2 days ago
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.
