The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Congressional research reportSep 26, 2025
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
The Rights of Students with Disabilities
Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Updated September 26, 2025
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R48068
SUMMARY
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under
the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
R48068
September 26, 2025
Abigail A. Graber
Legislative Attorney
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of
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
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities ..................................................................................... 2
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) ......................................................... 2
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 .......................................................................... 4
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) ............................................................... 6
Defining “Disability” ...................................................................................................................... 7
The IDEA’s Categorical, Education-Centered Definition of “Disability”................................. 7
Section 504 and the ADA’s Cross-Contextual Definition of “Disability” ................................. 9
The Rights of Students with Disabilities ........................................................................................11
Identification and Evaluation of Children with Disabilities .................................................... 12
Preschool, Elementary, and Secondary Education ............................................................ 12
Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations ................................................ 16
Placement ................................................................................................................................ 17
P–12 Education ................................................................................................................. 17
Postsecondary Education: Transition and Admissions ...................................................... 21
Services for Students with Disabilities.................................................................................... 22
Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) ...................................................................... 22
Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services ............. 29
Other Protections ..................................................................................................................... 32
Disparate Treatment .......................................................................................................... 33
Disparate Impact ............................................................................................................... 34
Harassment........................................................................................................................ 35
Retaliation and Interference .............................................................................................. 36
Enforcement and Remedies ........................................................................................................... 38
Enforcement and Remedies Under the IDEA ......................................................................... 38
Enforcement and Remedies Under Section 504 and the ADA ................................................ 40
Tables
Table 1. IDEA Part B, Section 504, and the ADA: Summary and
Comparison of Selected Provisions ............................................................................................ 43
Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 47
Congressional Research Service
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
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
(OSERS).23 OSEP administers the IDEA’s formula and discretionary grants programs. OSEP also
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. (Feb. 6, 2024), https://data.ed.gov/dataset/idea-section-618-data-products-static-tables-part-b-countenviron-table1/resources [https://perma.cc/87LV-3TMW] (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 [https://perma.cc/8PSW-AUHK].
23 20 U.S.C. § 1402; U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. FOR C.R., PARENT AND EDUCATOR RESOURCE GUIDE TO SECTION 504 IN
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
3
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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
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 [https://perma.cc/2EEK-C3SR]. On
March 11, 2025, ED announced a large-scale reduction in force (RIF) across the agency. Press Release, U.S. Dep’t of
Educ., U.S. Department of Education Initiates Reduction in Force (Mar. 11, 2025), https://www.ed.gov/about/news/
press-release/us-department-of-education-initiates-reduction-force [https://perma.cc/N6UU-4VL3]. That RIF has
reportedly eliminated “the entire staff that provides IDEA-implementation guidance to states and other grantees, and
the entire communications staff that sends key information to students, parents, schools, and states.” New York v.
McMahon, No. CV 25-10601-MJJ, 2025 WL 1463009, at *11 (D. Mass. May 22, 2025), preliminary injunction stayed
pending appeal, McMahon v. New York, 145 S. Ct. 2643 (2025). On March 21, 2025, President Trump announced at a
press conference his intent to move “special needs” programs from ED to the Department of Health and Human
Services. C-SPAN, President Trump and Defense Secretary Hegseth Deliver Remarks on F-47 Fighter Jet, at 01:45 (CSPAN, Mar. 21, 2025), https://www.c-span.org/program/white-house-event/president-trump-and-defense-secretaryhegseth-deliver-remarks-on-f-47-fighter-jet/657517. As of the last update to this report, Congress has not made changes
to OSEP or OSERS.
24 See, e.g., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., OFF. OF SPECIAL EDUC. & REHAB. 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 [https://perma.cc/FPC4-3N27].
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 subsequently 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 children 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; BennettNelson v. La. Bd. of Regents, 431 F.3d 448, 453 (5th Cir. 2005) (recognizing that Grove City applies to Section 504).
Congressional Research Service
4
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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
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
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 Disability Discrimination: Frequently Asked Questions, U.S.
DEP’T OF EDUC. (Jan. 17, 2025) [hereinafter Disability Discrimination FAQs], https://www.ed.gov/laws-andpolicy/civil-rights-laws/disability-discrimination/frequently-asked-questions-disability-discrimination
[https://perma.cc/A52B-VG3J].
