Supreme Court May Rule for Epileptic Student Alleging School Denied Special Accommodations
The oral argument in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools became heated when the attorney for the district accused the other lawyers at the hearing of 'lying' about the position she was arguing, an accusation she subsequently withdrew.
The U.S. solicitor general's office argued in favor of the family's position.
The student, known as A.J.T. and by her first name, Ava, is suing through her parents, who are identified in court papers as A.T. and G.T. Ava suffers from Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a rare kind of epilepsy, according to the family's
Ava has intellectual limitations and experiences seizures during the day. The most severe seizures happen in the morning, but after that 'she's alert and able to learn until about 6 p.m.' She also needs assistance with walking and toileting.
The family argued in the petition that the school district applied a stricter test to the circumstances than was required, which would make it more difficult for the family to succeed with a claim.
Related Stories
1/20/2025
5/30/2024
The family filed suit under several federal statutes, including the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which guarantees that all children receive a 'free appropriate public education.' The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act also provide protections for disabled individuals.
Before Ava's family moved to Minnesota in 2015, her public school district in Kentucky met her needs, including home instruction late in the day. Her new school district in Minnesota, Osseo Area Schools, 'refused to accommodate her,' denying evening instruction and giving 'a series of shifting explanations,' the petition alleged. In the beginning, the district said it did not want to set a bad precedent and then later stated that educating at home 'would be too restrictive,' while at the same time saying it needed more 'data' to rationalize a 'programming change,' the petition said.
In the first three years of living in Minnesota, Ava received two fewer hours of daily instruction than nondisabled students received. Ava's parents launched an IDEA complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education. An administrative law judge held that the district violated the IDEA. The judge ruled that instead of prioritizing the child's educational needs, the district was more concerned with maintaining 'the regular hours of the school's faculty.'
The judge directed the district to provide evening instruction.
The school district appealed to the federal district court. Around the same time, Ava's parents sued the district under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, asking for an injunction to 'permanently secure [Ava]'s rights to a full school day,' along with compensatory damages for the mistreatment she experienced, according to the petition.
The federal district court affirmed the ruling in favor of Ava under the IDEA, finding that she needed 'more than 4.25 hours of schooling a day.' The court found that 'extending her instructions day until 6 p.m. and including compensatory hours of instruction' was 'the appropriate remedy' under the IDEA.
However, the court ruled against Ava with regard to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, reasoning that she had failed to demonstrate that the district acted either with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment,' the petition said.
A panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed.
After acknowledging that the family had produced evidence demonstrating that the Minnesota district had been 'negligent or even deliberately indifferent' in denying the reasonable accommodations the Kentucky district provided for years, the panel held it was 'constrained' by the circuit court's 1982 ruling in Monahan v. Nebraska that created the bad-faith-or-gross-misjudgment standard.
In the Third and Ninth Circuits, the evidence Ava presented would have been strong enough to survive a motion to dismiss, but in the Eighth Circuit and four other circuits 'embracing Monahan's uniquely stringent standard,' it wasn't, the petition said.
In June 2024, the full Eighth Circuit denied a request for rehearing.
During the oral
'The defendant must have acted with discriminatory intent. Monahan correctly described that intent as bad faith, which is the longstanding term for actions done for an improper reason, here, disability,' the lawyer said.
In the ADA, Congress 'spelled out reasonable accommodations' and 'barred damages without intent for employers and altogether for hotels and hot dog stands.'
Reversing Monahan 'would expose 46,000 public schools to liability when, for 40 years, they have trained teachers, allocated budgets, and obtained insurance all in reliance on Monahan,' Blatt said.
Some of the justices seemed taken aback by Blatt's suggestion that the Supreme Court should apply a tough standard in the case, an argument they said they had not anticipated.
After Blatt said her side defines bad faith as 'discriminatory intent,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that 'would be a sea change' in disability discrimination lawsuits.
