.102.
193 Fry, 580 U.S. at 158 (quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988)); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d).
194 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d), (f); see, e.g., Endrew F. ex rel. Joseph F. v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 580 U.S. 386, 391
(2017) (summarizing requirements).
195 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(A); see, e.g., Fry, 580 U.S. at 158–59; J.N. next friend of M.N. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of
Educ., 12 F.4th 1355, 1362 (11th Cir. 2021).
196 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (ii)(II)–(III), (d)(1)(B)(i).
197 Id. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II)–(III); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(3); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra
note 105, at Q.44. Whether an LEA can seek to override parental refusals to consent to changes in IDEA services is
unclear. ED’s regulations prohibit an LEA from initiating a due process hearing if a parent revokes consent for IDEA
services in writing. 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(4)(ii); see also Durkee v. Livonia Cent. Sch. Dist., 487 F. Supp. 2d 313,
316 (W.D.N.Y. 2007) (“The Act explicitly recognizes that a parent or guardian is free to refuse any publicly-funded
special education services offered by the district.”). However, without citing this regulation, at least one court has
interpreted the IDEA to prohibit LEAs only from challenging parental refusals to consent to the initial provision of
IDEA services and to allow LEAs to initiate due process hearings to challenge parental refusals to consent to specific
services. I.R. ex rel. E.N. v. L.A. Unified Sch. Dist., 805 F.3d 1164, 1168 (9th Cir. 2015). The court relied in part on a
provision of the IDEA requiring LEAs and SEAs to maintain procedures that allow “any party” to file a due process
complaint “with respect to any matter relating to the . . . educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free
appropriate public education to such child.” 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A).
198 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9).
199 Id. § 1401(29).
200 Id. For more information on special education and related services, see CRS Report R41833, The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B: Key Statutory and Regulatory Provisions, by Kyrie E. Dragoo (2019).
201 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A).
Congressional Research Service

23

link to page 27 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

a student who relies on a ventilator, for example, may be a related service.202 Related services can
include transportation, speech-language pathology and audiology services, interpreting services,
psychological services, physical and occupational therapy, recreation, social work services,
counseling services, and school nurse services, among other things.203 Schools must provide
related services only when a child also requires special education.204 A child who needs disability-
related services but no specialized instruction may be eligible for a Section 504 plan, discussed
below, but not an IEP.
A school district successfully provides a FAPE only when it satisfies the IDEA’s “checklist” of
requirements: that special education and related services are “provided at public expense and
under public supervision, meet the State’s educational standards, approximate the grade levels
used in the State’s regular education, and comport with the child’s IEP.”205 Beyond that, the IDEA
does not define the quality of education owed to students with disabilities.206 That ambiguity has
provoked one of the most commonly litigated questions under the act: What is an “appropriate”
public education?207
In two decisions, Board of Education v. Rowley208 and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School
District,209 the Supreme Court rejected arguments both that the FAPE requirement was “merely
aspirational,” imposing no enforceable substantive standards,210 and that the IDEA required
schools to “achieve strict equality of opportunity or services” between children with and without
disabilities.211 Instead, it charted a middle course: to provide a FAPE, a school must “offer an IEP
reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s
circumstances.”212 Children must receive more than minimal educational benefits, but the precise
contours of a FAPE depend on the child’s individual circumstances.213 The Court expects that for
most children in regular classrooms, IDEA services designed to enable the children to pass their
classes and advance from grade to grade provide a FAPE.214 When regular advancement through
the curriculum is not possible, an IEP must still be “appropriately ambitious” and allow the child
“the chance to meet challenging objectives.”215 Courts judge an IEP by its design, not by its
effect—the fact that a child has not met grade-level expectations, for example, does not

202 See Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) (holding that nursing services for a ventilator-
dependent student during school hours were a “related service”).
203 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26).
204 Irving Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Tatro, 468 U.S. 883, 894 (1984); see Jefferson Cnty. Sch. Dist. R-1 v. Elizabeth E. ex rel.
Roxanne B., 702 F.3d 1227, 1236 (10th Cir. 2012).
205 Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.
206 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 189 (“Noticeably absent from the language of the statute is any substantive standard prescribing
the level of education to be accorded handicapped children.”); T.R. v. Sch. Dist. of Phila., 4 F.4th 179, 183 (3d Cir.
2021); see DEREK W. BLACK, EDUCATION LAW: EQUALITY, FAIRNESS, AND REFORM 467 (3d ed. 2021) (describing the
term “appropriate” as among the “most ambiguous” in the IDEA).
207 BLACK, supra note 206, at 467 (stating that this question continues to be “heavily litigated”).
208 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
209 580 U.S. 386 (2017).
210 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 393.
211 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 187–88, 198–99.
212 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399.
213 Id. at 397–99, 402–04.
214 Id. at 401 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203–04). The Court cautioned that this is not an “inflexible rule,” even for
children integrated into regular classrooms: it “declined to . . . hold . . . that ‘every handicapped child who is advancing
from grade to grade . . . is automatically receiving a [FAPE].’” Id. at 402 n.2 (quoting Rowley, 458 U.S. at 203 n.25).
215 Id. at 402.
Congressional Research Service

24

link to page 25 link to page 6 link to page 20 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

automatically mean a school district has failed to provide a FAPE.216 The Supreme Court also
expects judges to give at least some deference to the expertise of school authorities.217 The
standard “is whether the IEP is reasonable, not whether the court regards it as ideal.”218
FAPE Requirements Under Section 504 and the ADA
As discussed, there are no specific ADA statutory or regulatory provisions regarding a FAPE; ED
and courts (to the extent they hold the ADA requires a FAPE) apply ED’s Section 504
regulations.219 This section therefore refers to the Section 504 standards without separate
discussion of the ADA.
ED’s Section 504 regulations do not tell schools how to develop a plan for providing Section 504
services, or even require such information to be written down. As a practical matter, many
schools do develop such documents, known colloquially as Section 504 plans.220 While the IDEA
specifies the members who must be invited to participate in a child’s IEP team, including the
child’s parents,221 no similar requirement appears in Section 504 or its regulations.222 While the
IDEA specifies that an IEP must contain certain information, including but not limited to
information about the child’s academic level, goals, and how his or her progress will be
measured,223 neither Section 504 nor the regulations require any specific content in a Section 504
plan.224
As under the IDEA, Section 504 requires schools to provide a FAPE free of cost (except for the
same fees imposed on students without disabilities), although schools can use private and public
funds.225 Rather than institute a substantive standard for a FAPE under Section 504, ED defines
an “appropriate education” comparatively: an “appropriate education” is “the provision of regular
or special education and related aids and services that are designed to meet individual educational
needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of nonhandicapped persons are met.”226
Section 504 services are not intrinsically connected to a student’s need for “special education”—a

216 See Crofts v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 22 F.4th 1048, 1057 (9th Cir. 2022); see also, e.g., D.O. By & Through
Walker v. Escondido Union Sch. Dist., 59 F.4th 394, 416 (9th Cir. 2023) (stating that the quality of an IEP is not
judged in hindsight); Roland M. v. Concord Sch. Comm., 910 F.2d 983, 992 (1st Cir. 1990) (same).
217 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404.
218 Id. at 399; see, e.g., Crofts, 22 F.4th at 1056–57; Leigh Ann H. v. Riesel Indep. Sch. Dist., 18 F.4th 788, 799 (5th
Cir. 2021).
219 See supra note 188 and accompanying text.
220 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 10.
221 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B).
222 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c) (2023). Section 504 requires “that the placement decision is made by a group of persons,
including persons knowledgeable about the child, the meaning of the evaluation data, and the placement options,” but
does not require that certain people (e.g., parents or the classroom teacher) always be included in that group. Id.
§ 104.35(c)(3).
223 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320.
224 See generally 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.32–104.39.
225 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(1).
226 Id. § 104.33(b)(1); see, e.g., Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 933 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[U]nlike FAPE under the
IDEA, FAPE under § 504 is defined to require a comparison between the manner in which the needs of disabled and
non-disabled children are met.”); Kimble v. Douglas Cnty. Sch. Dist. RE-1, 925 F. Supp. 2d 1176, 1181–82 (D. Colo.
2013) (same); Torrence v. District of Columbia, 669 F. Supp. 2d 68, 71–72 (D.D.C. 2009) (same); FAPE Requirements
Under Section 504, supra note 143 (“The quality of education services provided to students with disabilities must equal
the quality of services provided to nondisabled students.”).
Congressional Research Service

25

link to page 16 link to page 20 link to page 34 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Section 504 FAPE can be accomplished with “regular” education.227 In addition, to provide a
FAPE under Section 504, a school district must follow Section 504’s requirements regarding
integrated placements and evaluation procedures, discussed above, and its due process
procedures, discussed below.228
A number of courts have held that a school district that provides a student with a FAPE in
accordance with the IDEA also satisfies Section 504’s FAPE requirement,229 while a Section 504
FAPE may not always satisfy the IDEA’s demands.230 However, courts do not agree on whether
the denial of a FAPE under the IDEA also necessarily violates Section 504. Some courts hold that
a valid claim under the IDEA will “almost always” support one under Section 504.231 Even in
those jurisdictions, however, judges usually hold that plaintiffs may receive damages under
Section 504 for the denial of a FAPE only when they prove some form of intent—at least
“deliberate indifference.”232 (Remedies under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA are discussed
in further detail below.) Other courts go further, holding that plaintiffs must show intent—often
characterized as “bad faith,” “gross misjudgment,” or “animus”—to make out any Section 504
claim for the denial of educational services, regardless of the remedy sought.233
FAPE in Private Schools
Because the IDEA is designed to improve the education of all children with qualifying
disabilities, the act provides some benefits and services to eligible children enrolled in private
schools.234 However, not all qualifying students with disabilities in private schools are entitled to
the full panoply of IDEA services, and the IDEA makes no demands of private schools directly—

