Latest news with #AvaTharpe
Reuters
12-06-2025
- Health
- Reuters
US Supreme Court bolsters school disability protections
WASHINGTON, June 12 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Thursday with a severely epileptic girl who is pursuing a disability discrimination lawsuit against a Minnesota public school district in a ruling that bolsters protections for students with disabilities in American schools. The 9-0 ruling threw out a lower court's decision that the Osseo Area Schools district had not discriminated against student Ava Tharpe in violation of two federal disability rights laws, as a lawsuit brought by her parents argued. Chief Justice John Roberts, who authored the ruling, wrote that the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals erred by requiring students to satisfy a heightened legal standard for disability discrimination claims against schools than is typically required in other contexts. Federal appeals courts had been divided on whether disability discrimination claims arising in school settings require a heightened legal standard, meaning the stricter requirement had applied in some parts of the country but not others. The Supreme Court ruling harmonizes the standard nationally. Claims brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 that are "based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts," Roberts wrote. Roberts added that nothing in the relevant text of those laws suggests that "such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis." Roman Martinez, a lawyer for Tharpe, called the ruling "a great win for Ava, and for children with disabilities facing discrimination in schools across the country." "We are grateful to the Supreme Court for its decision holding that these children should enjoy the same rights and protections as all other Americans with disabilities," Martinez said, adding that ruling would "protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all." Tharpe suffers from severe epilepsy that prevents her from attending school before noon due to morning seizures but permits her to engage in school work after that until about 6 p.m. At issue in the case was whether the legal standard applied by the 8th Circuit in rejecting Tharpe's discrimination claims was overly strict, and if a less stringent standard should have applied. When Tharpe and her family lived in Kentucky, her public school district tailored an education plan to her disability that included supplemental evening instruction at home, providing her with the same amount of school time as her peers. In 2015, her family moved to Minnesota, and Tharpe began attending the public schools in the Osseo Area Schools district in the suburbs of Minneapolis. For years, the district refused to accommodate a request by her parents that she receive evening instruction, leading Tharpe to receive fewer hours of education per day compared to her peers, according to court papers. Tharpe and her parents in 2021 filed a federal lawsuit accusing the Osseo district of discrimination under two federal disability laws. The lawsuit sought an accommodation from the district giving the girl the equivalent of a full school day, as well as monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis in Minneapolis in 2023 ordered the school district to extend Tharpe's instructional day until 6 p.m. and to provide compensatory hours of instruction. But the judge rejected Tharpe's discrimination claims, ruling that her parents had failed to show that the school district satisfied a heightened legal standard of "bad faith or gross misjudgment." The 8th Circuit upheld the judge's ruling, prompting Tharpe and her parents to appeal her disability discrimination claims to the Supreme Court.
Washington Post
12-06-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Supreme Court makes it easier to sue schools over disability accommodations
The Supreme Court on Thursday made it easier for students to prove schools are not making proper accommodations for their disabilities, ruling for the family of a Minnesota teen with a severe form of epilepsy who claimed a school district must do more to offer her instruction outside normal school hours. In a unanimous decision, the justices sided with the family of Ava Tharpe who argued that schoolchildren had to meet an unfairly high burden to show schools are falling short under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), Rehabilitation Act and other disability statutes. The ruling means students' claims against schools are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote in an opinion that some lower courts were 'implicitly limit[ing] the ability of disabled schoolchildren to vindicate their independent ADA and Rehabilitation Act Rights, thereby making it more difficult to secure statutory remedies provided by Congress.' Ava's case began in 2015 when she transferred to a Minnesota school. She has a rare form of epilepsy that causes the most intense seizures in the morning, so she is unable to attend classes before noon. She also needs help walking and using the bathroom. Ava's old school accommodated her needs by giving her evening instruction, but Osseo Area Public Schools denied her request for similar accommodations. The schools offered shifting rationales, including that providing the services would set an unfavorable precedent for other school districts and that they did not want to teach Ava in her home. Between 2015 and 2018, Ava received only 4¼ hours of instruction per day as opposed to 6½ hours of instruction for a typical student. After the school district proposed additional cuts, Ava's parents filed a discrimination claim under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which provides federal funds to states in exchange for guarantees that disabled students receive a 'free appropriate education.' An administrative law judge found Osseo schools had violated IDEA, and federal courts affirmed the decision. The family then sued under the ADA and other provisions requesting a permanent injunction, but a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit issued a summary judgment for the school district. The 8th Circuit found that a student must show 'something more than a mere failure to provide' a free appropriate education. For technical reasons, the court found the appropriate bar should be a heightened standard of 'bad faith and or gross misjudgement' — one not used in other types of disability discrimination cases. Other courts use an easier-to-prove requirement known as 'deliberate indifference.' 'It's wrong to impose any sort of uniquely stringent standard on children facing discrimination in schools,' Roman Martinez, an attorney for Ava's family, told the justices during oral arguments in April. Lisa Blatt, an attorney for Osseo schools, told the justices that the 'district cares deeply about Ava and gave her more service than any other student' but that changing the legal standard for proving a disability claim would weigh heavily on schools. She said schools would be exposed to more legal action and possibly severe sanctions under the ADA. 'Reversing … would expose 46,000 public schools to liability,' Blatt said. 'Every good-faith disagreement would risk liability or even the nuclear option — the loss of federal funding.' This is a developing story. It will be updated.
