The U.S. Supreme Court will take up a case focused on what standard students must meet to bring disability discrimination claims in school.
The Superior Court said this month that it will hear the case known as AJT v. Osseo Area Schools.
At issue is whether students with disabilities must prove that schools acted in «bad faith or gross misjudgment» to claim their rights were violated under the Americans with Disabilities Act or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Advertisement – Continue reading below
The case was brought by the parents of a Minnesota teenager known in court papers as AVA who has severe epilepsy and needs assistance with activities of daily living such as walking and going to the bathroom.
Ava’s seizures are most frequent in the morning hours, so she cannot attend school before noon. For years, Ava’s parents unsuccessfully sought to have their school district, Osseo Area Schools, provide AVA evening instruction so she could have a full day of school starting at noon.
Ultimately, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit found that the school district failed to provide a free appropriate public education in violation of the Disabilities Education Act. However, the court dismissed discrimination claims brought under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
«When alleged violations of the ADA and Section 504 are based on educational services for disabled children, ‘a school district’s mere failure to provide reasonable accommodation is not sufficient to trigger liability,’ says the opinion, citing a case from 1982. «Rather, a plaintiff must show that school officials acted with ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment.'»
The Court of Appeals found that AVA «could have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent,» but said «That is not enough.»
Now, Ava’s parents want the Supreme Court to intervene, pointing out that federal courts are split on this higher standard, and in the circuits where it is used, the bar only applies to disability discrimination cases in schools.
“As a general matter, plaintiffs suing under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act can obtain injunctive relief without proving intentional disability discrimination, and can recover compensatory damages by showing that the defendant was intentionally indifferent to your federally protected rights. . But the Eighth Circuit and four other circuits have erected a stricter test for children with disabilities who face discrimination in the school environment,” the family’s petition to the Supreme Court reads.
Osseo Area Schools argue that all circuits expect students with disabilities to show that schools intended to discriminate, even if they may say that expectation differently.
«Although petitioner’s parents disagree with some decisions the district made, those disagreements do not show discriminatory intent under any standard used in any circuit,» attorneys for the school district wrote in court papers.
Additionally, the district argues that the «bad faith or gross misjudgment» standard strikes the right balance between the need to defer to the expertise of school officials in educational matters «while turning to abuses by educators who violate professional standards, «They deliberately target students with disabilities or completely ignore their needs.»
The Council of Parents’ Lawyers and Bar, the National Juvenile Law Center, the National Disability Rights Network, the Learning Rights Center and the Education Law Center jointly filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court which stands with AVA that there is no “Bad Faith” or “gross misjudgment” requirement in the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and that this standard has never been applied to similar claims that They occur outside of educational settings.
«This case presents an exceptionally important issue for children with disabilities and their families,» said Roman Martínez, an attorney who will represent AVA in the Supreme Court. “Both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act provide much-needed relief from educational discrimination, which often has life-altering consequences for children with disabilities. However, as this case illustrates, an atexion rule imposed on five circuits makes it much more difficult for them to prove their claims, for no good reason and with real consequences. We hope to persuade the justices to reject the 8th Circuit’s approach and vindicate AVA’s rights and those of other children with disabilities.»
AVA lawyers say the case is likely to be heard by the Supreme Court in April.