Blatt replied it would only be 'a sea change in terms of liability.'
Barrett said, 'a sea change in terms of liability is a pretty big sea change,' adding that Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out during the oral argument that 'no circuit has adopted your rule.'
Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised the possibility that the district may have violated the Supreme Court's procedural rules by not adequately explaining the nature of its argument during the court's required briefing process in the lead-up to the oral argument.
'It would have been nice to have known that we were biting off that big a chunk,' the justice told Blatt.
Blatt said her side's arguments had not changed.
'What is a lie and inaccurate is that we ever said in any context that this court should take the same language and define it differently depending on context. That is not true. There is no statement. They [are] adding words to our mouth,' she said.
Justice Neil Gorsuch asked Blatt to confirm that she believed the family's attorney, Roman Martinez, and the attorney from the U.S. solicitor general's office 'are lying.'
Blatt replied, 'at oral argument, yes, absolutely.'
Gorsuch told the lawyer, 'I think you should be more careful with your words, Ms. Blatt.'
Blatt replied that the two other attorneys 'should be more careful in … mischaracterizing a position by an experienced advocate of the Supreme Court, with all due respect.'
A few minutes later, Blatt withdrew her accusation.
Martinez said Blatt acknowledged that the district is 'trying to get rid of the reasonable accommodation claims that people in this country have enjoyed for decades.'
'This is a revolutionary and radical argument that has not been made in this court and that she's trying to get you to decide on the basis of essentially no briefing.'
Martinez said disability rights groups 'would have rung a five-alarm fire' if they had realized what the district was seeking.
The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the case by the end of June.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
6 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Indiana families are fighting a FSSA change. A federal appeals court just ruled in their favor
A federal appeals court has ruled in favor of two medically fragile children from Indiana and their families who are fighting changes made by the state Family and Social Services Administration to a Medicaid waiver program. Indiana Disability Rights and the ACLU of Indiana filed a lawsuit last May alleging that the state's changes to its Health and Wellness Medicaid Waiver program, which impacted parents who were providing paid care to medically complex children, went against the Americans with Disabilities Act. The U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on Aug. 11 affirmed a district court's prior preliminary injunction in favor of the families who sued. "As the district court concluded, plaintiffs have a high likelihood of succeeding on the merits of their ADA claims," according to the 50-page opinion. "Further, we find no abuse of discretion in the district court's balancing of the equities or its assessment that the public interest is best served by preserving plaintiffs' access to medically necessary care and enforcing federal antidiscrimination law." The decision doesn't apply to the whole state. It means that, for now, the two families can continue to serve as paid providers of "attendant care" for their children, according to a press release from the ACLU. Indiana Disability Rights said in a statement that the court's decision recognized the likelihood that parents would have to make an "unthinkable" decision of placing their child in an institution. 'This decision reinforces the understanding that children with complex medical needs are best served when they can remain at home with their families," said Sam Adams, senior attorney for Indiana Disability Rights. "The court found that there are steps that FSSA can and must take to help ensure these children remain safely in their families' homes.' The lawsuit stems back to the state Medicaid office's discovery in late 2023 that there was a nearly $1 billion budget shortfall, leading it to seek cost-cutting measures. The agency decided it would no longer pay for parents or spouses to care for elderly or disabled loved ones, which is the program referred to as "attendant care." FSSA later moved to a new model that pays service providers a flat daily rate and passes on some of that money to families who care for people. But the new model amounts to a steep pay cut, according to those families. The appeals court decision was, at times, scathing toward the state's arguments in the case. "To state FSSA's argument is to refute it," the decision reads at one point. At another point, the opinion states that the state has "offered only doomsday predictions" that are "difficult to reconcile with the state's apparent willingness to spend the same amount of money or more on other home-based services or to institutionalize plaintiffs and other waiver enrollees." The FSSA didn't immediately reply to IndyStar's request for comment about the impact of the federal court decision.