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,
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 C.R. Data Collection, Off. for C.R., 2017–18 State and National Tables, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (June 18, 2025),
https://civilrightsdata.ed.gov/estimations/2017-2018 [https://perma.cc/RSZ6-ALSR] (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, at 18 (2018) [hereinafter NPSAS:16], https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2018/
2018466.pdf [https://perma.cc/3V3K-E3T3]; see also DATALAB, NAT’L CTR. FOR EDUC. STAT., https://nces.ed.gov/
datalab/index.aspx [https://perma.cc/K4PK-XJF3] (last visited Aug. 20, 2025). 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 longlasting 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).
Congressional Research Service
5
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has a primary role in enforcing Section 504 in the education
context.37 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.38 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.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA)
The ADA39 has been described as “the most sweeping anti-discrimination measure since the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.”40 Its purpose is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for
the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”41 “To effectuate its
sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids discrimination against individuals with disabilities in major
areas of public life.”42 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.43 Title III forbids disability discrimination by “public accommodations,”44 a category
that includes private schools and universities45 but exempts religious organizations.46 As many
private primary and secondary schools are religious,47 the ADA often does not apply to P–12
private school students.
37 As part of the March 11, 2025, RIF, ED eliminated seven of OCR’s twelve regional offices and laid off more than
half of OCR’s employees. Victim Rts. L. Ctr. v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ., No. 1:25-CV-25-11042-MJJ, 2025 WL 1704311,
at *5 (D. Mass. June 18, 2025), appeal docketed, No. 25-1787 (1st Cir. Aug. 14, 2025). Lawsuits challenging the
layoffs at OCR have reached different preliminary results and are ongoing. Contrast Victim Rts. L. Ctr., 2025 WL
1704311, at *20 (preliminarily enjoining the RIF with regard to OCR employees), with Carter v. U.S. Dep’t of Educ.,
No. 1:25-CV-744-PLF, 2025 WL 1453562, at *14 (D.D.C. May 21, 2025) (denying request to preliminarily enjoin the
OCR RIF).
38 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).
39 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213.
40
Opinion, A Law for Every American, N.Y. TIMES, July 27, 1990, at A26.
41 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1).
42 PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661, 675 (2001).
43 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–12132; Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 159 (2017).
44 42 U.S.C. § 12182.
45 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.
46 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).
47 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 [https://perma.cc/3DYCEP8R] (last visited Aug. 20, 2025).
Congressional Research Service
6
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Congress modeled Title II after Section 504.48 Courts usually interpret the substantive
requirements of Title II and Title III similarly49 and the requirements of Section 504 and the ADA
similarly.50 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.51 Only DOJ enforces Title III.52
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”53 having at least one
condition falling into one or more of 13 enumerated categories.54 ED’s implementing regulations
48 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).
49 E.g., K.N. v. Gloucester City Bd. of Educ., 379 F. Supp. 3d 334, 353 n.17 (D.N.J. 2019).
50 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).
51 28 C.F.R. § 35.190(b)(2) (2023); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 40.
52 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).
53 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.”
54 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
broadly define each IDEA disability category.55 States have adopted their own clarifying
definitions, although these definitions cannot exclude children otherwise eligible for services
under the IDEA.56 One category that encompasses a particularly diverse array of conditions is
“other health impairments,”57 which the statute does not define. ED defines this term in its
regulations58 and lists a number of disorders that may qualify under it.59 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.”60 Other states impose no criteria beyond those found in ED’s IDEA
regulations.61
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.”62 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.63
Additionally, to be eligible under the IDEA, a student must “need[] special education and related
services” because of his or her disability.64 When regular classroom instruction or interventions
“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).
55 See 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c)(1)–(13).
56 See Letter from Patricia Guard, Acting Dir., U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Off. of Spec. Educ. & Rehab. Serv., 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 [https://perma.cc/XM2N-NWCM] (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).
57 20 U.S.C. § 1401(3)(A).
58 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”).
59 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”).
60 14 DEL. ADMIN. CODE §§ 925.6.14.1–925.6.14.5 (2024).
61 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”).
62 34 C.F.R. § 300.8(c). One commentator states that the adverse effect requirement is “implied” for specific learning
disabilities. Weber, supra note 56, at 103.
63 See, e.g., 707 Ky. Admin. Regs. § 1:002(2) (Mar. 2023); 05-071-101; ME. CODE R. § II(3) (LexisNexis 2023); 22006 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.”).