227 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 105, at Q.4; see FAPE
Requirements Under Section 504, supra note 143 (defining an “appropriate education”).
228 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1)(ii).
229 Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 992–93 (5th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases).
230 Muller on Behalf of Muller v. Comm. on Special Educ. of E. Islip Union Free Sch. Dist., 145 F.3d 95, 105 & n.9 (2d
Cir. 1998); Kimble, 925 F. Supp. 2d at 1182.
231 See, e.g., Andrew M. v. Del. Cnty. Off. of Mental Health & Mental Retardation, 490 F.3d 337, 350 (3d Cir. 2007)
(reasoning that “when a state fails to provide a disabled child with a free appropriate public education” in violation of
the IDEA, “it also violates [Section 504] because it is denying a disabled child a guaranteed education merely because
of the child’s disability”); M.D. v. Colonial Sch. Dist., 539 F. Supp. 3d 380, 397–98 (E.D. Pa. 2021) (“In most
circumstances, establishing a denial of a FAPE suffices to establish a § 504 claim.”). The reverse, however, need not be
true: a violation of Section 504 or the ADA need not implicate the IDEA at all. See Fry, 580 U.S. at 171 (observing that
“the statutory differences [between the IDEA and Section 504] mean that a complaint brought under Title II [of the
ADA] and [Section] 504 might instead seek relief for simple discrimination, irrespective of the IDEA’s FAPE
obligation”). For more information on protections under Section 504 that are unavailable under the IDEA, see infra
“Other Protections.”
232 See S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248, 263 (3d Cir. 2013); Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513
F.3d 922, 939 (9th Cir. 2008). But see I.L. through Taylor v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 257 F. Supp. 3d 946, 965–69
(E.D. Tenn. 2017) (holding that plaintiffs were not required to prove intent to seek either damages or injunctive relief
for the denial of a FAPE under Section 504 or Title II), aff’d on other grounds sub nom. I.L. by & through Taylor v.
Tenn. Dep’t of Educ., 739 F. App’x 319 (6th Cir. 2018).
233 E.g., C.L. v. Scarsdale Union Free Sch. Dist., 744 F.3d 826, 841 (2d Cir. 2014) (requiring “bad faith or gross
misjudgment”); B.M. ex rel. Miller v. S. Callaway R-II Sch. Dist., 732 F.3d 882, 887 (8th Cir. 2013) (same); D.B. ex
rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 40 (1st Cir. 2012) (requiring “disability-based animus”); Sellers v. Sch. Bd.,
141 F.3d 524, 528–29 (4th Cir. 1998) (requiring “bad faith or gross misjudgment”); see also, e.g., T.H. as next friend
T.B. v. DeKalb Cnty. Sch. Dist., 564 F. Supp. 3d 1349, 1361 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (requiring at least “deliberate
indifference”).
234 See generally 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.129–300.144 (2023); U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., THE
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION ACT: PROVISIONS RELATED TO CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES ENROLLED BY
THEIR PARENTS IN PRIVATE SCHOOLS (2011), https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/privateschools/idea.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

26

link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

the public LEA and SEA remain responsible for fulfilling obligations to privately educated
students.235
Students referred to or placed in private schools by their LEAs must receive IEPs and have the
same rights they would have if they were attending public school, including the right to a
FAPE.236 Students placed by their parents in private schools (parentally placed children), on the
other hand, are not entitled to a FAPE.237 Instead, the IDEA requires LEAs to engage in
“meaningful consultation” with representatives of private schools and parents to determine,
among other things, the services the LEA will provide.238 When an LEA determines that a
parentally placed child should receive special education and related services, it coordinates with
the private school to develop a “services plan” that meets the requirements of an IEP “to the
extent appropriate.”239 Public employees, or contractors under “public supervision and control,”
should provide the designated services, which must be “secular, neutral, and nonideological.”240
The IDEA does not guarantee that every parentally placed child with an IDEA-eligible disability
will receive IDEA services.241
The Section 504 regulations addressing students with disabilities in private schools are spare. As
under the IDEA, they do not guarantee a FAPE to all private school students with disabilities.
Instead, they provide that private schools receiving federal funds must make only “minor
adjustments” to provide an “appropriate education”242—i.e., to provide educational services
designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities.243 ED’s Section 504 regulations also
allow private schools to charge students with disabilities if providing services comes with
substantial costs.244
Little case law exists interpreting the Section 504 “minor adjustments” regulation.245 How this
regulation interacts with the rest of Section 504 is unclear. Statutorily, Section 504 does not

235 St. Johnsbury Acad. v. D.H., 240 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2001).
236 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(B).
237 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.137(a) (“No parentally-placed private school child with a disability has an individual right to
receive some or all of the special education and related services that the child would receive if enrolled in a public
school.”); id. § 300.138(a)(2) (“Parentally-placed private school children with disabilities may receive a different
amount of services than children with disabilities in public schools.”).
238 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A)(iii)(IV).
239 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.132(b), 300.137(c), 300.138(b).
240 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A)(vi); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.138(c), 300.142(b).
241 34 C.F.R. § 300.137(a); see 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A)(iii)(IV) (requiring consultation between LEAs, private
schools, and parents regarding, among other things, how special education and related services “will be apportioned if
funds are insufficient to serve all children”); 34 C.F.R. § 300.134(d)(2) (same).
242 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(a).
243 Id. § 104.33(b)(1).
244 Id. § 104.39(b).
245 CRS has located only three cases applying the “minor adjustments regulation,” none of which shed much light on
what it requires or how it interacts with Section 504’s other provisions. See Doe v. Abington Friends Sch., No. CV 22-
0014, 2022 WL 16722322, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 4, 2022); E.R. by & Through B.R. v. St. Martin’s Episcopal Sch., No.
CV 21-2066, 2022 WL 558168, at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 24, 2022) (“‘Minor adjustment’ is not defined in the regulations.
Nor has the court located any controlling case law defining it.”); Hunt v. St. Peter Sch., 963 F. Supp. 843, 852 (W.D.
Mo. 1997) (“I have been unable to identify a case interpreting minor adjustment . . . .”); see also Daggett, supra note
15, at 301 (referring to the term “minor adjustments” as “undefined and largely uninterpreted”). In a case involving a
parochial private school (where the ADA did not apply), one court held that a “minor adjustment is less than a
reasonable accommodation” and that the school was not required to provide reasonable accommodations. Hunt, 963 F.
Supp. at 852. In another case against a parochial private school, a court stated that “a private school’s obligations to
students with disabilities under § 504 are less onerous than those imposed on public schools” but held that the student
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

27

link to page 7 link to page 31 link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

distinguish between private and public schools (or between schools and other federally funded
programs). Private schools covered by Section 504 are bound not only by the “minor
adjustments” regulation, but by other regulations requiring schools to integrate children with
disabilities into classrooms with other children “to the maximum extent appropriate,” including
by providing “supplementary aids and services.”246 These requirements could demand more than
“minor adjustments.” Moreover, Section 504’s general prohibitions on discrimination apply to
federally funded private schools,247 while Title III of the ADA applies to all nonparochial private
schools.248 Together, while these laws may not require private schools to provide the same suite of
services as the IDEA, they often require similar services in the form of reasonable
accommodations or modifications and auxiliary aids and services—and neither Section 504 nor
the ADA limit the required modifications, aids, and services to those representing only “minor
adjustments.”249 Reasonable accommodations, modifications, and auxiliary aids and services are
the subject of the next section of this report.
FAPE: Key Takeaways
•
The centerpiece of the IDEA is the guarantee to eligible students of a FAPE. A FAPE under the IDEA means
the provision of special education (i.e., specialized instruction) and related services (i.e., supportive services
to help students benefit from school). Schools provide a FAPE by developing and carrying out IEPs.
•
An IEP meets the IDEA’s substantive requirements for a FAPE when it is “reasonably calculated to enable a
child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circumstances.”
•
By regulation, Section 504 also requires school districts to provide a FAPE, and some (but not all) courts
therefore interpret the ADA to impose a similar obligation. Schools often develop Section 504 plans to
document the services provided to eligible students.
•
A FAPE under Section 504 means “the provision of regular or special education and related aids and services
that are designed to meet individual educational needs of handicapped persons as adequately as the needs of
nonhandicapped persons are met.”
•
Parentally placed private school students are not entitled to a FAPE under the IDEA. Section 504’s FAPE
regulation does not apply to private schools, but both the ADA and Section 504’s nondiscrimination and
reasonable accommodation mandates apply in the private school setting.
Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services
If a FAPE is the centerpiece of the IDEA, reasonable accommodations and modifications are the
mainstay of Section 504 and ADA claims. An accommodation is a change in a school’s policies,
practices, or environment to enable a student with a disability to enjoy equal opportunities.250 In
1985, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 504 to require recipients of federal funds to make
“reasonable accommodations” when necessary to provide people with disabilities “meaningful
access” to their programs and activities.251 In 1990, Congress adopted a similar requirement in the
ADA, requiring both public and private covered entities—including public and covered private

had pled a Section 504 claim when she alleged that her school “did not provide any accommodations.” Doe, 2022 WL
16722322, at *7.
246 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a) (applied to private schools by 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c)).
247 See id. § 104.4.
248 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
249 See infra “Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services.”
250 Guckenberger v. Bos. Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 144 (D. Mass. 1997); see OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra
note 23, at 30 (“In some situations, providing an equal opportunity (that is, providing aids, benefits, or services that are
as effective as those provided to others) requires different treatment for a student with a disability.”).
251 Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985).
Congressional Research Service

28

link to page 7 link to page 6 link to page 18 link to page 6 link to page 7 link to page 18 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

schools—to make “reasonable modifications”252 when necessary to provide nondiscriminatory
access to people with disabilities.253 Courts tend to interpret Section 504 and the ADA’s
reasonable accommodation requirements to impose the same substantive standard, regardless of
which statute is invoked.254 Elementary, secondary, and postsecondary institutions must all
provide reasonable accommodations, and they must provide them in all school-related contexts,
including academics, extracurricular activities, and other services offered by the school, such as
transportation and housing.255
Accommodations can include, among other things, changes or exceptions to policies, programs,
or procedures, such as providing extra time on tests or assignments, making course substitutions,
or allowing service dogs at school; the removal or restructuring of physical barriers, such as
building a ramp, moving an activity to an accessible space, or allowing a student to use the
faculty elevator; or the provision of services or aids, such as tutoring or medication
administration.256 A school is not required to eliminate an essential part of a program to
accommodate a student with a disability.257

