Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Supreme Court hears arguments on judges' block on Trump birthright EO
The justices heard arguments on whether its ok for judges to universally block President Donald Trump's birthright citizenship executive order.
WASHINGTON − The Supreme Court on June 12 unanimously sided with a disabled student trying to sue her school for not doing enough to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, a decision that could make it easier for families to seek damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The justices said a lower court used the wrong standard when rejecting the discrimination lawsuit.
The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, was being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a 'nearly insurmountable barrier' for help sought by schoolchildren and their families.
But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources.
Seizures prevent attending school before noon
In this case, Gina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Osseo Area School District to accommodate their daughter's severe cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon.
A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home.
But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what nondisabled students received.
Judge says school didn't do enough
A local judge said in 2021 the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs; instead, they were concerned with a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
But while a federal judge backed that decision, the court said the Tharpes couldn't also use the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and court order to permanently set the hours of instruction. Section 504 is the law that started school-based ''504 plans'', a central tool for providing accommodations to students with disabilities.
More: For students with disabilities, what's the difference between IEPs and 504 plans?
The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities.
The Tharpes 'may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough,' the appeals court said.
More: Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections?
School said there was no intentional discrimination
Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to Tharpes' attorneys.
Those courts were unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases based on educational services, their attorneys argued − with the support of the Justice Department.
Attorneys for the school district argued the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination, which is not what happened here. They also say the school did not show 'deliberate indifference.'
Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while 'effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities.'
The court's decision revives, but does not settle, the Tharpe's lawsuit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
36 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Frankfort to reimagine Commissioners Park with $7.9 million state grant
For the Frankfort Park District, which operates with an about $2 million annual budget, the recent announcement of a $7.9 million state grant will be a gamechanger. While the village in May received $1.6 million to link the eastern part of Frankfort and Commissioners Park, 22451 S. 80th Ave, to the broader Frankfort trail system, the most recent grant will largely focus on improving Commissioners Park itself, according to parks Director Gina Hassett. 'This amount of money is pretty much unprecedented to get,' Hassett said Monday. 'I've been with the district for 10 years and our Park District is underfunded compared to other districts in the Southland.' Hassett said she gets questions from residents frequently about lack of amenities and recreational opportunities. 'We just don't have the money,' she said. But state Sen. Michael Hastings saw Frankfort green space as a worthy investment at the state level, Hassett said, paving the way for the recent award that paves the way for renovations of Commissioner Park and other parks. Hastings also helped secure funding for the new Old Plank Trail connection and to improve the existing trail along with upgrading a splash pad and Fort Frankfort at Commissioners Park, according to a recent news release from the senator's office. 'When we invest in our parks, we invest in the quality of life for our families, our seniors and our children,' Hastert said in the release. 'This new funding ensures that Frankfort continues to grow as a destination for recreation, community gatherings, and healthy living for generations to come.' Hassett said the Park District is working on a master plan for Commissioners Park, which includes assessing the park's needs and how the $7.9 million could be spent. Immediate priorities include renovating parking lots at Commissioners, Lincoln Meadow and Windy Hill parks. At Commissioners Park, Hassett said the parking lot includes one lane of traffic each for entering and exiting, which is potentially dangerous if emergency vehicles need to enter. The park's layout has led to drainage issues and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act has posed a challenge, Hassett said. She said she would also like to add tennis and/or pickleball courts to the park. 'The list is really long,' Hassett said. 'When I say parks, it's not just playgrounds but asphalt paths, different things of that nature.' The Park District has tried to raise funds through referendum several times over the past decade but no measures passed. Hassett said the Park District is considering another referendum to add an indoor park district facility while keeping in mind the challenges of maintaining more assets over time. 'We really want to engage in the community and see what they'll support and what their needs are,' Hassett said.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Hillary Clinton warns SCOTUS 'will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion'
Hillary Clinton believes the U.S. Supreme Court will overturn marriage equality, and she's urging LGBTQ+ couples to get married while they still can. The former Secretary of State and presidential candidate predicted that the court would reverse Obergefell v. Hodges in an interview with Jessica Tarlov of Fox News' The Five, warning that "there are going to be real world consequences." "American voters, and to some extent the American media, don't understand how many years the Republicans have been working in order to get us to this point," Clinton said. "It took 50 years to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Supreme Court will hear a case about gay marriage. My prediction is they will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion. They will send it back to the states." WATCH: @HillaryClinton predicts to @JessicaTarlov that SCOTUS will overturn marriage equality and 'send it back to the states' (like abortion) — leading to a ban in much of 🇺🇸 On Trump & Republicans stealing seats: 'they don't want a fair fight' Full: If the Supreme Court reverses Obergefell , marriages between same-sex couples will still be recognized federally under the Respect for Marriage Act. Signed into law by President Joe Biden in 2022, the act mandates that the federal