64 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.,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
other than special education can adequately overcome the adverse effects of a child’s disability,
courts may find the child ineligible for IDEA services.65 There is no definition of when a student
“needs” services.66 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.”67 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.68
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.”69 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.”70 In some ways, this definition is
broader than the definition of disability under the IDEA.71 As the ADA and Section 504 are
designed to prohibit discrimination and improve accessibility in society generally, their definition
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)).
65 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).
66 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 56, at 120; Garda, Untangling
Eligibility Requirements, supra note 65, at 491–92.
67 34 C.F.R. § 300.306(c)(1)(i); see Alvin, 503 F.3d at 383.
68 See Zirkel, supra note 65, at 165–66; Garda, Untangling Eligibility Requirements, supra note 65, 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).
69 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).
70 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1).
71 See CTL ex rel. Trebatoski v. Ashland Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 524, 529 (7th Cir. 2014).
Congressional Research Service
9
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
of disability, unlike the IDEA’s, is not restricted to conditions that impact educational progress.72
An “impairment” that affects any “major life activity” can qualify, and major life activities are
broadly defined.73 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.”74 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.75 Thus, for
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.76
A school can also violate the ADA and Section 504 by discriminating against a student on the
basis of a perceived disability.77 For example, a school might offer a student inferior academic
opportunities because it erroneously perceived the student to have an intellectual disability.78 The
IDEA does not cover students who do not, in fact, have any present disability.79
Many courts assume that Section 504 and the ADA cover any child who is eligible for IDEA
services.80 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.”81
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.82 Nevertheless, some courts
72 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
65, at 487 (“Section 504’s coverage is broader than IDEA’s because it does not consider the child’s need for special
education.”).
73 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).
74 Id.
75 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(B); OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 7–8. Covered entities need not offer
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).
76 28 C.F.R. pt. 35 app. C §§ 35.108(e), 36.105(e).
77 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(C).
78 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).
79 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.
80 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.
81 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A).
82 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
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.”83
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
also be covered by the ADA and Section 504.84 The reverse is not always true: children who are
protected under the ADA and Section 504 may not qualify for IDEA services.85
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.86
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.87 The IDEA does not
extend to students with disabilities in college or other postsecondary education and training
programs.88
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).
83 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
65, 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 68 and
accompanying text.
84 B.C., 837 F.3d at 159; Mann, 535 F. App’x at 411; Ellenberg, 572 F.3d at 821, 823.
85 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 504Only’ Students, 92 NASSP BULL. 19, 28 (Mar. 2008).
86 See 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(1).
87 See infra “FAPE in Private Schools.”
88 See 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9) (limiting a FAPE to “an appropriate preschool, elementary school, or secondary school
education”).
Congressional Research Service
11
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Section 504 applies to any educational program that receives federal funding, and the ADA
applies to all public and nonparochial private schools.89 As under the IDEA, some of Section 504
and the ADA’s rules are different for public versus private schools.90 Section 504 and the ADA do
protect students in many, if not most, higher education programs.91
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.
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.92 ED’s regulations
require LEAs to identify and evaluate children attending private schools within their jurisdictions
even if those children live outside the state.93 These policies and procedures—known as “Child
Find”94—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).95 The IDEA’s Child Find obligations apply to children attending both public and private
schools, including parochial schools.96 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.97 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.98
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.”99 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
89 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
90 See infra “Identification” and “FAPE in Private Schools.”
91 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973” and note 31.
92 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).
93 34 C.F.R. § 300.131(f).
94 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(3).
95 Id. § 1412(a)(1)(A), (a)(3)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.111.
96 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(ii); 34 C.F.R. § 300.131.
97 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b) (instructing LEAs on how to evaluate students for IDEA eligibility).
98 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.”).
99 34 C.F.R. § 104.32(a).
Congressional Research Service
12
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
FAPE.”100 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.101
The Section 504 regulations do not require private elementary and secondary schools to
proactively identify and evaluate students with disabilities,102 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
a request for an accommodation to trigger a covered entity’s Section 504 or ADA obligations.103
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.104 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 504.105 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.106 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.107 In general, the LEA must first obtain informed consent from a child’s
parent.108 (Parental consent to an evaluation does not imply consent to special education and
100 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).
101 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.
102 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).
103 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”).
104 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).
105 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(A); 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.35(a), 300.301(a).