252 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (Title III); 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(a) (2023) (same). Title II prohibits discrimination
against “qualified individual[s] with a disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. A “qualified individual with a disability” is “an
individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications . . . meets the essential eligibility
requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” Id.
§ 12131(2). Title II therefore requires public entities to provide reasonable modifications. 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7); see
Berardelli v. Allied Servs. Inst. of Rehab. Med., 900 F.3d 104, 114–17 (3d Cir. 2018) (reviewing the legislative history
of the reasonable accommodations requirements under Section 504 and the ADA).
253 Title II and Title III of the ADA refer to “reasonable modifications.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(2), 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).
Other parts of the ADA, including the sections defining disability and Title I (which covers employment
discrimination), refer to “reasonable accommodations.” E.g., id. §§ 12102(4), 12111(8)–(9), 12112(b)(5)(A), 12202(h).
Case law under the Rehabilitation Act uses both “reasonable accommodations” and “reasonable modifications.”
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300–01 (1985). In practice, courts tend to use these terms interchangeably. See,
e.g., Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th 729, 738 n.4 (9th Cir. 2021); McElwee v. County of Orange, 700
F.3d 635, 641 n.2 (2d Cir. 2012). This report adopts that approach.
254 E.g., Berardelli, 900 F.3d at 117; Halpern v. Wake Forest Univ. Health Scis., 669 F.3d 454, 462 n.5 (4th Cir. 2012);
see Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 159–60 (2017) (“A regulation implementing Title II requires a public
entity to make reasonable modifications to its policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to avoid such
discrimination. In similar vein, courts have interpreted § 504 as demanding certain ‘reasonable’ modifications to
existing practices in order to ‘accommodate’ persons with disabilities.” (citations omitted)).
255 Disability Discrimination FAQs, supra note 30 (“Section 504 covers all the operations of a school or college that
receives financial assistance including academics, extracurricular activities, athletics, and other programs.”); OCR
SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 27; Preparing for Postsecondary Education, supra note 133; see 34
C.F.R. § 104.37(a) (2023) (Section 504 regulation requiring that schools “provide non-academic and extracurricular
services and activities in such manner as is necessary to afford handicapped students an equal opportunity for
participation in such services and activities”); Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“Rather than determining whether each function of a city can be characterized as a service, program, or activity for
purposes of Title II, however, we have construed the ADA’s broad language as bringing within its scope anything a
public entity does.” (cleaned up)); K.N. v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334, 345, 349–50 (D.N.J.
2019) (holding that Section 504 and Title II require schools to provide supports in after-school programs); see also 28
C.F.R. §§ 35.151(f), 36.406(e) (ADA regulations requiring educational housing to be accessible); id. § 36.310 (Title III
regulation requiring accessible transportation services); 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.43–104.47 (nondiscrimination requirements
under Section 504 in postsecondary education).
256 See 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a)–(c) (describing accommodations in postsecondary institutions); OCR SECTION 504
RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 5, 14, 28–29; Disability Discrimination FAQs, supra note 30; Preparing for
Postsecondary Education, supra note 133; Bonnie Poitras Tucker, Application of the Americans with Disabilities Act
(ADA) and Section 504 to Colleges and Universities: An Overview and Discussion of Special Issues Relating to
Students, 23 J.C. & U.L. 1, 15–25 (1996). Schools must also meet standards for accessible construction. See generally
28 C.F.R. §§ 35.151, 36.401–36.406.
257 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a) (IHEs not required to adjust “essential” academic requirements); Preparing for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

29

link to page 18 link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Schools must also furnish “auxiliary aids and services” when necessary to ensure effective
communication with students with disabilities.258 Examples of auxiliary aids and services can
include interpreters, transcription services, materials in accessible formats (e.g., videos with
captions or embedded signing for Deaf students, or braille or accessible digital material for blind
students), readers, specialized equipment, and a variety of other communication aids.259 The ADA
regulations state that auxiliary aids and services are effective only when they are timely provided
and when they protect the user’s privacy and independence.260
No one set of accommodations or auxiliary aids and services is always required. What is
reasonable depends on the individual facts of each situation and can vary considerably by
context.261 For example, certain academic criteria that could be waived or modified in the
elementary and secondary context might be essential in a postsecondary program.262 One Deaf
student might be fluent in American Sign Language and require an interpreter while another may
need real-time captioning.263
Reasonable accommodations required by the ADA and Section 504 may overlap with special
education and related services required by the IDEA. Nevertheless, there are several important
distinctions. First, reasonable accommodations can be, but do not have to be, related to
specialized instruction and the provision of a FAPE.264 For example, a child who relies on a
service animal for independent mobility may need a waiver of a school’s policy barring animals
on campus. In that case, she would need an accommodation but not necessarily special education
or related services. She would be protected by Section 504 and the ADA but not necessarily by
the IDEA.265
Second, the ADA and Section 504 limit schools’ obligations in ways the IDEA does not. Under
the ADA and Section 504, a school does not have to do anything resulting in (1) “a fundamental
alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity” or (2) “undue financial and

Postsecondary Education, supra note 133; see 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(2), 12132 (people with disabilities are “qualified”
and therefore protected under Title II when they meet a program’s “essential eligibility requirements”); 34 C.F.R.
§§ 104.3(l)(4), 104.4(a) (same, under Section 504).
258 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(2), 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160, 36.303(c); 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d). Title II’s
effective communication regulation is particularly specific, requiring public entities to ensure that their
communications with people with disabilities are “as effective” as communications with others. 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.160(a)(1). For an in-depth treatment of Title II’s effective communication requirements, see K.M. ex rel. Bright v.
Tustin Unified School District, 725 F.3d 1088 (9th Cir. 2013).
259 42 U.S.C. § 12103(1); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 36.303(b); 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(d)(2); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE
GUIDE, supra note 23, at 43.
260 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160(b)(2), 36.303(c)(1)(ii).
261 Wong v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 192 F.3d 807, 818, 820–21 (9th Cir. 1999); Zukle v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
166 F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 1999).
262 See Se. Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 408–10 (1979) (holding that nursing school was not required to excuse
Deaf applicant from certain training or to waive requirement that students understand speech); Guckenberger v. Bos.
Univ., 974 F. Supp. 106, 145–46 (D. Mass. 1997) (reviewing the law regarding course waivers and substitutions in the
university context).
263 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (listing potential auxiliary aids and services under Title II); id. § 36.303(b) (same, for Title
III).
264 See, e.g., Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 167–68 (2017); McIntyre v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 976 F.3d
902, 915–17 (9th Cir. 2020).
265 See, e.g., Doucette v. Georgetown Pub. Sch., 936 F.3d 16, 24–25 & n.12 (1st Cir. 2019); Alboniga v. Sch. Bd., 87 F.
Supp. 3d 1319, 1329 (S.D. Fla. 2015); see also, e.g., J.S., III by & through J.S. Jr. v. Houston Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 877
F.3d 979, 986 (11th Cir. 2017) (“For example, an allegation that a school building lacks access to ramps would likely
state a claim under Title II, whereas an allegation that a student with a learning disability was not provided remedial
tutoring in mathematics would likely assert a claim only for the denial of a FAPE.”).
Congressional Research Service

30

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

administrative burdens.”266 The onus is on the school to prove fundamental alteration or undue
burden.267 Whether an accommodation constitutes a fundamental alteration or an undue burden
depends on the particular circumstances of the request, the student, and the school. The IDEA
does not similarly limit schools’ responsibilities.268
By not requiring “fundamental alterations,” Section 504 and the ADA allow schools to
“preserv[e] the essential characteristics of their . . . programs.”269 Courts have found that
requiring a school to “lower or effect substantial modifications of standards”270 or “provide new
programs or new curricula,”271 for example, would constitute fundamental alterations.
The “undue burden” limitation protects schools from incurring excessive costs. Schools need not
provide accommodations or auxiliary aids and services that impose “significant difficulty or
expense” in light of their overall financial and administrative resources.272
Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services:
Key Takeaways
•
Section 504 and the ADA require covered schools to make reasonable modifications and provide auxiliary
aids and services when necessary to provide nondiscriminatory access to people with disabilities. This
mandate applies to all of a school’s programs, activities, and services, inside and outside of the classroom.
•
Reasonable modifications and auxiliary aids and services may overlap with special education and related
services under the IDEA, but unlike IDEA services they do not have to be tied to instruction.
•
Schools do not have to provide modifications or auxiliary aids or services that they show would
fundamentally alter a program or constitute an undue burden. These defenses are not available under the
IDEA.
Other Protections
As discussed above, a fundamental difference between the IDEA and Section 504 and the ADA is
that Section 504 and the ADA are general antidiscrimination laws, while the IDEA funds public

266 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3) (Title II); accord 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)–(iii) (Title III); 28 C.F.R.
§ 35.130(b)(7)(i) (reasonable modifications under Title II); id. § 35.164 (effective communication under Title II); id.
§ 36.302(a) (reasonable modifications under Title III); id. §§ 36.303(a), 36.309(b)(3), (c)(3) (auxiliary aids and services
under Title III); see Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 300 (1985) (holding under Section 504 that “a grantee need not
be required to make ‘fundamental’ or ‘substantial’ modifications to accommodate the handicapped”).
267 E.g., 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)(3) (“In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the
proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and
administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance . . . would result in such alteration or
burdens.”); id. § 35.164 (same); Timothy H. v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist., 178 F.3d 968, 971 (8th Cir. 1999); K.N.
v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334, 354 (D.N.J. 2019).
268 See K.M. ex rel. Bright v. Tustin Unified Sch. Dist., 725 F.3d 1088, 1101 (9th Cir. 2013). The Supreme Court has
contemplated that “the potential financial burdens imposed on participating States may be relevant to arriving at a
sensible construction of the IDEA,” but it has never articulated a standard for how courts should take costs into
account. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F. ex rel. Charlene F., 526 U.S. 66, 78 (1999). The Court rejected an
argument that the definition of “related services” in the IDEA incorporated costs. Id.; see also J.P. ex rel. Popson v. W.
Clark Cmty. Sch., 230 F. Supp. 2d 910, 941–42 (S.D. Ind. 2002) (stating that schools cannot use costs as a reason to
deny a FAPE but may “tak[e] financial concerns into consideration when formulating an IEP”).
269 Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 489 (4th Cir. 2005).
270 Se. Cmty. Coll. v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 413 (1979); see, e.g., A.H. by Holzmueller v. Ill. High Sch. Ass’n, 881 F.3d
587, 595 (7th Cir. 2018) (holding that state did not have to lower qualifying times for track-and-field events to enable
disabled athlete to compete).
271 K.M., 725 F.3d at 1101.
272 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.
Congressional Research Service