Newsweek
11 hours ago
- Newsweek
Supreme Court Faces Decision on LGBTQ+ Conversion Therapy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. The U.S. Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments this fall in a case about whether it should uphold or overturn Colorado's ban on LGBTQ+ conversion therapy. Why It Matters More than 20 states have banned conversion therapy, the practice of trying to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity through counseling. The practice has drawn scrutiny from LGBTQ+ advocates and many medical professionals who say conversion therapy does not work, lacks a scientific basis and can impose harm on minors. The nation's highest court on Tuesday announced that it will hear arguments in the case Chiles v. Salazar on October 7, 2025. The ruling could have key implications for the legality of conversion therapy in the states that have banned the practice. It has drawn concerns within the community, as some are concerned that the conservative-leaning bench could require states to allow conversion therapy. What To Know The Supreme Court case focuses on Kaley Chiles, a counselor in Colorado who challenged the state's law prohibiting the use of conversion therapy on minors. In a petition to the Supreme Court, her attorneys wrote that she is a "licensed counselor who helps people by talking with them." The petition raised a First Amendment argument, accusing Colorado of trying to ban "consensual conversations based on the viewpoints they express." Proponents of the ban on conversion therapy point to statistics showing it can harm LGBTQ+ youth. A 2020 study from the Trevor Project found that minors who underwent conversion therapy were more than twice as likely to have reported suicide attempts and more than 2.5 times as likely to report multiple suicide attempts compared to those who did not. Supporters argue that the state has the authority to regulate health care services that put minors at risk. Photo-illustration by Newsweek/Canva/Getty Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, argued in a filing that Court precedent "allows states to reasonably regulate professional conduct to protect patients from substandard treatment, even when that regulation incidentally burdens speech." "The Court of Appeals engaged in a straightforward application of this precedent to hold that the First Amendment allows states to regulate the professional practice of conversion therapy, like other unsafe and ineffective health care treatments, to protect minor patients from substandard professional care," he wrote. Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi told Newsweek that the "Supreme Court's tea leaves seem to suggest that the Colorado law may be in peril." "That law proscribes alleged 'conversion therapy' by a professional counselor, whose sincere views are based on her Christian ideals and whose clients (adults and young people) actively seek her guidance because of their shared religious beliefs. To the Court, based on earlier cases, children are extremely vulnerable to the possible risks of such therapy and lack the maturity to accept or reject it," he said. However, the counselor argues that her First Amendment rights to "advise and assist her willing clients, who voluntarily wish to align their lives with their Christian faith, are unconstitutionally abridged by the broad state's law." "We shall see next year what the Court decides in this difficult case," Rossi said. Ryan Thoreson, a professor of law at the University of Cincinnati, told Newsweek he believes Colorado has strong arguments in favor of its ban, but that he is "skeptical this Court will uphold the state's conversion therapy ban in light of its recent First Amendment rulings." "The Roberts Court has been consistently solicitous toward free speech and religious exercise claims brought by conservative litigants, even when those claims undermine longstanding laws that protect LGBT people from discrimination and harm," he said. Colorado is likely to argue that it is "well-established that states can permissibly regulate the conduct of medical professionals, and can prohibit practices that fall below a certain standard of professional care." "And they can do so even when that conduct involves some amount of speech. While the state can't prevent private citizens from voicing their opinion that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed, they can prevent licensed medical professionals from trying to promote or facilitate that change as part of their practice, especially in light of a large body of evidence showing that conversion therapy is damaging to young LGBT people's mental health," Thoreson said. Chiles, meanwhile, is likely to argue the law censors her speech based on her views about sexual orientation and gender identity. Generally, if the state is censoring speech based on content, it must pass a "heavy burden" to prove a "compelling interest in limiting the speech" and that the regulation is the least speech-restrictive way of achieving its interest, Thoreson said. Colorado likely would not be the only state affected, according to Thoreson. "What the Supreme Court decides in this case could also have seismic repercussions for state regulation of medical speech more generally. A broad First Amendment right of medical providers to say or recommend whatever they like without professional or legislative oversight, even when there is clear evidence that doing so is harmful, could open the door to pseudoscience and junk science in both medical and physical health care settings," he said. Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Chiles, told Newsweek that children should not be "forced into one-size-fits-all options when they're looking for counseling help." "They deserve real support, not just state-approved talking points. Our client Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor in Colorado, works with her clients who voluntarily come to her with their goals to talk through what they are facing. Struggling kids deserve better than Colorado's law that pushes them toward harmful drugs and surgeries," he said. Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, told Newsweek there is a "real risk that the outcome indeed may be here that the court strikes down a ban on conversion therapy for minors." "What we know from well established science and research is that there is no amount of talk or pressure that can make a gay person not gay, or a trans person not transgender," Levi said. "It's really important that licensed therapists don't abuse their position of trust to push an agenda that research has shown puts kids at high risk of suicide attempts and self harm." Levi said it is "always hard to anticipate the scope of the court's decision," but it is possible the ruling could have "quite significant" implications for other states that have banned the practice. Do Americans Support Conversion Therapy? A majority of Americans are opposed to conversion therapy, according to a poll from Data for Progress, which surveyed 1,155 likely voters from June 6 to June 8, 2025. Fifty-six percent of respondents said they agreed conversion therapy should be banned, while only 35 percent said they should be allowed to take place. Sixty-two percent of Democrats, 57 percent of independents and 49 percent of Republicans believed the practice should be banned. A December 2023 report from The Trevor Project found that there were 1,320 conversion therapy practitioners operating across the country, 605 of whom were operating under professional licenses. What Have Supreme Court Justices Said About Conversion Therapy? So far, at least one justice has signaled opposition to conversion therapy bans. After the court rejected a similar case out of Washington, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing, "There is a fierce public debate over how best to help minors with gender dysphoria. The petitioner, Brian Tingley, stands on one side of the divide. He believes that a person's sex is 'a gift from God, integral to our very being.'" Still, the court in 2023 rejected the challenge to a Washington law prohibiting conversion therapy. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously ruled that the law was regulating mental health care, not the speech of the provider. The court's decision to reject that challenge left that ruling in place. In addition to Thomas, Justices Samuel Alito and Brett Kavanaugh dissented from the rejection and would have heard the case. What People Are Saying Casey Pick, director of Law and Policy at The Trevor Project, told Newsweek: "The law at the heart of this case protects young people in Colorado from dangerous, discredited practices that have been proven to cause harm and increase suicide risk. This common-sense, bipartisan state law was put in place to prevent licensed mental health professionals from using these abusive practices on Colorado's youth; it really is that simple. "This law is squarely focused on ensuring that providers with government-issued licenses do not abuse the trust placed in them to subject minors to practices that have been rejected by every medical and mental health association in the country. We know that proponents of so-called conversion 'therapy' are making every attempt to impose an ideologically driven agenda. However, we remain hopeful that the justices will side with reason, evidence, and expertise, and uphold this effort by Colorado lawmakers to protect the health and safety of young people." Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel and vice president of litigation strategy at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told Newsweek: "All who choose to live consistent with their biological sex are entitled to the help of counselors like Kaley as they work through that process. We hope the US Supreme Court will rule on the side of free speech and allow counselors like Kaley to work with her clients without the government mandating goals it prefers." Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, a Democrat, wrote in a statement in January: "In Colorado, we are committed to protecting professional standards of care so that no one suffers unscientific and harmful so-called gay conversion therapy. Colorado's judgment on this is the humane, smart, and appropriate policy and we're committed to defending." What Happens Next Oral arguments are set for October 7. The court has also been asked to weigh in on another major LGBTQ+ rights case. Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk who refused to provide marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the legalization of same-sex marriage in 2015, has asked the court to revisit that ruling and overturn the national right to same-sex marriage. Legal experts told Newsweek that the case is a long shot, however.