106 Frequently Asked Questions: Section 504 Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (June
30, 2025) [hereinafter Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504], https://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/civilrights-laws/disability-discrimination/frequently-asked-questions-section-504-free-appropriate-public-education-fape
[https://perma.cc/65RK-JGQ9] (specifically questions 18 and 19).
107 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.
108 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.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
related services—parents must consent separately to services.)109 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.110 The initial evaluation must take place
within 60 days of parental consent or within an alternative time frame established by the state.111
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.112
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.113 Private schools
receiving federal funds that choose to provide special education services must also follow Section
504’s evaluation procedures.114 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.115 A school district can violate Section 504 by unreasonably
delaying an evaluation and accommodations.116
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.117
109 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (ii)(II).
110 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).
111 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(C)(i)(I).
112 See 20 U.S.C. § 1415(d).
113 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 106, 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 65.
114 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c).
115 Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Qs.26, 42.
116 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.
117 Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, 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).
Congressional Research Service
14
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.”118 The
IDEA emphasizes that schools should assess a child “in all areas of suspected disability.”119 Both
laws emphasize the importance of considering a variety of assessments and sources of
information.120 Schools must ensure that their evaluations validly measure a child’s abilities and
needs and that the evaluations are culturally sensitive.121 Both Section 504 and the IDEA require
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).122
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.123 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.124 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.”125 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.126
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.127 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.128 In general, parents must consent to reevaluations.129 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.130
118 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).
119 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(B).
120 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).
121 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(3)(A)(i)–(v) (IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(1), (c) (Section 504).
122 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(b)(3) (Section 504); accord id. § 300.304(c)(3) (IDEA).
123 20 U.S.C. § 1414(b)(4)(A).
124 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 19.
125 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(c).
126 Id. § 104.36.
127 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(a).
128
20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(2)(B); 34 C.F.R. § 300.303(b).
129 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(3); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(c).
130 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5); 34 C.F.R. § 300.305(e).
Congressional Research Service
15
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
The briefer Section 504 regulations require LEAs to establish procedures consistent with their
evaluation procedures for “periodic” reevaluations of students receiving Section 504 services.131
Reevaluation procedures consistent with the IDEA satisfy this obligation.132
Postsecondary Education: Identification and Evaluations
The IDEA does not apply after high school,133 and neither Section 504 nor the ADA require
postsecondary institutions to affirmatively identify or evaluate students with disabilities.134 As
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.135
Regulations say little about how IHEs may confirm eligibility.136 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),137 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.138 IHEs set their own documentation requirements,
and some commentators observe that students may have trouble securing the necessary
paperwork.139 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
131 34 C.F.R. § 104.35(d).
132 Id.
133 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(c)(5)(B)(i) (indicating that graduation from high school terminates a child’s IDEA eligibility).
134 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. & REHAB. SERVS., U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., A TRANSITION GUIDE TO
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT FOR STUDENTS AND YOUTH WITH DISABILITIES 25 (Aug. 2020)
[hereinafter TRANSITION GUIDE], https://sites.ed.gov/idea/files/postsecondary-transition-guide-august-2020.pdf
[https://perma.cc/7H4T-XRVP]; Students with Disabilities Preparing for Postsecondary Education, U.S. DEP’T OF
EDUC. (Aug. 20, 2025) [hereinafter Preparing for Postsecondary Education], https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ocr/transition.html [https://perma.cc/5FMA-7JTS].
135 See supra “Identification.”
136 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 powerdriven mobility devices. 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.136(f), 35.137(c), 36.302(c)(6), 36.311(c).
137 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).
138 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 134, at 25–26; Preparing for Postsecondary
Education, supra note 134.
139 Debi Gartland & Roberta Strosnider, Considerations for Transition from High School to Postsecondary Education,
46 LEARNING DISABILITY Q. 230, 234–35 (2023).
Congressional Research Service
16
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.140
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.141 Guidance for IHEs from the Association on Higher
Education and Disability emphasizes that documentation requirements should be “nonburdensome,” 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.’”142
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.143 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.”144 In IDEA
140 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).
141 See Supporting Accommodation Requests: Guidance on Documentation Practices, ASS’N ON HIGHER EDUC. &
DISABILITY (Oct. 2012), https://www.ahead.org/professional-resources/accommodations/documentation
[https://perma.cc/NKC6-A2NR].
142 Id.
143 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(5) (IDEA); 34 C.F.R. § 104.34 (2023) (Section 504).