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Yahoo
SCOTUS to Rule in Case That Could Upend Enforcement of Disabled Students' Rights
The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in a case that could prove seismic for students with disabilities who claim their schools have discriminated against them. If the family that brought the original lawsuit loses, cases filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act — the portion of the law that governs many in-school accommodations — could become extraordinarily difficult to win. A ruling in favor of Osseo Area Schools, located in suburban Minneapolis, would mean students who claim their rights were violated will have to prove their school systems acted in 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' — a higher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which the law requires in other disability discrimination cases. Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter An estimated 1.5 million public school students receive disability accommodations under the ADA, ranging from modified academic materials — such as simplifying a text or supplying curriculum via a specialized device — to making classrooms, bathrooms and other school spaces accessible to wheelchair users and others. The law governs accessibility, while disabled children's educational rights are guaranteed by a different measure, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. Teenager Ava Tharpe has a severe form of epilepsy that causes frequent seizures during the morning. While planning to move from Kentucky to Minnesota in 2015, when she was in fourth grade, her parents sought out a school district that would agree to start her classes at noon and extend them into the evening. After the family relocated, the district reneged, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. When the Supreme Court accepted the case, the district's position had consistently been that disability discrimination suits had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent. Osseo argued that the legal standard, which plaintiffs have been held to in some federal court circuits but not others, applied only to K-12 students. But in the brief it submitted before the April 28 hearing, the district widened its argument, saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. 'The statutes do not impose liability for nondiscriminatory, good-faith denials of requested accommodations,' the document asserts, adding that the high court 'should not subject America's 100,000 public schools and countless other state and local entities and federal-funding recipients' to the deliberate indifference standard. The hearing erupted in verbal fireworks after the district's attorney accused the lawyers representing the federal government, which has sided with the family, of 'lying' in saying that the district had shifted its argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch snapped back, and several minutes of heated debate ensued. Later in the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district's shift as 'a pretty big sea change,' according to an account posted by SCOTUS Blog, which also reported Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was 'all but incredulous' that the district argued that the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. Osseo officials declined to comment on the case, citing Tharpe's right to privacy. 'The school district educates nearly 21,000 students, including 3,000 students with disabilities who have the right to education from birth through age 22,' it said in a comment to The 74. 'We're committed to the principles and the ideals expressed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.' The Tharpe family initially filed a complaint with state education officials under the IDEA, which guarantees disabled pupils a 'free and appropriate public education.' Noting that the girl had a right to a full school day, even if it extended into the evening, a state administrative law judge found that Ava's educational rights had been violated. When the district appealed that ruling in federal district court, the family filed a second suit under the ADA. In March 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the family's IDEA rights had been violated. But the appellate court rejected the ADA discrimination claim, ruling the Tharpes had not proven the district acted in bad faith. The Supreme Court's eventual ruling should not impact IDEA, which governs whether children with disabilities are entitled to special education services enabling them to make adequate progress toward their goals. By contrast, the ADA requires equal access to school and an equal opportunity to learn once they are there, explains Ellen Saideman, one of the authors of a friend of the court brief submitted by the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys and several other disability advocacy groups. They argue that a ruling in the district's favor would unfairly subject schoolchildren to a much higher legal bar than other people who need accommodations. To illustrate the difference, she cites a 2004 ADA case, Tennessee vs. Lane, brought by someone who had to crawl up the stairs to get into a Tennessee courthouse that didn't have an elevator. Under the 'gross misjudgment' standard, there wouldn't be a claim. 'The building was built before the ADA was passed, so it wasn't built with any discriminatory intent,' says Saideman. 'Under deliberate indifference, they know a person has a disability and there are other people who have disabilities who can't go up the stairs. If they don't fix it, then there could be a claim.' One of the ADA's original drafters, former Rep. Tony Coelho of California, also submitted a brief arguing that Congress' intent was that families of disabled children have 'the same rights, no more, no less, that are provided all other groups … including the right to seek relief under Section 504 [and] the ADA.' A decision is expected in June or July, near the end of the court's current term.
New York Times
28-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Justices Appear Skeptical of School District in Student Disability Rights Case
The Supreme Court appeared skeptical on Monday of a Minnesota school district's argument that students with disabilities must prove their school acted in 'bad faith' in failing to provide adequate accommodations in order to prove discrimination. A family who had sued the district, the Osseo Area School District near Minneapolis, argued that federal law required merely that the school display 'deliberate indifference,' a lower standard. The two sides had argued in front of lower courts over the legal standard in schools. But in recent court filings, the school district argued that the higher standard could apply broadly to all sorts of disability rights claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act. That unnerved some disability rights groups, who warned that if the court accepted the school district's argument, the higher 'bad faith' standard could make it much harder for Americans with disabilities to successfully bring court challenges. The school district's position led to an unusually tense oral argument, with lawyers for the family and the federal government arguing that the district had improperly shifted its position after the justices had agreed to hear the case. The lawyer for the school district rejected those claims, going so far as to suggest that her opponents were lying, an accusation that prompted a rebuke from one of the justices. The case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, stemmed from a dispute over whether the Minnesota school district provided reasonable accommodations for Ava Tharpe, a teenage girl with severe epilepsy that made it difficult for her to attend school during normal hours. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
