Milwaukee Montessori School Enters Into Settlement with Department of Justice—and Files Court Motion Against Parents Referenced in DOJ-MMS Settlement
On the same day it entered into the settlement agreement with DOJ, Milwaukee Montessori School filed a motion for attorney’s fees from the parents of one of the children referenced in the settlement.
May 7, 2025, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a settlement agreement with Milwaukee Montessori School (MMS) in Milwaukee, WI, to resolve allegations that the school violated Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). According to DOJ, the school “agreed to injunctive relief and payment of $290,000 to resolve allegations that it failed to provide full and equal enjoyment of its educational services to children with disabilities, in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12189”. This includes $240,000 in damages for aggrieved parties and a $50,000 civil penalty to the United States.
DOJ’s findings indicate that “since at least 2018,” the school engaged in a pattern of discrimination against students who have disabilities.
School Sues Parents for Legal Fees Same Day as DOJ Settlement
On the same day it entered into the settlement agreement, MMS filed a court motion seeking $439,224.50 in attorney’s fees from the parents of one of the ten children referenced in DOJ’s settlement agreement with the school.
The child’s parents had previously filed a civil rights lawsuit against the school in 2022, alleging disability discrimination after the school terminated the child’s enrollment. However, on April 24, 2025, just weeks before the DOJ-MMS agreement, District Judge Brett H. Ludwig dismissed the parent’s case without prejudice on jurisdictional grounds—not on the merits.
Despite the procedural dismissal, DOJ still cited the child’s experience as part of the broader pattern of discrimination, reinforcing that DOJ is not bound by the outcomes of civil litigation. Under ADA, DOJ has independent authority to investigate and enforce violations:
“If the Attorney General has reasonable cause to believe that any person or group of persons is engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination . . . the Attorney General may commence a civil action.”
Thus, although the parent’s case was dismissed prior to the school and DOJ entering into the settlement agreement, DOJ’s inclusion of the student in the agreement confirms the credibility and relevance of the student's experience.
History of ADA Noncompliance: Beyond a Single Incident
1979: Equal Protection Challenge
Milwaukee Montessori School was one of the plaintiffs in Milwaukee Montessori School v. Percy, challenging a Wisconsin day care licensing statute. The plaintiff argued the law violated the Equal Protection Clause by treating parochial and non-parochial private schools differently. The court agreed:
“[T]here is no rational basis for the distinction created by § 48.65, Wis.Stats., between private parochial schools and other private schools, and therefore the enforcement of that statute against the plaintiff the Milwaukee Montessori School is in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
This earlier litigation reflects the school’s familiarity with constitutional and nondiscrimination protections—context that makes later ADA allegations, settlements, and other actions even more striking.
2014: DOJ Complaint and Consent Decree
September 2014, DOJ filed a complaint alleging MMS “violated the ADA by: 1) failing to make reasonable modifications to policies, practices, or procedures for a child, M.K., who has a neuromuscular and musculoskeletal disability; 2) disenrolling M.K. from the School due to his disability; and 3) excluding or otherwise denying equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to M.K.’s parents because of the known disability of M.K.”
October 2014, DOJ and MMS entered into a consent decree requiring the school to, “resolve allegations that the school failed to accommodate and then impermissibly dis-enrolled a young child whose disability caused him to stumble and fall more frequently than his peers.” As part of the consent decree, the school was required to:
establish, adopt, and disseminate a disability nondiscrimination policy;
revise and disseminate its nondiscrimination statement;
provide ADA training to staff;
submit immediate reports to DOJ; and
submit annual reports to DOJ regarding its compliance, during the three-year term of the decree.
2017–2018: Oversight Ends, Discrimination Resumes
The three-year oversight period ended in October 2017. However, DOJ found that by 2018, MMS had resumed discriminatory practices. From DOJ’s May 8, 2025, press release:
“Since at least 2018, MMS has discriminated against young children with disabilities.”
Final Words
Under ADA, non-religious private schools are classified as “public accommodations,” which means they must provide equal access and make reasonable modifications for students with disabilities—regardless of whether the school receives federal funding.
Although the DOJ-MMS settlement does not include an admission of liability, DOJ’s required structural reforms and monetary relief reflect the seriousness of the violations DOJ identified.
The school’s motion for attorney’s fees accuses the parents of litigation misconduct:
“Plaintiffs and their counsel made material misrepresentations to the Court regarding their standing. Specifically, despite Defendant repeatedly challenging Plaintiffs’ intent to reenroll J.L. at MMS, Plaintiffs and their counsel intentionally withheld information regarding their move to London, England. Such information would have enabled the Court to dismiss this action at the pleading stage for lack of standing. However, these intentional omissions resulted in two and one-half years of unnecessary litigation, resulting in significant unwarranted expense to Defendant.”
This raises serious concerns: Would MMS have ever been held accountable if the family’s case had been dismissed sooner? Despite the procedural dismissal, DOJ affirmed the family’s experience was valid and material to its enforcement—explicitly referencing both the student’s mistreatment and the parents’ civil rights lawsuit.