144 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); U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC., FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC
EDUCATION FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES: REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF
1973, at 6 (2007) [hereinafter FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504], https://www.ed.gov/media/document/factsheet-supporting-students-disabilities-and-avoiding-discriminatory-use-of-student-discipline-under-section-504-ofrehabilitation-act-of-1973-2007-21267 [https://perma.cc/2R8T-ZAQB] (“It is illegal to base individual placement
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
terminology, schools must provide a FAPE in the least restrictive environment (LRE).145 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.146 Section 504’s rules requiring the integration of students with disabilities apply to
covered public and private schools alike.147
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
special education classes, regular education classes, or accelerated classes.148 Schools cannot
refuse to provide needed services and modifications in the general education environment.149 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.150 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.151
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.”152 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.”153 A school district is to educate an
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.”).
145 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).
146 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 Dear Colleague Letter from Seth M. Galanter, Acting Assistant Sec. for C.R., Students with Disabilities in
Extracurricular Activities, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Jan. 25, 2013) [hereinafter DCL re Extracurriculars],
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201301-504.pdf [https://perma.cc/KE79-Q4AJ] (reviewing
schools’ Section 504 obligations regarding extracurricular activities).
147 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c) (requiring covered private schools to comply with 34 C.F.R. § 104.34).
148 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).
149 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.
150 Dear Colleague Letter from Stephanie J. Monroe, Assistant Sec. for C.R., Access by Students with Disabilities to
Accelerated Programs, U.S. DEP’T OF EDUC. (Dec. 26, 2007) [hereinafter DCL re Accelerated Programs],
http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-20071226.html [https://perma.cc/G6BP-KPNF].
151 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.”
152 34 C.F.R. § 300.115(a).
153 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).
Congressional Research Service
18
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
IDEA-eligible child in the placement along this “continuum” that is the LRE “that is consonant
with his or her needs.”154
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.155 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.”156
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
evaluation data, and the placement options.157 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.158
The ADA’s requirements align with Section 504’s, although they are less specific.159 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”160 and may not provide separate services unless necessary.161
154 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)).
155 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).
156 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(c).
157 Id. § 300.116(a)–(b).
158 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).
159 See, e.g., DCL re Accelerated Programs, supra note 150 (“Title II provides no lesser protections than does Section
504.”); DCL re Extracurriculars, supra note 146, 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.”).
160 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(B); accord 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(d), 36.203(a) (2023).
161 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130(b)(iv), 36.202(c).
Congressional Research Service
19
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Private School P–12 Placement
An LEA can place a child in private school, at the LEA’s expense (and with parental consent162),
in order to meet its IDEA obligations.163 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.164 Parents must meet certain procedural requirements
before enrolling their children in private schools if they seek full reimbursement from LEAs.165
Courts have wide leeway to determine appropriate reimbursement levels.166 For example, a court
may reduce reimbursement if it determines that parents chose an unreasonably expensive
placement in light of the available options,167 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.168 Parents who unilaterally enroll their
students in private schools are not entitled to reimbursement if their LEA made a FAPE available
in a public school setting.169
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.170 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.171 Other courts disagree, holding that private
162 See 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b).
163 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).
164 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).
165 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(iii)–(iv); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(d)–(e).
166 Florence Cnty., 510 U.S. at 16 (quoting Burlington, 471 U.S. at 369).
167 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).
168 34 C.F.R. § 300.104 (stating that the IDEA may require a residential placement at public expense only when a
“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)).
169 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(C)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 300.148(a); Burlington, 471 U.S. at 374.
170 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(2)–(4); FAPE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504, supra note 144, at 10 (“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.”).
171 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).
Congressional Research Service
20
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.172 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.173 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.174 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.175 No matter what IDEA transition
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.176 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.177 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.178
172 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).
173 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).
174 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).
175 See, e.g., Gartland & Strosnider, supra note 139, at 233, 236; Davis & Lee, supra note 173, at 140–41; TRANSITION
GUIDE, supra note 134, at 23–26.
176 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 134, 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).
177 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).
178 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).