31

link to page 5 link to page 6 link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

schools to provide services to children with disabilities.273 Section 504 and the ADA therefore
protect students from disability discrimination even when they do not need disability-related
services.274 The following sections briefly summarize illegal conduct under Section 504 and the
ADA that the IDEA generally does not reach,275 unless the prohibited acts result in violations of
the IDEA’s procedural requirements or the denial of a FAPE.276
Disparate Treatment
Disparate treatment, also referred to as intentional discrimination, occurs when a school treats a
student differently from other students because of his or her disability.277 Examples of disparate
treatment include subjecting a student with a disability to harsher discipline than his or her peers
receive, refusing to let a student with disabilities participate in the same activities as other
students, or giving less class time to students with disabilities.278 To be illegal, disparate treatment

273 See supra “Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities”; see also Ellenberg v. N.M. Mil. Inst., 478 F.3d 1262, 1274–
75 (10th Cir. 2007).
274 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 7.
275 See, e.g., Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 165–66 (2017) (holding that the IDEA makes “relief”
“available” only for the denial of a FAPE); Ellenberg, 478 F.3d at 1274–75, 1280–81 (observing that the IDEA only
requires schools to follow certain procedural obligations and to provide a FAPE and does not reach “pure
discrimination claims”).
276 For example, a school that placed a student in an unnecessarily restricted or segregated environment might violate
both the IDEA (because schools must provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment) and the ADA/Section 504
(because unnecessarily removing a student from the general education environment because of their disability could be
disparate treatment). See, e.g., Parent/Pro. Advoc. League v. City of Springfield, 934 F.3d 13, 27 (1st Cir. 2019)
(holding that complaint related to unnecessary segregation of students with disabilities sought relief available under
both the IDEA and the ADA); J.S., III by & through J.S. Jr. v. Houston Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 877 F.3d 979, 986–87 (11th
Cir. 2017) (holding that isolation on the basis of disability can violate students’ IEPs and the ADA); S.P. v. Knox Cnty.
Bd. of Educ., 329 F. Supp. 3d 584, 590–91 (E.D. Tenn. 2018) (“[T]he same conduct might violate all three statutes . . .
.”), modified on reconsideration sub nom. S.P., next friend M.P. v. Knox Cnty. Bd. of Educ., No. 3:17-CV-100, 2021
WL 6338399 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 26, 2021).
277 See 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)(b)(1)(A)–(C) (Title III); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)–(2) (Title II); 34 C.F.R. § 104.4(b)(1),
(3) (2023) (Section 504); Lebron v. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 770 F.3d 25, 31 (1st Cir. 2014) (“To state a claim
for intentional discrimination under either statute, the parents need have pleaded that the Commonwealth engaged in
some wrongful action because of the child’s disability.”); CG v. Pa. Dep’t of Educ., 734 F.3d 229, 236 (3d Cir. 2013)
(“Plaintiffs must show that they have been deprived of a benefit or opportunity provided to non-disabled students or a
group of students with some other category of disability, because of their disability.”); see also Payan v. Los Angeles
Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th 729, 738 (9th Cir. 2021) (stating that “disparate treatment” is a form of disability
discrimination); A.H. by Holzmueller v. Ill. High Sch. Ass’n, 881 F.3d 587, 592–93 (7th Cir. 2018) (stating that
discrimination under Section 504 and the ADA can be established by showing that “the defendant intentionally acted
on the basis of the disability”); Washington v. Ind. High Sch. Athletic Ass’n, Inc., 181 F.3d 840, 847 (7th Cir. 1999)
(same).
278 See, e.g., Gohl v. Livonia Pub. Sch. Sch. Dist., 836 F.3d 672, 683 (6th Cir. 2016) (holding that a student’s
discrimination claim based on alleged abuse failed because he could not show students without disabilities were treated
better); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 35–36; U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. FOR CIV. RIGHTS,
PROTECTING RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY: REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 37 (2015),
https://www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/ocr/report-to-president-and-secretary-of-education-2013-14.pdf; see also
Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 993 (5th Cir. 2014) (holding that students can bring ADA
and Section 504 claims based on the denial of a benefit provided to students without disabilities); United States v.
Georgia, 461 F. Supp. 3d 1315, 1325 (N.D. Ga. 2020) (allowing claims to proceed based on “systematic discriminatory
practices which result in unlawful stigmatization, deprivation of advantages that come from integrated learning
environments, denial of access to public institutions, and unjustified segregation and discrimination”).
Congressional Research Service

32

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

need not be motivated by ill will. Section 504 and the ADA prohibit discrimination grounded in
stereotypes or paternalistic motivations as much as discrimination based on malice.279
Schools do not have to allow students with disabilities to participate in programs when their
participation creates a “direct threat to the health or safety of others.”280 A “direct threat” is “a
significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of
policies, practices or procedures or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services.”281 A school
can, for example, exclude a student with a disability from an athletic team if there is no
reasonable modification that would allow the student to safely participate.282 The school’s
decision must be based on an “individualized assessment” and “objective evidence” rather than
“stereotypes or generalizations about the effects of a disability.”283 The school bears the burden of
proving direct threat.284
Disparate Impact
Disparate impact, or unintentional, discrimination occurs when a school policy is facially
neutral—that is, it does not overtly discriminate on the basis of disability—but it disadvantages
people with disabilities.285 Title III of the ADA recognizes disparate impact claims in the statutory
text.286 Whether Section 504 and Title II prohibit disparate impact discrimination is unsettled. The

279 See Knapp v. Nw. Univ., 101 F.3d 473, 485–86 (7th Cir. 1996) (stating that the decision to exclude a disabled
athlete from a school team must be made with “significant medical support” and “cannot rest on paternalistic
concerns”); see also, e.g., Sunlight of Spirit House, Inc. v. Borough of N. Wales, No. 16-CV-909, 2019 WL 233883, at
*11 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 15, 2019) (observing in a case brought under the ADA and Fair Housing Act that a discriminatory
motive can be “benign or paternalistic”); Fortenberry v. City of Wiggins, No. 1:16CV320-LG-RHW, 2018 WL
8809236, at *6 & n.5 (S.D. Miss. Feb. 5, 2018) (same, in a case brought under the ADA, Section 504, and Fair Housing
Act, where the court applied identical standards under each law for discriminatory intent).
280 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3) (ADA Title III); accord 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(a) (ADA Title II regulation); 28 C.F.R.
§ 36.208(a) (ADA Title III regulation); Doe v. Woodford Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 213 F.3d 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2000)
(recognizing concept of “direct threat” under Section 504).
281 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3) (ADA Title III); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104 (ADA Title II regulation); id. §§ 36.104 (ADA Title
III regulation); see Sch. Bd. of Nassau Cnty. v. Arline, 480 U.S. 273, 287–88 & n.16 (1987) (interpreting Section 504
to establish that “[a] person who poses a significant risk of communicating an infectious disease to others . . . will not
be otherwise qualified . . . if reasonable accommodation will not eliminate that risk”).
282 See Woodford Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 213 F.3d at 925–26 (holding school not liable for placing a student with
hemophilia and hepatitis B on “hold” while evaluating whether he could safely participate on basketball team);
Montalvo v. Radcliffe, 167 F.3d 873, 878–79 (4th Cir. 1999) (holding that karate school could exclude child with HIV
from group classes due to risk of bloody injuries).
283 Montalvo, 167 F.3d at 876–77 (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 36,208(c)). Specifically, the school is required to “make an
individualized assessment, based on reasonable judgment that relies on current medical knowledge or on the best
available objective evidence, to ascertain: the nature, duration, and severity of the risk; the probability that the potential
injury will actually occur; and whether reasonable modifications of policies, practices, or procedures or the provision of
auxiliary aids or services will mitigate the risk.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.139(b); accord, e.g., R.W. v. Bd. of Regents of the
Univ. Sys. of Ga., 114 F. Supp. 3d 1260, 1283 (N.D. Ga. 2015).
284 See, e.g., Hernandez v. W. Texas Treasures Est. Sales, L.L.C., 79 F.4th 464, 470 (5th Cir. 2023) (determining that
the ADA Title III direct threat provision is “analogous” to the ADA Title I direct threat provision, which places the
burden on the employer); Hargrave v. Vermont, 340 F.3d 27, 36 (2d Cir. 2003) (holding that if direct threat applies, the
defendant bears the burden); cf. Dadian v. Vill. of Wilmette, 269 F.3d 831, 841 (7th Cir. 2001) (holding that the
defendant has the burden to prove direct threat under the Fair Housing Act based in part on analogizing to the ADA).
285 See Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480, 1483–84 (9th Cir. 1996); Payan v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 11 F.4th
729, 738 (9th Cir. 2021).
286 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(D)(i) (“An individual or entity shall not, directly or through contractual or other
arrangements, utilize standards or criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of discriminating on the
basis of disability.”); id. § 12182(b)(2)(a)(i) (“Discrimination includes the imposition or application of eligibility
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

