Children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable students in public schools. They are the most likely to be bullied, harassed, restrained, or segregated. For these and other reasons, they also have the poorest academic outcomes. Overcoming these challenges requires full use of the laws enacted to protect these students’ affirmative right to equal access and an environment free from discrimination. Yet, courts routinely deny their access to two such laws—the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (section 504).Courts too often overlook the affirmative obligations contained in these two disability rights laws and instead assume that students with disabilities’ only legal recourse is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Regrettably the IDEA is not capable of remedying all the harms students endure. In fact, the IDEA, by its terms, extends to only a subset of students with disabilities. Even so, courts force all students to exhaust the IDEA’s administrative procedures before invoking remedies under the other two disability rights laws. By narrowly construing antidiscrimination principles and ignoring the affirmative obligations contained in disability rights laws, courts unduly restrict students’ protections under these laws.This Article solves that problem by explaining and clarifying the nuance that drives confusion in this area: the difference between the IDEA’s guarantee of a free appropriate public education and the ADA and section 504’s guarantee of equal access to public education. With that distinction clear, this Article disaggregates the types of claims that are most often erroneously obstructed by the IDEA’s exhaustion clause and then creates a framework that would allow courts to analyze and correctly apply the exhaustion clause. In doing so, it hopes to remove these laws from the IDEA’s shadow and renew their promise of equal access to educational opportunity.

中文翻译：

---

残障权利的失落承诺

残疾儿童是公立学校中最脆弱的学生之一。他们最有可能受到欺凌、骚扰、约束或隔离。由于这些和其他原因，他们的学业成绩也最差。克服这些挑战需要充分利用为保护这些学生平等获得平等机会和不受歧视的环境而制定的法律。然而，法院通常会拒绝他们使用两项此类法律——美国残疾人法案 (ADA) 和 1973 年康复法案第 504 节（第 504 节）。假设残疾学生唯一的法律途径是《残疾人教育法》(IDEA)。遗憾的是，IDEA 无法弥补学生所遭受的所有伤害。事实上，IDEA 就其条款而言，仅适用于一部分残疾学生。即便如此，法院仍强制所有学生在根据其他两项残疾人权利法援引补救措施之前，用尽 IDEA 的行政程序。通过狭隘地解释反歧视原则并忽视残疾人权利法中包含的肯定义务，法院过度限制了学生在这些法律下的保护。本文通过解释和澄清导致该领域混乱的细微差别来解决该问题：IDEA 的保证与适当的免费公共教育和 ADA 和第 504 节对平等获得公共教育的保证。有了这个明确的区分，本文分解了最常被 IDEA 用尽条款错误阻碍的索赔类型，然后创建了一个框架，使法院能够分析和正确应用用尽条款。通过这样做，它希望将这些法律从 IDEA 的阴影中移除，并重申他们对平等获得教育机会的承诺。