Congressional Research Service
21
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.179 Whether ED has properly interpreted Section 504 to allow
for disparate impact liability is a subject of debate in the courts, discussed further below.180
The ADA also requires private entities offering educational, professional, or trade examinations
or courses to provide accessible services.181 These rules apply to entities like the College Board,
ACT, Inc., and others that offer tests used in undergraduate and graduate admissions.182 Testing
providers must provide reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids and services.183
Admissions and other tests must be designed so that they measure the skills the tests purport to
measure, not students’ disabilities.184
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.185
ED interprets Section 504 to also require federally funded P–12 public schools to provide a
FAPE.186 The ADA’s statutory and regulatory provisions are largely not education specific,187 and
none mention the concept of a FAPE. Nevertheless, reflecting the general rule that the ADA and
179 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).
180 See infra “Disparate Impact.”
181 42 U.S.C. § 12189; 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(a).
182 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).
183 See 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b).
184 28 C.F.R. § 36.309(b)(1)(i); 34 C.F.R. § 104.42(b)(3)(i).
185 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 158 (2017).
186 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(a).
187 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).
Congressional Research Service
22
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
Section 504 should be interpreted congruently,188 some (but not all) courts have held, and ED
agrees, that the ADA requires schools to meet the same FAPE requirements as Section 504.189
None of these laws extend the right to a FAPE to postsecondary education programs.190
While in practice these three laws may entitle students to similar services,191 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
educational services, while Title II [of the ADA] and [Section] 504 promise nondiscriminatory
access to public institutions.”192 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.193 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.194 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.195 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.196 Parents must be included on the IEP
188 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 50 and accompanying text.
189 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 144, at 1 n.2 (“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.”).
190 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 134. 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.
191 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 . . . .”).
192 Fry v. Napoleon Cmty. Sch., 580 U.S. 154, 170–71 (2017).
193 Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 200, 181 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. § 1414. The IDEA does provide some agerelated 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.
194 Fry, 580 U.S. at 158 (quoting Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 311 (1988)); see also 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d).
195 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).
196 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).
Congressional Research Service
23
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
team and must consent to IDEA services.197 Unlike with evaluations, LEAs may not seek to
override parental refusals to consent to the initial provision of IDEA services.198
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.”199 “Special
education” is “specially designed instruction” that “meets the unique needs of a child with a
disability.”200 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.201 “Related services” are “supportive services . . . required to assist a child
with a disability to benefit from special education.”202 Nursing services during the school day for
a student who relies on a ventilator, for example, may be a related service.203 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.204 Schools must provide
related services only when a child also requires special education.205 A child who needs disabilityrelated 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.”206 Beyond that, the IDEA
does not define the quality of education owed to students with disabilities.207 That ambiguity has
197 20 U.S.C. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(i)(II), (ii)(II)–(III), (d)(1)(B)(i).
198 Id. § 1414(a)(1)(D)(ii)(II)–(III); 34 C.F.R. § 300.300(b)(3); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra
note 106, 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).
199 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9).
200 Id. § 1401(29).
201 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).
202 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A).
203 See Cedar Rapids Comm. Sch. Dist. v. Garret F., 526 U.S. 66 (1999) (holding that nursing services for a ventilatordependent student during school hours were a “related service”).
204 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26).
205 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).
206 Bd. of Educ. v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 189 (1982); see 20 U.S.C. § 1401(9); 34 C.F.R. § 300.17.
207 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).
Congressional Research Service
24
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
provoked one of the most commonly litigated questions under the act: What is an “appropriate”
public education?208
In two decisions, Board of Education v. Rowley209 and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School
District,210 the Supreme Court rejected arguments both that the FAPE requirement was “merely
aspirational,” imposing no enforceable substantive standards,211 and that the IDEA required
schools to “achieve strict equality of opportunity or services” between children with and without
disabilities.212 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.”213 Children must receive more than minimal educational benefits, but the precise
contours of a FAPE depend on the child’s individual circumstances.214 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.215 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.”216 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
automatically mean a school district has failed to provide a FAPE.217 The Supreme Court also
expects judges to give at least some deference to the expertise of school authorities.218 The
standard “is whether the IEP is reasonable, not whether the court regards it as ideal.”219
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.220 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.221 While the IDEA
specifies the members who must be invited to participate in a child’s IEP team, including the
208 BLACK, supra note 207, at 467 (stating that this question continues to be “heavily litigated”).
209 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
210 580 U.S. 386 (2017).
211 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 393.
212 Rowley, 458 U.S. at 187–88, 198–99.
213 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 399.
214 Id. at 397–99, 402–04.
215 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).
216 Id. at 402.
217 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).
218 Endrew F., 580 U.S. at 404.
219 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).