33

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

availability of such claims dates back to the Supreme Court’s decision in the seminal Section 504
case Alexander v. Choate, in which the Court observed, “Discrimination against the handicapped
was perceived by Congress to be most often the product, not of invidious animus, but rather of
thoughtlessness and indifference—of benign neglect.”287 Following Choate, courts frequently
held that Section 504 and the ADA prohibited not only intentional, but also unintentional
discrimination.288 The text of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 do not specifically refer to
disparate impacts, but DOJ and ED’s regulations take the position that plaintiffs can bring
disparate impact suits.289
Courts have questioned whether Title II and Section 504 in fact prohibit disparate impact
discrimination. In 2001, in Alexander v. Sandoval, the Supreme Court decided that Title VI of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), which prohibits racial discrimination by recipients of federal
funding, does not allow plaintiffs to bring disparate impact claims.290 Congress modeled Section
504 after Title VI,291 and Title II after Section 504.292 Following Sandoval, federal courts have
split on whether Section 504 allows plaintiffs to sue for disparate impacts.293 The resolution of
this question with regard to Section 504 may determine whether disparate impact claims may
proceed under Title II, although some courts have distinguished the two laws.294
When disparate impact liability applies, not all policies that adversely impact people with
disabilities are illegal. If a student shows that a policy has a negative effect on students with
disabilities, the school can still implement the policy if it shows that it is necessary to accomplish
the school’s legitimate objectives.295

criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities
from fully and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations, unless such
criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations being offered.”).
287 469 U.S. 287, 295 (1985).
288 E.g., Payan, 11 F.4th at 736–37; A.H. by Holzmueller v. Ill. High Sch. Ass’n, 881 F.3d 587, 592–93 (7th Cir. 2018);
Davis v. Shah, 821 F.3d 231, 260 (2d Cir. 2016); J.V. v. Albuquerque Pub. Sch., 813 F.3d 1289, 1295 (10th Cir. 2016).
289 “A public entity may not . . . utilize criteria or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified
individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability; that have the purpose or effect of defeating or
substantially impairing accomplishment of the objectives of the public entity’s program with respect to individuals with
disabilities; or that perpetuate the discrimination of another public entity if both public entities are subject to common
administrative control or are agencies of the same State.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3) (2023) (Title II); accord 34 C.F.R.
§ 104.4(b)(4) (2023) (Section 504). “A public entity shall not impose or apply eligibility criteria that screen out or tend
to screen out an individual with a disability or any class of individuals with disabilities from fully and equally enjoying
any service, program, or activity, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of the service,
program, or activity being offered.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8) (Title II).
290 532 U.S. 275 (2001).
291 E.g., Doe v. BlueCross BlueShield of Tenn., Inc., 926 F.3d 235, 242 (6th Cir. 2019); Payan, 11 F.4th at 735.
292 42 U.S.C. § 12133 (stating that the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth” in Section 504 “shall be the
remedies, procedures, and rights” provided under Title II).
293 Compare Payan, 11 F.4th at 737 (“We hold that Sandoval does not disturb Choate and Crowder, and disparate
impact disability discrimination claims remain enforceable through a private right of action.”), with Doe, 926 F.3d at
241 (relying in part on Sandoval to conclude that Section 504 “does not prohibit disparate-impact discrimination”).
294 Compare Doe 1 v. Perkiomen Valley Sch. Dist., 585 F. Supp. 3d 668, 688 n.43 (E.D. Pa. 2022) (“There is reason
not to extend Sandoval’s analysis to the ADA.”), and Nicholas v. Fulton Cnty. Sch. Dist., No. 1:20-CV-3688-MLB,
2022 WL 2276900, at *19 (N.D. Ga. June 23, 2022) (holding that Title II covers disparate impact claims but Section
504 does not), with Payan, 11 F.4th at 740 (Lee, J., dissenting) (opining that both Section 504 and Title II do not cover
disparate impact discrimination), and Palladeno v. Mohr, No. 20-3587, 2021 WL 4145579, at *4 (6th Cir. Sept. 13,
2021) (recognizing only intentional discrimination and failure-to-accommodate claims under Title II).
295 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(a)(i); 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(8).
Congressional Research Service

34

link to page 6 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Harassment
A school’s inadequate response to disability-based harassment may constitute a distinct type of
intentional discrimination claim.296 Although they tend to allow such claims to proceed, federal
courts have not conclusively resolved whether Section 504 and the ADA prohibit disability-based
harassment or, if they do, what standard applies.297 Several courts, along with ED, recognize that
disability-based harassment, including slurs, taunts, bullying, assaults, and other forms of
mistreatment by either students or school officials, can lead to a Section 504 or ADA violation
when it is severe enough to create a hostile educational environment, that is, when it actually
impedes a student’s access to a school’s programs or services.298 These courts generally hold that
school districts are legally responsible for disability harassment when they know of the
harassment and their actions in response, or failures to act, are “clearly unreasonable”—in other
words, when schools exhibit “deliberate indifference.”299
Retaliation and Interference
Section 504 and the ADA prohibit retaliation against individuals because of their participation in
any Section 504 or ADA investigation, proceeding, or hearing.300 The laws also prohibit people
from interfering with another’s exercise of his or her ADA or Section 504 rights.301 Courts tend to

296 Cf. Davis Next Friend LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 643 (1999) (holding that a
school’s deliberate indifference to peer-on-peer sexual harassment constitutes intentional sex discrimination under Title
IX); Bryant v. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. I-38, 334 F.3d 928, 934 (10th Cir. 2003) (holding that a school’s deliberate
indifference to peer-on-peer racial harassment constitutes intentional discrimination under Title VI).
297 See, e.g., Newell v. Cent. Mich. Univ. Bd. of Trustees, No. 20-1864, 2021 WL 3929220, at *10 (6th Cir. Sept. 2,
2021) (assuming without deciding that plaintiffs can apply the framework for sexual harassment in educational
programs to disability harassment under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA); McIntyre v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 976 F.3d
902, 916 (9th Cir. 2020) (assuming without deciding that students can bring disability harassment claims).
298 E.g., Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 996 (5th Cir. 2014); Wright v. Carroll Cnty. Bd. of
Educ., No. 11-CV-3103, 2013 WL 4525309, at *16 (D. Md. Aug. 26, 2013) (collecting cases); K.M. ex rel. D.G. v.
Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 360–61 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra
note 23, at 32; see also Davis, 526 U.S. at 650–52 (describing the standard for actionable sexual harassment, which
cases including Lance and Wright have applied in the disability context); M.P. ex rel. K. & D.P. v. Indep. Sch. Dist.
No. 721, 439 F.3d 865, 868 (8th Cir. 2006) (recognizing distinction between disability harassment and IDEA claims).
299 E.g., Davis, 526 U.S. at 647–48; Est. of Lance, 743 F.3d at 996 (applying Davis to Section 504); Wright, 2013 WL
4525309, at *16–18 (same).
300 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) (“No person shall discriminate against any individual because such individual has opposed
any act or practice made unlawful by this chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under this chapter.”); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (2023)
(applying the “procedural provisions” of Title VI, including its anti-retaliation provision, to Section 504 claims); see 34
C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (Title VI anti-retaliation provision) (“No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten, coerce,
or discriminate against any individual . . . because he has made a complaint, testified, assisted, or participated in any
manner in an investigation, proceeding or hearing under this part.”).
301 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b) (“It shall be unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the
exercise or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account of his or her having
aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this
chapter.”); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61; see 34 C.F.R. § 100.7(e) (“No recipient or other person shall intimidate, threaten,
coerce, or discriminate against any individual for the purpose of interfering with any right or privilege secured by
section 601 of the Act or this part . . . .”).
Congressional Research Service

35

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

apply the same analysis for these claims under Section 504 and the ADA.302 Courts have
disagreed as to whether the IDEA prohibits retaliation or interference.303
Many, though not all, courts consider retaliation and interference claims to require the same
elements.304 To prove a claim, a plaintiff must show that the defendant took adverse action against
him or her because he or she engaged in protected activity.305 Protected activity includes
exercising Section 504 or ADA rights; advocating for students’ Section 504 or ADA rights;
opposing Section 504 or ADA violations; and initiating or participating in Section 504 or ADA
proceedings.306 An adverse action is one that would deter a reasonable person from engaging in
the protected activity.307
The ADA and Section 504 anti-retaliation and interference provisions protect everyone—a person
need not have a disability to bring a claim.308 For example, a student who gave a statement to
OCR about disability discrimination experienced by a friend, or a teacher who encouraged a
school to provide accommodations, could bring a claim if they experienced an adverse action as a
result.309 A person can bring a retaliation or interference claim even if the underlying disability
discrimination claim fails.310 For example, if a school retaliates against a student for requesting
accommodations, that student may have a claim even if a court finds he or she was not entitled to
accommodations.

302 E.g., D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B. v. Esposito, 675 F.3d 26, 41 (1st Cir. 2012) (“The standard for retaliation claims
under the Rehabilitation Act is the same as the standard under the ADA.”); P.N. v. Greco, 282 F. Supp. 2d 221, 243
(D.N.J. 2003) (same).
303 E.g., Pangerl v. Peoria Unified Sch. Dist., No. CV-15-02189-PHX-ROS, 2018 WL 9708471, at *6 (D. Ariz. Sept.
28, 2018) (recognizing IDEA retaliation claim), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded on other grounds, 806 F.
App’x 553 (9th Cir. 2020); Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Post, 262 F. Supp. 3d 178, 199 n.2 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (recognizing
disagreement); Garcia v. Capistrano Unified Sch. Dist., No. SACV162111DOCJCGX, 2017 WL 10543661, at *16
(C.D. Cal. May 1, 2017) (“[T]he IDEA does not contain an ‘interference’ cause of action.”); Collins v. City of New
York, 156 F. Supp. 3d 448, 457 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) (determining that the IDEA does not prohibit retaliation). The IDEA
does define denying a FAPE to include when a school district “significantly impeded” a parent’s ability to “participate
in the decisionmaking process” regarding his or her child. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii)(II).
304 Stewart v. Ross, No. 116CV213LMBJFA, 2020 WL 1907471, at *17 & n.21 (E.D. Va. Apr. 17, 2020) (collecting
cases), aff’d, 833 F. App’x 995 (4th Cir. 2021). Contra Everett H. v. Dry Creek Joint Elementary Sch. Dist., 5 F. Supp.
3d 1167, 1180 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (“An interference action . . . has a broader scope than retaliation since interference does
not necessarily concern discrimination or retaliation for engaging in a protected activity. . . . In addition, unlike
discrimination, interference claimants only have to establish that they were denied a benefit and need not demonstrate
any causal nexus.”).
305 E.g., Albright as Next Friend of Doe v. Mountain Home Sch. Dist., 926 F.3d 942, 953 (8th Cir. 2019); Lauren W. ex
rel. Jean W. v. DeFlaminis, 480 F.3d 259, 267 (3d Cir. 2007); Derrick F. v. Red Lion Area Sch. Dist., 586 F. Supp. 2d
282, 300 (M.D. Pa. 2008).
306 D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B., 675 F.3d at 41; Bradley ex rel. Bradley v. Ark. Dep’t of Educ., 443 F.3d 965, 976 (8th Cir.
2006); Knaub v. Tulli, 788 F. Supp. 2d 349, 359 (M.D. Pa. 2011).
307 E.g., D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B., 675 F.3d at 41; Lauren W. ex rel. Jean W., 480 F.3d at 267; Derrick F., 586 F. Supp.
2d at 300; P.N., 282 F. Supp. 2d at 242.
308 Rhoads v. FDIC, 257 F.3d 373, 391 (4th Cir. 2001); Weber v. Cranston Sch. Comm., 212 F.3d 41, 48 (1st Cir. 2000)
(collecting cases); Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Amy M., 540 F. Supp. 3d 679, 697 (W.D. Tex. 2021).
309 See Knaub, 788 F. Supp. 2d at 353, 359 (teacher brought claim based on retaliation for her role as an advocate at a
friend’s child’s IEP meeting); P.N., 282 F. Supp. 2d at 242 (parents brought claim based on retaliation for advocacy for
their child “and other similarly situated students”).
310 E.g., D.B. ex rel. Elizabeth B., 675 F.3d at 40–41.
Congressional Research Service