government recognizes same-sex and interracial marriages, and that all states recognize those performed in other states. The act does not require states to allow marriages between same-sex couples. As state bans on these unions were struck down in Obergefell, such bans could be enacted again if Obergefell is overturned. If that were to happen, the fallout would likely be similar to that after Roe v. Wade's reversal, in which red states immediately enacted bans. Related: While the Supreme Court has made no official move to reconsider marriage equality, nine states have recently introduced resolutions asking the court to hear the case again. None have yet passed, and even if they were to, the resolutions are nonbinding — meaning they carry no legal weight, and the court is not obligated to hear them. However, some justices have voiced opposition to Obergefell even after the ruling. When the conservative majority created by Donald Trump overturned Roe v. Wade, Clarence Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion at the time that the court should also revisit and overrule decisions that prevent state restrictions on contraception, marriage equality, sodomy, and other private consensual sex acts, calling the rulings "demonstrably erroneous." "Anybody in a committed relationship out there in the LGBTQ community, you ought to consider getting married," Clinton continued. "'Cause I don't think they'll undo existing marriages, but I fear that they will undo the national right." This article originally appeared on Advocate: Hillary Clinton warns SCOTUS 'will do to gay marriage what they did to abortion' RELATED Gay weddings have boosted state and local economies by $6 billion since marriage equality Idaho Republicans' resolution to repeal marriage equality is 'foreshadowing' for the U.S. New poll finds record-low support of marriage equality from Republicans since Obergefell v. Hodges
The Hill
6 hours ago
- The Hill
The plot to destroy Black political power
Get ready for the rage: The conservative majority on the Supreme Court looks likely to gut the last remaining parts of the Voting Rights Act. Prompted by a Black conservative, Justice Clarence Thomas, the high court will consider in October a question that answers itself — whether it is wrong to stop openly racist tactics in drawing congressional districts. Even if the right-wing justices manage to close their eyes to the racial politics involved, they will feel the heat and hear the explosive impact of the backlash to a one-sided ruling. The fuse will be lit in several Republican-controlled states, largely in the South, as white politicians begin diluting votes in Black-majority districts to silence Black voices in Congress. Deep-red state legislatures — think of South Carolina, Alabama and Mississippi — will be free to demolish their Black-majority congressional districts. Those white-majority, Trump-backing state legislatures aim to bring an end to the careers of several Black Democrats in Congress, such as Reps. Cleo Fields (D-La.), Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.). As a purely political exercise, Trump and his Republican allies have wanted to eliminate these districts for years, because Black voters are key to the Democratic Party's congressional strength. The Voting Rights Act allows for federal courts to look for racial damage done by gerrymandering districts. In the case now before the high court, involving redistricting in Louisiana, the state was forced to add a second Black-majority district. A federal court ruled that, with 33 percent of the state being Black, it was wrong for only one of its six congressional districts to be majority Black. But that led to a lawsuit over the new map. Along the lines of Thomas's recent call for a total end to the Voting Rights Act, the challengers contend that the law — which was created to protect equal voting rights for Black Americans — now prohibits the court from stopping white Republicans from playing politics and crushing Black power as a proportional representation of a state's racial makeup. Thomas makes the case that attention to 'race-based' construction of congressional districts is out of touch with recent history. He argues that 'specific identified instances' of racial bias, including violent voter suppression, are now distant and amount to relics of the nation's past. Last week, a federal appeals court disagreed. The Fifth Circuit ruled that Louisiana's congressional district map 'packed' and 'cracked' Black populations to limit their political power. The ruling stated there are 'decades of binding precedent' under the 15th Amendment allowing Congress to contest racial bias in redistricting. The 1965 Voting Rights Act was written in response to the nation's long history of keeping political power in white hands. Even after Black men gained the right to vote, it was common for that vote to be suppressed through violence. For perspective, South Carolina is 26 percent Black and 67 percent white. But white-majority Republican congressional districts are 86 percent of South Carolina's seven congressional districts. Only one of seven districts has a majority of Democrats and Black voters — Clyburn's district. The Supreme Court plans to hear arguments on racial redistricting on Oct. 15 — early enough for a decision that could affect the 2026 midterms. If the Black vote is diluted, the Democratic Party's ability to win seats in Congress shrinks, increasing Republican chances of retaining majorities in the House and Senate in 2026. That would keep Trump from becoming a lame duck facing a divided Congress. The Republicans' goal is to maintain majorities in Congress for Trump's last two years in the White House. Then Republicans can appoint more judges to issue more rulings that further weaken Democrats. The downward spiral for Black political power will go on and on. Trump is not hiding his interest in the outcome of gerrymandering efforts in Texas. 'We have an opportunity in Texas to pick up five seats,' Trump told CNBC earlier this month. 'We have a really good governor, and we have good people in Texas. I got the highest vote in the history of Texas … and we are entitled to five more seats.' Excuse me, Mr. President? Neither you nor the Republican Party is entitled to any seats. Those seats belong to Americans of all colors and parties. Texas Republicans' threats to send law enforcement to forcibly return Texas Democratic legislators to the state capitol to provide a quorum for passing gerrymandered maps are a sideshow. They distract from the real effect that racially-designed gerrymandering can have on race relations and politics for decades to come. Comedian Dave Chappelle famously called Trump 'an honest liar.' In the fight over Texas redistricting, the 'honest liar' is saying that the people looking at redistricting's racial impact are themselves racist. Don't let Trump or his partisans on the high court fool you. Racial justice in Congress is at stake. Democrats will have to fight fire with fire to prevent Trump from diminishing Black voting power. Democrats owe that much to Black voters, who have carried them to electoral victories over the last 60 years. They owe it to the memory of the brave people who marched, were beaten and even died to demand voting rights only 60 years ago.