220 See supra note 189 and accompanying text.
221 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 10.
Congressional Research Service
25
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
child’s parents,222 no similar requirement appears in Section 504 or its regulations.223 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,224 neither Section 504 nor the regulations require any specific content in a Section 504
plan.225
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.226 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.”227
Section 504 services are not intrinsically connected to a student’s need for “special education”—a
Section 504 FAPE can be accomplished with “regular” education.228 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.229
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,230 while a Section 504
FAPE may not always satisfy the IDEA’s demands.231 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 504.232 Even in
222 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B).
223 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).
224 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1); 34 C.F.R. § 300.320.
225 See generally 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.32–104.39.
226 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(c)(1).
227 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 144, at 4 (“The quality of education services provided to students with
disabilities must equal the quality of services provided to nondisabled students.”).
228 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1); Frequently Asked Questions About Section 504, supra note 106, at Q.4; see FAPE
REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION 504, supra note 144, at 3 (defining an “appropriate education”).
229 34 C.F.R. § 104.33(b)(1)(ii).
230 Est. of Lance v. Lewisville Indep. Sch. Dist., 743 F.3d 982, 992–93 (5th Cir. 2014) (collecting cases).
231 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.
232 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.”
Congressional Research Service
26
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.”233 (Remedies under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA are discussed
in further detail below.) Other courts have gone 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.234
In 2025, the Supreme Court held that courts must evaluate students’ Section 504 and ADA claims
under the same standard of proof that applies to claims in non-educational contexts.235 While the
Court did not specify a particular standard, courts generally do not require Section 504 plaintiffs
to show animus, or other forms of intent, when plaintiffs seek injunctive relief—the denial of an
accommodation is enough.236 (Most courts do hold that plaintiffs must show deliberate
indifference to recover damages.)237 Following the Supreme Court’s ruling, several district courts
have held that circuit precedent requiring animus for education-related Section 504 claims is no
longer good law.238
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.239 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—
the public LEA and SEA remain responsible for fulfilling obligations to privately educated
students.240
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.241 Students placed by their parents in private schools (parentally placed children), on the
233 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).
234 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”).
235 A.J.T. ex rel. A.T. v. Osseo Area Sch. Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, 605 U.S. 335, 351 (2025).
236 See id. at 352 (Thomas, J., concurring).
237 Id.
238 E.g., W.H. ex rel. Larry G. v. Fort Bend Indep. Sch. Dist., No. 4:24-CV-1515, 2025 WL 2147067, at *20 (S.D. Tex.
July 29, 2025); M.B. ex rel. D.B. v. Triangle Math & Sci. Acad. Bd. of Directors, No. 5:24-CV-664-FL, 2025 WL
2100021, at *2 (E.D.N.C. July 25, 2025); J.M. v. Ozark Horizon State Sch., No. 23-3222-CV-S-MDH, 2025 WL
1698509, at *2 (W.D. Mo. June 17, 2025).
239 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
[https://perma.cc/X8WN-2LGW].
240 St. Johnsbury Acad. v. D.H., 240 F.3d 163, 170 (2d Cir. 2001).
241 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(B).
Congressional Research Service
27
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
other hand, are not entitled to a FAPE.242 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.243 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.”244 Public employees, or contractors under “public supervision and control,”
should provide the designated services, which must be “secular, neutral, and nonideological.”245
The IDEA does not guarantee that every parentally placed child with an IDEA-eligible disability
will receive IDEA services.246
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”247—i.e., to provide educational services
designed to meet the needs of students with disabilities.248 ED’s Section 504 regulations also
allow private schools to charge students with disabilities if providing services comes with
substantial costs.249
Little case law exists interpreting the Section 504 “minor adjustments” regulation.250 How this
regulation interacts with the rest of Section 504 is unclear. Statutorily, Section 504 does not
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.”251 These requirements could demand more than
242 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.”).
243 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A)(iii)(IV).
244 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.132(b), 300.137(c), 300.138(b).
245 20 U.S.C. § 1412(a)(10)(A)(vi); 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.138(c), 300.142(b).
246 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).
247 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(a).
248 Id. § 104.33(b)(1).
249 Id. § 104.39(b).
250 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 220014, 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 determined 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 had pled a Section 504 claim when she alleged that her school “did not provide any accommodations.”
Doe, 2022 WL 16722322, at *7.