36

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Other Rights: Key Takeaways
•
As general antidiscrimination laws, Section 504 and the ADA confer rights beyond the right to disability-
related services.
•
Section 504 and the ADA prohibit disparate treatment, i.e., intentional discrimination on the basis of
disability.
•
The law is unsettled regarding whether Section 504 and/or Title II of the ADA prohibit disparate impact, that
is, facially neutral policies that have unintentional adverse effects on people with disabilities. Title III of the
ADA does prohibit disparate impact discrimination.
•
Courts tend to recognize a cause of action under Section 504 and the ADA for disability-based harassment
when a school’s reaction to such harassment is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances, i.e.,
deliberately indifferent.
•
Section 504 and the ADA prohibit retaliation and interference, protecting people who advocate for or
exercise rights under these laws. Whether the IDEA prohibits retaliation is unsettled.
Enforcement and Remedies
Students with disabilities and their families can pursue legal relief for violations of their IDEA,
Section 504, and ADA rights. However, they may have to go through different pathways to obtain
that relief, and the available remedies differ under each law.
Enforcement and Remedies Under the IDEA
Children with disabilities who believe their schools have violated their IDEA rights must follow
the IDEA’s formal administrative procedures to seek relief.311 Generally, a child with a disability
starts by filing a complaint with the LEA, with notice to the SEA.312 The parties must meet to
attempt to resolve the complaint,313 and they have the option of pursuing formal mediation at the
state’s expense.314 If they cannot reach an agreement, they proceed to an administrative due
process hearing.315 The hearing may be conducted by the LEA or the SEA.316 If the hearing was
conducted by the LEA, any party dissatisfied with the outcome can appeal to the SEA.317 Parties
may take their cases to court only after completing the administrative process,318 with rare
exceptions.319

311 E.g., K.I. v. Durham Pub. Sch. Bd. of Educ., 54 F.4th 779, 788 (4th Cir. 2022); Muskrat v. Deer Creek Pub. Sch.,
715 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2013); see 20 U.S.C. § 1415; Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 159 (2017)
(summarizing the IDEA’s administrative procedures). States have some power to modify these procedures. See 20
U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(B), (f)(3)(C), (i)(2)(B) (allowing states to set their own statutes of limitations); id. § 1415(e)(2)(B)
(allowing SEAs and LEAs to implement additional alternative dispute resolution options); id. § 1415(f)(1)(A)
(allowing states to determine whether LEAs or SEAs conduct due process hearings).
312 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6), (7); see id. § 1415(c)(2).
313 Id. § 1415(f)(1)(B).
314 Id. § 1415(e).
315 Id. § 1415(f)(1)(B)(ii); see id. § 1415(f)(3), (h).
316 Id. § 1415(f)(1)(A).
317 Id. § 1415(g).
318 Id. § 1415(i)(2).
319 See, e.g., J.M. v. Francis Howell Sch. Dist., 850 F.3d 944, 950 (8th Cir. 2017) (discussing exceptions to IDEA
administrative exhaustion); McQueen ex rel. McQueen v. Colo. Springs Sch. Dist. No. 11, 488 F.3d 868, 874–76 (10th
Cir. 2007) (same); Rose v. Yeaw, 214 F.3d 206, 210–12 (1st Cir. 2000) (same).
Congressional Research Service

37

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

The relief available in an IDEA proceeding depends on whether a school district violated a
student or parent’s substantive or procedural rights. If a hearing officer or court finds that a
school district violated a student’s substantive rights—that is, the school failed to provide a
FAPE320—the officer or court can order injunctive relief and/or compensatory education.321
Injunctive relief means a change in the school’s actions. A court could order a school to revise a
student’s IEP, for example.322 Compensatory education means services designed to make up for
any deficits resulting from the school’s failure to provide a FAPE.323 Courts and hearing officers
may order schools to reimburse parents for educational expenses they incurred to compensate for
a school’s failure to meet its obligations.324
Schools may also violate a child or parent’s procedural rights, for example, by failing to timely
identify a child with a disability, to properly convene the IEP team, or to provide parents with
required information.325 The same remedies are available only if procedural violations result in
the denial of a FAPE.326 In this context, the IDEA defines the denial of a FAPE to include when
schools significantly interfere with parents’ rights to participate in the IDEA decisionmaking
process or when they deprive a child of “educational benefits.”327 If a school’s procedural

320 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(i) (“A decision made by a hearing officer shall be made on substantive grounds based on
a determination of whether the child received a free appropriate public education.”); see Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch.,
580 U.S. 154, 166 (2017) (holding that the IDEA allows relief only for “the denial of a FAPE”). A school can fail to
provide a FAPE in a number of ways. For example, in addition to failing to provide needed services, a school might
neglect its Child Find duties, improperly evaluate a child, or fail to educate a child in the least restrictive environment,
all of which could lead to the denial of a FAPE. See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A) (allowing parents to present a complaint
“with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the
provision of a free appropriate public education to such child”).
321 See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(C)(iii) (allowing a court to “grant such relief as the court determines is appropriate”);
McIntyre v. Eugene Sch. Dist. 4J, 976 F.3d 902, 910–11 (9th Cir. 2020); Bd. of Educ. & River Forest High Sch. Dist.
200 v. Ill. State Bd. of Educ., 79 F.3d 654, 656 (7th Cir. 1996) (“This authorization encompasses the full range of
equitable remedies . . . .”)
322 Winkelman ex rel. Winkelman v. Parma City Sch. Dist., 550 U.S. 516, 532 (2007) (holding that parents can enforce
their children’s right to a FAPE); Sellers by Sellers v. Sch. Bd., 141 F.3d 524, 527 (4th Cir. 1998) (“Appropriate relief
may include special education services.”).
323 E.g., J.N. next friend of M.N. v. Jefferson Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 12 F.4th 1355, 1366–67 (11th Cir. 2021); Indep. Sch.
Dist. No. 283 v. E.M.D.H., 960 F.3d 1073, 1084 (8th Cir. 2020); S.S. v. Bd. of Educ., 498 F. Supp. 3d 761, 770 (D.
Md. 2020).
324 Luna Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Sch., 143 S. Ct. 859, 864 (2023) (explaining that courts may “grant as an available
remedy the reimbursement of past educational expenses” (citation and alteration omitted)); see, e.g., Sch. Comm. of
Town of Burlington v. Dep’t of Educ., 471 U.S. 359, 369–71 (1985) (holding that schools may have to reimburse
parents for private school placements and that “reimbursement merely requires the Town to belatedly pay expenses that
it should have paid all along and would have borne in the first instance had it developed a proper IEP”); Nieves-
Marquez v. Puerto Rico, 353 F.3d 108, 124 (1st Cir. 2003); Sellers by Sellers, 141 F.3d at 527.
325 See, e.g., Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 206 (1982) (identifying the “full participation of concerned parties
throughout the development of the IEP” as an important procedural requirement); J.N., 12 F.4th at 1365 (“A child-find
violation . . . is a procedural matter.”); Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 891 (9th
Cir. 2001) (describing parents’ procedural rights).
326 See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E) (instructing hearing officers to make decisions on “substantive grounds based on a
determination of whether the child received a [FAPE]” and detailing when procedural violations result in the denial of a
FAPE); J.N., 12 F.4th at 1366 (“A plaintiff is entitled to substantive relief based on a procedural violation of the Act
only when that violation causes a substantive harm.”); L.O. v. N.Y. City Dep’t of Educ., 822 F.3d 95, 124–25 (2d Cir.
2016) (directing district court to use its “broad discretion” to determine relief for procedural violations resulting in the
denial of a FAPE); C.H. v. Cape Henlopen Sch. Dist., 606 F.3d 59, 66 (3d Cir. 2010) (“In some cases, a procedural
violation may rise to the level of a denial of a FAPE, entitling the plaintiff to compensatory education or tuition
reimbursement.”).
327 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(ii); Crofts v. Issaquah Sch. Dist. No. 411, 22 F.4th 1048, 1054 (9th Cir. 2022); A.A. v.
Northside Indep. Sch. Dist., 951 F.3d 678, 685 (5th Cir. 2020).
Congressional Research Service

38

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

violations did not result in the denial of a FAPE, a hearing officer or court can only order the
school to correct its procedural deficits.328 The decisionmaker cannot order changes to a student’s
IEP, compensatory education, reimbursement for educational expenses, or other substantive
remedies.329
The IDEA allows a court to award a parent who is the “prevailing party” reasonable
reimbursement for attorneys’ fees.330 To be the “prevailing party,” a parent must obtain relief that
alters the legal relationship between the parties and provides some benefit to the child.331 Several
courts have denied prevailing party status and attorneys’ fees to families succeeding on only
procedural claims without obtaining substantive relief.332
No matter the nature of the violation, students and parents can never receive compensatory
damages for an IDEA claim.333 That is, they may not be reimbursed for expenses (other than
educational expenditures and attorneys’ fees), lost income, or pain and suffering caused by an
IDEA violation.334
Enforcement and Remedies Under Section 504 and the ADA
In the context of postsecondary and private P–12 education, complainants raising Section 504
and/or ADA claims do not have to complete an administrative process before going to court. They
may immediately bring a lawsuit if they believe their rights have been violated.335 Section 504
complainants may, but do not have to, file complaints with the federal agency funding the alleged
violator; in the education context, that will usually be ED.336 ADA Title II complainants may file
complaints with DOJ or the appropriate federal agency, as designated by DOJ regulation; again,