Yahoo
12 hours ago
- Yahoo
B.C. doctor fired for refusing COVID-19 vaccine loses appeal
The B.C. Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from a doctor who was fired for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine in 2021. Dr. Theresa Szezepaniak was appealing a 2023 decision from the B.C. Hospital Appeal Board (HAB), which largely upheld the Interior Health authority's decision to suspend her hospitalist privileges at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, B.C. The appeal board had ruled that Szezepaniak's refusal of the shot in 2021 amounted to neglect of her obligations as a hospitalist. Szezepaniak, who had to sell her home and move to a different town to find work after the decision, said that her Charter rights were breached by the HAB decision and asked a Supreme Court justice to set it aside. However, Justice Steven Wilson said the Charter did not apply to Interior Health's decision to suspend Szezepaniak's privileges, as it was an operational decision and not one that was directly controlled by government. "I do not accept that a hospital board's ability to exclude a practitioner from the hospital for failing to comply with the [bylaws] is a decision that is governmental in nature," his decision, published Thursday, read. Szezepaniak had argued that the HAB was upholding discipline based on government legislation, in which case her Charter-protected rights to life, liberty and security of the person — and specifically her right to earn an income to support her family — would have been breached. But the court disagreed, and said that even if the Charter were to apply to the HAB's decision, Szezepaniak's rights were not breached in this instance. That was because, the court noted, the Charter does not protect the right to work in a particular job or position, and Szezepaniak's firing was a result of her decision to not get vaccinated. Contract terminated Szezepaniak's contract with Interior Health was terminated on Nov. 16, 2021, after she declined the vaccine, which was required to continue working in B.C. hospitals under an order from Provincial Health Officer Dr. Bonnie Henry. Her privileges, which granted her the right to provide care at Royal Inland Hospital in Kamloops, were officially cancelled by the health authority in August 2022, and Szezepaniak cited the Charter in an appeal to the HAB shortly thereafter. In both the current Supreme Court case and that HAB decision, the issue was not whether the doctor would be forced to get the vaccine — but rather, the consequences that arose from her decision to decline it. In a Nov. 20, 2023, decision, a HAB panel concluded that Interior Health didn't challenge Szezekpaniak's right to refuse the vaccine, but it did hold her accountable for the fact that that choice left her unable to work under provincial law. "Having the right to make a decision, and your right to do so acknowledged, or respected, is not the same as being held responsible for the consequences," the panel's decision reads. Although the appeal board did not reinstate Szezepaniak's hospitalist privileges, it found the health authority should have suspended rather than cancelled them in August 2022, saying Interior Health should have waited to cancel them if she wasn't vaccinated in time for her next annual review. 'Black mark' Szezepaniak, who is now based in 100 Mile House as a family physician, worked in B.C. hospitals for 21 years before she was fired. She said there was a "black mark" against her name due to the discipline that she received, and that she suffered significant emotional and financial consequences after the firing. Ultimately, however, the court found that the loss of income and her subsequent relocation to find work were not related to the discipline she received — but rather a consequence of her decision to not get the vaccine following the provincial order. Notice of liability A few days after Szezepaniak was barred from working, Royal Inland Hospital's chief of staff emailed to say there were three options for unvaccinated staff: obtain an exemption, resign, or face cancellation of their privileges. Szezepaniak replied with an email saying she would not be "blackmailed or coerced into receiving an experimental injection," the HAB panel decision says. On Nov. 12, a few days before she was fired, she sent an 18-page letter to a health authority manager titled, "NOTICE OF LIABILITY regarding the B.C. Government's Mandatory Testing/Vaccination Policy." Legal experts have previously told CBC News that these documents, favoured by groups opposed to COVID-related public health measures, have no legal value.