251 34 C.F.R. § 104.34(a) (applied to private schools by 34 C.F.R. § 104.39(c)).
Congressional Research Service
28
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
“minor adjustments.” Moreover, Section 504’s general prohibitions on discrimination apply to
federally funded private schools,252 while Title III of the ADA applies to all nonparochial private
schools.253 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.”254 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.255 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.256 In 1990, Congress adopted a similar requirement in the
ADA, requiring both public and private covered entities—including public and covered private
schools—to make “reasonable modifications”257 when necessary to provide nondiscriminatory
252 See id. § 104.4.
253 See supra “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
254 See infra “Reasonable Accommodations, Modifications, and Auxiliary Aids and Services.”
255 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.”).
256 Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985).
257 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).
Congressional Research Service
29
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
access to people with disabilities.258 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.259 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.260
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.261 A school is not required to eliminate an essential part of a program to
accommodate a student with a disability.262
Schools must also furnish “auxiliary aids and services” when necessary to ensure effective
communication with students with disabilities.263 Examples of auxiliary aids and services can
258 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.
259 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)).
260 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 134; 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).
261 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 134; 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.
262 34 C.F.R. § 104.44(a) (IHEs not required to adjust “essential” academic requirements); Preparing for
Postsecondary Education, supra note 134; 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).
263 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.
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
30
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.264 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.265
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.266 For example, certain academic criteria that could be waived or modified in the
elementary and secondary context might be essential in a postsecondary program.267 One Deaf
student might be fluent in American Sign Language and require an interpreter while another may
need real-time captioning.268
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.269 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.270
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
administrative burdens.”271 The onus is on the school to prove fundamental alteration or undue
§ 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).
264 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.
265 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.160(b)(2), 36.303(c)(1)(ii).
266 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).
267 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).
268 See 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (listing potential auxiliary aids and services under Title II); id. § 36.303(b) (same, for Title
III).
269 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).
270 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.”).
271 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”).
Congressional Research Service
31
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
burden.272 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.273
By not requiring “fundamental alterations,” Section 504 and the ADA allow schools to
“preserv[e] the essential characteristics of their . . . programs.”274 Courts have found that
requiring a school to “lower or effect substantial modifications of standards”275 or “provide new
programs or new curricula,”276 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.277
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
schools to provide services to children with disabilities.278 Section 504 and the ADA therefore
protect students from disability discrimination even when they do not need disability-related
services.279 The following sections briefly summarize illegal conduct under Section 504 and the
272 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).
273 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”).
274 Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474, 489 (4th Cir. 2005).
275 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).
276 K.M., 725 F.3d at 1101.
277 28 C.F.R. § 36.104.
278 See supra “Laws Protecting Students with Disabilities”; see also Ellenberg v. N.M. Mil. Inst., 478 F.3d 1262, 1274–
75 (10th Cir. 2007).
279 OCR SECTION 504 RESOURCE GUIDE, supra note 23, at 7.
Congressional Research Service
32
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
ADA that the IDEA generally does not reach,280 unless the prohibited acts result in violations of
the IDEA’s procedural requirements or the denial of a FAPE.281
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.282 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.283 To be illegal, disparate treatment
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.284
280 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”).
281 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).
282 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).
283 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 C.R., PROTECTING
CIVIL RIGHTS, ADVANCING EQUITY: REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SECRETARY OF EDUCATION 37 (2015),
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED577845.pdf [https://perma.cc/YUL9-23YX]; 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”).
284 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).
Congressional Research Service
33
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
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.”285 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.”286 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.287 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.”288 The school bears the burden of
proving direct threat.289
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.290 Title III of the ADA recognizes disparate impact claims in the statutory
text.291 Whether Section 504 and Title II prohibit disparate impact discrimination is unsettled. The
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.”292 Following Choate, courts frequently
held that Section 504 and the ADA prohibited not only intentional, but also unintentional
285 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).
286 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”).
287 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).
288 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).
289 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).
290 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).
291 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
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.”).
292 469 U.S. 287, 295 (1985).
Congressional Research Service
34
The Rights of Students with Disabilities Under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA
discrimination.293 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.294
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.295 Congress modeled Section
504 after Title VI,296 and Title II after Section 504.297 Following Sandoval, federal courts have
split on whether Section 504 allows plaintiffs to sue for disparate impacts.298 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.299
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.300
Harassment
A school’s inadequate response to disability-based harassment may
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.