328 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(3)(E)(iii) (“Nothing in this subparagraph shall be construed to preclude a hearing officer from
ordering a local educational agency to comply with procedural requirements under this section.”).
329 J.N., 12 F.4th at 1366 (“The remedy for a procedural failing is generally to require that the procedure be
followed.”); C.H., 606 F.3d at 66 (“A plaintiff alleging only that a school district has failed to comply with a procedural
requirement of the IDEA, independent of any resulting deprivation of a FAPE, may only seek injunctive relief for
prospective compliance.”).
330 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(i)(B)–(G). A court may award attorneys’ fees to an LEA or SEA only when the parent or
parent’s attorney engages in certain misconduct. Id.
331 See, e.g., J.N., 12 F.4th at 1368; Salley v. St. Tammany Par. Sch. Bd., 57 F.3d 458, 468 (5th Cir. 1995); Doe v.
Belchertown Pub. Sch., 347 F. Supp. 3d 90, 104 (D. Mass. 2018).
332 E.g., J.N., 12 F.4th at 1368; Salley, 57 F.3d at 468; Doe, 347 F. Supp. 3d at 104.
333 See Luna Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Sch., 143 S. Ct. 859, 864 (2023); Fitzgerald v. Barnstable Sch. Comm., 555 U.S.
246, 255 (2009) (stating that the “statute[] at issue in . . . Smith [v. Robinson, 468 U.S. 992 (1984)]”—i.e., the
Education of the Handicapped Act, the predecessor to the IDEA—“did not allow for damages”).
334 E.g., Blanchard v. Morton Sch. Dist., 509 F.3d 934, 936–38 (9th Cir. 2007); Sellers by Sellers v. Sch. Bd., 141 F.3d
524, 527–28 (4th Cir. 1998); Fort Zumwalt Sch. Dist. v. Clynes, 119 F.3d 607, 615 (8th Cir. 1997).
335 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.172(d) (2023) (Title II); id. § 36.501(a) (Title III); see generally Luna Perez, 143 S. Ct. 859
(discussing when plaintiffs need not exhaust ADA claims against schools); Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154
(2017) (same, with regard to both ADA and Section 504 claims).
336 See 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2) (providing that victims of discrimination under Section 504 shall have access to the same
remedies and procedures available under Title VI); 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (allowing each federal agency to adopt its own
regulations to ensure compliance with Title VI and allowing compliance to be “effected” by termination of federal
funding or “by any other means authorized by law”); 28 C.F.R. § 41.5 (requiring federal agencies to establish Section
504 enforcement systems for funding recipients); 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 (2023) (ED regulation adopting the procedural
provisions applicable to Title VI); id. § 100.7 (setting forth the process for ED’s Title VI complaints and
investigations).
Congressional Research Service

39

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

in the education context, that will likely be ED.337 ADA Title III complainants may file
complaints with DOJ.338
Private enforcement of Section 504 and the ADA in the public elementary and secondary
education contexts is more involved. Students can still file complaints with the federal agencies
as discussed above. ED also requires public elementary and secondary schools to maintain due
process procedures for handling Section 504 complaints; schools may, but do not have to, use the
IDEA complaint process to fulfill this obligation.339 However, unique to the elementary and
secondary education contexts (as opposed to other kinds of disability discrimination claims),
individuals who seek to vindicate their rights in court may have to complete the IDEA’s
administrative process first, even if they do not intend to bring an IDEA claim.
The IDEA provides that children with disabilities retain all of their rights under the ADA, Section
504, and other federal laws, except that before they can file a lawsuit “seeking relief that is also
available under [the IDEA],” they must go through the IDEA’s administrative process “to the
same extent as would be required” had they brought an IDEA claim.340 The Supreme Court has
articulated two principles governing when a person “seeks relief” available under the IDEA and
therefore must use the IDEA’s administrative process. First, when ADA or Section 504
complainants argue, in essence, that their schools denied a FAPE, even if they do not frame their
complaints that way, they are seeking relief available under the IDEA.341 Students bringing other
kinds of Section 504 or ADA claims against their schools, such as that a school has not provided
an accessible entrance to the building, may proceed straight to court.342 Second, complainants do
not seek relief available under the IDEA when they ask for remedies that the IDEA cannot
provide.343 This situation arises when complainants seek compensatory damages, which, as
discussed above, are not available under the IDEA.344
Whether damages are available under the ADA or Section 504 is complicated. Title III of the
ADA does not provide for any damages.345 In 2022, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs cannot
receive damages for emotional distress under Section 504.346 As Title II of the ADA borrows
“remedies, procedures, and rights” from Section 504, courts increasingly hold that emotional
distress damages are also unavailable under Title II.347 Courts may be able to award ADA Title II
and Section 504 plaintiffs other damages, however, such as compensation for lost income or

337 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.170(c), 35.190.
338 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b) (authorizing the Attorney General to investigate and take enforcement actions to remedy Title
III violations); 28 C.F.R. § 36.502(b) (allowing individuals to request DOJ investigations of alleged Title III
violations).
339 34 C.F.R. § 104.36.
340 20 U.S.C. § 1415(l).
341 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 166, 169–70 (2017).
342 Id. at 168, 171–72.
343 Luna Perez v. Sturgis Pub. Sch., 143 S. Ct. 859, 863–64 (2023).
344 Id.
345 Title III of the ADA borrows the remedies available under Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin by public accommodations. 42 U.S.C.
§ 12188(a)(1). Title II of the Civil Rights Act allows for only injunctive relief. 42 U.S.C. § 2000a–3(a).
346 Cummings v. Premier Rehab Keller, P.L.L.C., 142 S. Ct. 1562, 1571–72 (2022).
347 E.g., Kovatsenko v. Ky. Cmty. & Tech. Coll., No. CV 5:23-066-DCR, 2023 WL 3346108, at *4 (E.D. Ky. May 10,
2023); A.T. v. Oley Valley Sch. Dist., No. CV 17-4983, 2023 WL 1453143, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 1, 2023); Pennington
v. Flora Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 35, No. 3:20-CV-11-MAB, 2023 WL 348320, at *2 (S.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2023).
Congressional Research Service

40

link to page 29 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

medical bills or other financial harms.348 Finally, to the extent any damages are available under
Title II and Section 504, most courts hold that plaintiffs must prove that a school did more than
discriminate—they must show that the school acted with at least “deliberate indifference,” or
potentially “gross misjudgment,” “bad faith,” or “animus.”349
As under the IDEA, successful plaintiffs in Section 504 and ADA actions can also receive
injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees.350
Enforcement and Remedies: Key Takeaways
•
Families seeking to enforce their IDEA rights must complete the IDEA’s administrative process before going
to court. Successful complainants can receive injunctive relief, compensatory education, and attorneys’ fees
for the denial of a FAPE. If a complainant proves only a procedural violation, a court can issue an order to the
school district to correct the violation. Compensatory damages are not available under the IDEA.
•
Students raising Section 504 and/or ADA claims against postsecondary or private schools do not have to go
through an administrative process before filing suit in court. Primary and secondary school students in public
schools raising such claims must exhaust the IDEA’s administrative process if they seek relief that is also
available under the IDEA, i.e., when they seek injunctive relief and/or compensatory education for the denial
of a FAPE.
•
Successful plaintiffs can receive only injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees under Title III of the ADA. To grant
any damages under Section 504 or Title II, most courts require plaintiffs to prove intentional discrimination.
Otherwise, only injunctive relief and attorneys’ fees are available. Whether plaintiffs can receive emotional
distress damages for Section 504 or Title II violations is unsettled, but courts increasingly hold they cannot.

348 See A.T., 2023 WL 1453143, at *4 (“Although Cummings bars claims for compensatory emotional damages under
Section 504 of the RA, Title IX and the ADA, there is nothing in the decision that bars a plaintiff from seeking other
forms of compensatory damages under these three statutes.”); Pennington, 2023 WL 348320, at *2 (holding that
Cummings “did not preclude” “compensatory damages for economic losses”); Montgomery v. District of Columbia,
No. CV 18-1928 (JDB), 2022 WL 1618741, at *24–27 (D.D.C. May 23, 2022) (holding that plaintiffs can recover
damages under Title II and Section 504 to the extent those damages “fit within categories of damages that would be
traditionally recoverable in a breach of contract case”); see also Chaney v. E. Cent. Indep. Sch. Dist., No. SA-21-CV-
01082-FB, 2022 WL 17574080, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2022) (acknowledging lack of clarity on whether plaintiff
pled damages for injuries other than emotional distress without ruling on availability of such damages).
349 See supra note 233 and accompanying text; see also, e.g., Shaw v. Kemper, 52 F.4th 331, 334 (7th Cir. 2022) (“To
recover damages, Shaw must identify intentional conduct (and not mere negligence) by a named defendant. We have
interpreted that obligation as one requiring Shaw to plausibly allege that the defendants acted with deliberate
indifference to rights conferred by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.” (citation omitted)); Bax v. Drs. Med. Ctr. of
Modesto, Inc., 52 F.4th 858, 866 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Where, as here, plaintiffs seek compensatory damages under Section
504, they must clear an additional hurdle: proving a mens rea of intentional discrimination which may be met by
showing deliberate indifference.” (alteration and citations omitted)); Koon v. North Carolina, 50 F.4th 398, 404 (4th
Cir. 2022) (“As to the circuit split, courts largely agree that compensatory damages are only available to ADA plaintiffs
who prove intentional discrimination, but there is a disagreement about what standard to use: deliberate indifference or
something more.”).
350 29 U.S.C. § 794a(b) (allowing attorneys’ fees under Section 504); 42 U.S.C. § 12205 (allowing attorneys’ fees
under the ADA); Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 160 (2017) (stating that injunctive relief is available under
both the ADA and Section 504).
Congressional Research Service

41

link to page 48 The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Table 1. IDEA Part B, Section 504, and the ADA: Summary and
Comparison of Selected Provisions
Individuals with Disabilities
Section 504 of the
Americans with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B (IDEA)
Rehabilitation Act
Act (ADA)
(Section 504)

Nature of Law

Authorizes grants to state and local
Prohibits disability discrimination
Prohibits disability discrimination
educational agencies (SEAs and
in federally funded programs and
in a variety of areas of public life.
LEAs) to ensure a free appropriate
activities and in programs and
public education (FAPE) to children
activities conducted by the
with disabilities.
executive branch.
Scope of Coverage in Education Context

All public school districts in states
All schools, at al education levels, Title II: Al public schools,
that take IDEA funding (which is all
that receive federal funding,
including postsecondary. Also
states). Can require public school
which includes all public schools.
covers any public education
districts to serve students in private
Also covers federally funded
program in a non-school setting.
schools. Does not cover
educational programs in non-

postsecondary schools.
school settings (such as prison
classes, vocational programs,
Title III: Al nonparochial private
etc.). Federal funding includes
schools, including postsecondary.
federal student financial aid.
Also covers all education
programs in non-school settings.
Age Range

Ages 3 through 21 or until high
No age limit.
No age limit.
school graduation, whichever comes
first.a
Determination of Eligibility: Definitions and Evaluations
Definition of
Uses a categorical definition of
Person must have a physical or
Same as Section 504.
disability
disability. Children must (1) have at
mental impairment that
least one disability within the
substantially limits one or more
categories listed in the IDEA or its
major life activities, have a history
regulations and (2) require special
of such an impairment, or be
education and related services
regarded as disabled. Disability
because of their disability.
need not be connected to ability
to learn.
“Child Find” or
SEA or LEA must have a process to
Public P–12: Covered entity must
No obligation to proactively
Identifying Eligible identify all children eligible for IDEA
have a process to identify every
identify eligible students, but must
Children with
services residing in the state (and
eligible student within its
respond to requests for
Disabilities
children attending private school in
jurisdiction.
accommodation and offer
the state even if residing out-of-

accommodations even absent a
state).
request when need is obvious.
Private P–12 & postsecondary: No
obligation to proactively identify
eligible students, but must
respond to requests for
accommodation and offer
accommodations even absent a
request when need is obvious.
Evaluation
Requires evaluation prior to
P–12: Requires evaluations before Schools are not required to
initiating IDEA services. Extensive
initiating special education
conduct disability evaluations.
provisions regulating how to
services, but may be able to
conduct evaluations.
provide other services without
evaluation. Provisions regarding
conduct of evaluations are
Congressional Research Service

42

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Individuals with Disabilities
Section 504 of the
Americans with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B (IDEA)
Rehabilitation Act
Act (ADA)
(Section 504)

similar, but not identical, to those
in the IDEA.

Postsecondary: Schools are not
required to conduct disability
evaluations.
Placements

Students must be placed in the least
Does not use the term LRE but
Does not use the term LRE but
restrictive environment (LRE)
imposes similar obligations
imposes similar obligations
appropriate to their needs.
regarding educating students in
regarding educating students in
Integrated placements are required
the most integrated setting
the most integrated setting
for academic and nonacademic
appropriate to their needs.
appropriate to their needs.
activities. School districts must
Integrated placements are
Integrated placements are
maintain a continuum of alternative
required for academic and
required for academic and
placements to ensure a FAPE for all
nonacademic activities. Schools
nonacademic activities. Schools
eligible students. Regulations include are not required to maintain a
are not required to maintain a
specific directions on who makes
continuum of alternative
continuum of alternative
placement decisions and how they
placements. Any alternative
placements. Any alternative
are made.
placement for students with
placement for students with

disabilities should provide
disabilities should provide
comparable facilities, services,
comparable facilities, services,
Children may be placed in private
and activities. Regulations include
and activities.
schools by a school district if
specific directions, somewhat
needed to provide a FAPE. Parents

different than the IDEA’s, on who
may be entitled to reasonable
makes placement decisions and
Courts are split on whether
reimbursement for placing children
how they are made.
school districts are ever required
in private school without
to pay for private placement.
cooperation of the school district if

the district does not provide a
Courts are split on whether
FAPE.
school districts are ever required
No entitlement to transition
planning. Requires

to pay for private placement.
nondiscriminatory admissions to
Students are entitled to transition

postsecondary schools.
planning.
No entitlement to transition
planning. Requires
nondiscriminatory admissions to
postsecondary schools.
Services for Students with Disabilities
FAPE
Public P–12: Schools must provide a
Public P–12: Covered schools
Does not address provision of a
FAPE to every eligible student. A
must provide eligible students
FAPE, but some courts hold that
FAPE means providing special
with a FAPE, which is regular or
Section 504 standards apply.
education and related services at
special education and related aids
public expense, under public
and services designed to meet
supervision, and without charge;
the student’s individual
which meets the standards of the
educational needs as adequately
SEA; and which conforms to the
as the needs of students without
student’s individualized education
disabilities are met.
program (IEP). The IEP should be

reasonably calculated to enable a
child to make progress appropriate
Private P–12: No FAPE
in light of the child’s circumstances.
requirement. Regulations for
private schools require minor

adjustments to provide an
Private P–12: Students placed by
appropriate education, although
LEAs in private school are entitled
other generally applicable Section
Congressional Research Service

43

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Individuals with Disabilities
Section 504 of the
Americans with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B (IDEA)
Rehabilitation Act
Act (ADA)
(Section 504)

to a FAPE. Parentally placed
504 regulations may require
students are not entitled to a FAPE.
more.
Available services for these students
are negotiated between the LEA,
private schools, and parents.
Postsecondary: No FAPE
requirement.
Services for
Students with an IEP are entitled to
Requires provision of reasonable
Same as Section 504.
students with
special education and, if necessary,
accommodations/modifications
disabilities
related services. Special education is and auxiliary aids and services in
instruction special y designed to
all school programs. Reasonable
meet the unique needs of a child
accommodations and
with a disability. Related services
modifications are changes to
are supportive services necessary
school policies or the provision
for the child to benefit from special
of services that allow students
education. Examples include:
with disabilities to enjoy equal
speech-language pathology and
educational opportunity. Auxiliary
audiology services, interpreting
aids and services are
services, psychological services,
communication aids that enable
physical and occupational therapy,
effective communication for
recreation (including therapeutic
students with disabilities.
recreation), social work services,

counseling services (including
rehabilitation counseling),
Schools do not have to provide
orientation and mobility services,
accommodations or auxiliary aids
and medical services.
and services that they show
constitute a fundamental
alteration of their programs or
services or an undue burden.
Other Protections

The IDEA does not prohibit
Prohibits intentional
Prohibits intentional
disparate treatment, disparate
discrimination against people with discrimination against people with
impact, or disability-based
disabilities (disparate treatment).
disabilities (disparate treatment).
harassment unless such conduct

leads to the denial of a FAPE.
Courts are divided as to whether
Whether Section 504 prohibits
Title III prohibits unintentional
the IDEA prohibits retaliation, i.e.,
unintentional discrimination
discrimination against people with
adverse actions against a person for
against people with disabilities
disabilities (disparate impact).
exercising their rights.
(disparate impact) is unsettled.
Whether Title II does so is

unsettled.
Courts tend to hold that Section

504 prohibits deliberate
Courts tend to hold that the
indifference to disability-based
ADA prohibits deliberate
harassment.
indifference to disability-based

harassment.
Prohibits retaliation and

interference. Retaliation and
Prohibits retaliation and
interference are, generally
interference. Retaliation and
speaking, adverse actions against
interference are, generally
a person for exercising their
speaking, adverse actions against
rights.
a person for exercising their
rights.
Congressional Research Service

44

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Individuals with Disabilities
Section 504 of the
Americans with Disabilities
Education Act, Part B (IDEA)
Rehabilitation Act
Act (ADA)
(Section 504)

Enforcement
Administrative
Complainants must go through the
Public P–12: Complainants must
Public P–12: Complainants must
procedures
IDEA’s administrative procedure
go through the IDEA’s
go through the IDEA’s
before filing suit in court. The
administrative procedure before
administrative procedure before
administrative procedure requires
going to court if their Section 504 going to court if their ADA claim
the filing of a complaint with the
claim is based on the denial of a
is based on the denial of a FAPE
LEA, attempted informal resolution,
FAPE and they seek relief
and they seek relief available
a due process hearing, and potential
available under the IDEA (e.g.,
under the IDEA (e.g., injunctive
appeal to the SEA (unless the SEA
injunctive relief or compensatory
relief or compensatory
held the due process hearing). Most
education). Schools must
education). Complainants may,
IDEA complaints end or are
maintain due process procedures
but do not have to, file
resolved during the course of these
for handling Section 504
administrative complaints with
required administrative procedures. complaints which may, but do not the Department of Justice (DOJ)
have to, be the same as their
or ED.
IDEA complaint procedures.

Complainants may, but do not
have to, file administrative
Private P–12: Complainants may,
complaints with the federal
but do not have to, file
agency providing funding to the
administrative complaints with
school, likely the Department of
DOJ before going to court.
Education (ED).

Postsecondary: Complainants may,
Private P–12 and postsecondary:
but do not have to, file
Complainants may, but do not
administrative complaints with
have to, file administrative
DOJ (Titles II and III) or ED (Title
complaints with ED before going
II only) before going court.
to court.
Remedies
Substantive violations: Injunctive
Injunctive relief, attorneys’ fees.
Title II: Injunctive relief, attorneys’
relief, compensatory education
Most courts hold that damages
fees. Most courts hold that
(including reimbursement for
are available only for intentional
damages are available only for
educational costs), attorneys’ fees.
discrimination. Emotional distress
intentional discrimination.

damages are never available.
Availability of emotional distress
damages is unclear—courts
Procedural violations: Injunctive relief.
increasingly say no.
Courts may find parties prevailing
on only procedural claims are not

entitled to attorneys’ fees.
Title III: Injunctive relief,

attorneys’ fees. Damages are
never available.
Compensatory damages are never
available.
Source: CRS analysis of IDEA Part B, Section 504, and the ADA.
a. The IDEA requires states to make a FAPE available to all children with disabilities residing in each state
between the ages of 3 and 21, inclusive, unless the application of IDEA provisions to children between the
ages of 3 and 5 or 18 and 21 would be inconsistent with state law or practice, or the order of any court,
respecting the provision of public education to children in those age ranges. See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1)(B).
According to information provided to CRS by the U.S. Department of Education Budget Service, in 2024, 20
states provided children with disabilities a FAPE until the age of 21. The remaining states ended their
provision of a FAPE once students reached either 18, 19, or 20 years old. Part C of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C.
§§ 1431–1444, authorizes a grant program to the states to implement a system of early intervention
services for infants and toddlers with disabilities, from birth through age 2. See 20 U.S.C. §§ 1432(1), (5),
1433. For more information on Part C, see CRS Report R43631, The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Part C: Early Intervention for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities (2024).
Congressional Research Service

45

The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA

Author Information

Abigail A. Graber
Kyrie E. Dragoo
Legislative Attorney
Analyst in Education Policy

Acknowledgments
Legislative Attorney Madeline W. Donley assisted with the preparation of this report.

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan
shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and
under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other
than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in
connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not
subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to
copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service
R48068 · VERSION 1 · NEW
46

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

May. 17, 2024

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Education Policy

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON