Latest news with #OsseoAreaSchoolDistrict
USA Today
18-05-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court appears likely to side with MN student in disability discrimination case
AI-assisted summary The Supreme Court heard arguments in a case involving a Minnesota school district and parents of a student with epilepsy who say the district didn't adequately accommodate her disability. The parents, after winning an administrative ruling under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, sought further action under other disability laws but were blocked by lower courts. The Supreme Court appeared likely to side with the parents, questioning the lower courts' application of a higher standard for lawsuits involving schools. Disability rights groups are closely watching the case, arguing current standards create significant barriers for families seeking help for disabled children. WASHINGTON − For years, Gina and Aaron Tharpe argued that a local school district hadn't done enough to accommodate their daughter, who has a rare form of epilepsy and severe cognitive impairment. An administrative judge in 2021 agreed, saying the reasons the Minnesota school provided for not offering Ava a full day of class under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were 'not credible.' The Tharpes, however, also sought help under two other federal laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination, hoping to get a stronger court order as well as compensation for having hired specialists to help with Ava's needs. This time, however, the courts sided with the Osseo Area School District, saying the district hadn't demonstrated 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' during the dispute. That's a tougher standard for suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act than the courts apply in cases that don't involve a school's alleged failure to meet its obligations under the IDEA. The Supreme Court on Monday sounded likely to side with the Tharpes in overturning that decision. That's in part because lawyers for the school district agreed that that there's not a two-tiered system. But Lisa Blatt, who represented the school district, pushed the court to apply a tougher standard for all cases rather than lowering the bar for cases like Ava's. That generated pushback not just from the Tharpe's attorney, but also from the justices who had not thought, when they agreed to take the case, that the school was making that consequential an argument. 'It strikes me as a pretty big deal,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said of the standard the school district is asking for, which she said would be a 'sea change' for disability discrimination cases. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the school district had violated the court's procedural rules. 'It would've been nice to have known that we were biting off that big a chunk,' she said. Roman Martinez, an attorney for the Tharpes, told the justices disability rights groups who would have "rung a five-alarm fire" if they had thought that's what the school district was asking for. Closely watched by disability rights groups The case was already 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 for damages 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. Litigation will also shrink those resources, lawyers for a national association of school superintendents and other educational groups told the Supreme Court in urging the justices to 'proceed with caution.' Morning seizures prevented a typical school schedule The dispute started when the Tharpes moved in 2015 to a Twins City suburb from Tennessee where they said Ava's needs had been accommodated. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. Ava's Tennessee school shifted her school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, just 65% of what non-disabled students received. And as Ava prepared to enter middle school, that time was going to shrink further. The Tharpes then went to court. Ava wins IDEA claim but blocked from other suits An administrative law judge said the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs but 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 IDEA. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the judge said the Tharpes couldn't also use the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to seek compensatory damages and an injunction to permanently set the hours of instruction. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 decision from that circuit – 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. `Hundreds of other court cases have applied tougher standard 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 the Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts are unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases outside the school setting, their attorneys argue. That position is backed by the Justice Department. "There is no sound basis for applying different intent requirements," Nicole Reaves, a Justice Department attorney, told the court. Reaves said the school district is asking for a "breathtakingly broad rule" that no discrimination claims can be brought without an intent to discriminate. Blatt, the attorney for the school district, said the courts can choose to "level down" or "level up." "This is a big deal," Blatt said, agreeing with Barrett about what's at stake. "I understand that you don't want to take on this case but I didn't bring this petition. This petition said, `decide the standard.'" But Chief Justice John Roberts said the court wasn't asked to decide what the uniform standard should be, just whether there should be a different standard for discrimination claims arising out of the IDEA. A decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools is expected by summer.
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.
Washington Post
28-04-2025
- Health
- Washington Post
Justices seem sympathetic to student in disability discrimination case
The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Monday to the arguments of the parents of a Minnesota teen with severe epilepsy who want schools to do more to accommodate the needs of disabled students. The case focuses on whether families must meet an unfairly high burden to show schools are falling short. It is being closely watched by disability advocates and schools, with officials saying a ruling for the girl — identified as Ava in court filings — could make it easier for millions of students to require educators to do more to tailor teaching to their unique situations. Roman Martinez, an attorney for Ava's family, told the justices during oral argument that some federal courts require students with disabilities to show that school officials acted in 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' to prove a discrimination claim under landmark disability laws — a bar not required in other 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,' Martinez said in court. Ava has a rare form of epilepsy. She requires help walking and going to the bathroom, and has difficulty communicating. Her seizures are most severe in the morning, so she typically cannot attend school before noon. After moving to Minnesota in 2015, Ava's parents asked the Osseo Area School District in the Minneapolis suburbs to match the evening instruction and other accommodations she had received from her previous school district in Kentucky. Ava's parents said Osseo schools refused, offering shifting rationales, including that providing the requested services would set an unfavorable precedent for other school districts and that they did not want to teach Ava in her home. During her first three years at Osseo schools, Ava got about 65 percent of the instructional time typically given to students without disabilities. The school district said it worked hard to accommodate Ava, including meeting with her parents before they enrolled her and starting her school day at noon. The system offered to engage in mediation to resolve differences over Ava's education plan, but officials said her parents refused. The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act guarantees schoolchildren with disabilities a 'free appropriate public education.' People who claim schools have failed to meet the act's guidelines can sue under the Americans With Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. Ava's parents did so, asking for a permanent injunction to require Osseo to provide her a full day of instruction. They also sought compensatory damages for Ava's alleged mistreatment. The district court rejected the discrimination claims, and the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed, finding Ava's family had not proven the 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' standard. 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.' She also said a ruling for Ava would expose schools 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.' Blatt argued that the justices should impose the more stringent 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' standard in all disability discrimination cases, not just those related to schools. Justice Amy Coney Barrett appeared skeptical, saying that would be a 'sea change.' 'That strikes me as a pretty big deal,' Barrett said. 'We don't have other circuits that have adopted the question.' The federal government is backing Ava's parents, arguing that the 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' standard has no basis in the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. Monday's argument grew unusually testy at one point, with Blatt accusing the attorney for Ava's family of lying. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch demanded that Blatt withdraw the accusation, which she eventually did. 'You should be more careful with your words, Ms. Blatt,' Gorsuch told her. A decision in the case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, is expected by summer.
USA Today
28-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court appears likely to side with student in disability discrimination case
Supreme Court appears likely to side with student in disability discrimination case The high court is likely to rule discrimination suits related to education don't face a higher bar. Show Caption Hide Caption Can FBI be sued if agents raid wrong house? Supreme Court to weigh in. Trina Martin, son Gabe Watson and partner Toi Cliatt seek compensation after their house was mistakenly raided by the FBI. WASHINGTON − For years, Gina and Aaron Tharpe argued that a local school district hadn't done enough to accommodate their daughter, who has a rare form of epilepsy and severe cognitive impairment. An administrative judge in 2021 agreed, saying the reasons the Minnesota school provided for not offering Ava a full day of class under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were 'not credible.' The Tharpes, however, also sought help under two other federal laws that protect people with disabilities from discrimination, hoping to get a stronger court order as well as compensation for having hired specialists to help with Ava's needs. This time, however, the courts sided with the Osseo Area School District, saying the district hadn't demonstrated 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' during the dispute. That's a tougher standard for suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act than the courts apply in cases that don't involve a school's alleged failure to meet its obligations under the IDEA. The Supreme Court on Monday sounded likely to side with the Tharpes in overturning that decision. That's in part because lawyers for the school district agreed that that there's not a two-tiered system. But Lisa Blatt, who represented the school district, pushed the court to apply a tougher standard for all cases rather than lowering the bar for cases like Ava's. That generated pushback not just from the Tharpe's attorney, but also from the justices who had not thought, when they agreed to take the case, that the school was making that consequential an argument. 'It strikes me as a pretty big deal,' Justice Amy Coney Barrett said of the standard the school district is asking for, which she said would be a 'sea change' for disability discrimination cases. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned whether the school district had violated the court's procedural rules. 'It would've been nice to have known that we were biting off that big a chunk,' she said. Roman Martinez, an attorney for the Tharpes, told the justices disability rights groups who would have "rung a five alarm fire" if they had thought that's what the school district was asking for. Closely watched by disability rights groups The case was already 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 for damages 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. Litigation will also shrink those resources, lawyers for a national association of school superintendents and other educational groups told the Supreme Court in urging the justices to 'proceed with caution.' Morning seizures prevented a typical school schedule The dispute started when the Tharpes moved in 2015 to a Twins City suburb from Tennessee where they said Ava's needs had been accommodated. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. Ava's Tennessee school shifted her school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, just 65% of what non-disabled students received. And as Ava prepared to enter middle school, that time was going to shrink further. The Tharpes then went to court. Ava wins IDEA claim but blocked from other suits An administrative law judge said the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs but 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 IDEA. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the judge said the Tharpes couldn't also use the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to seek compensatory damages and an injunction to permanently set the hours of instruction. The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 decision from that circuit – 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. `Hundreds of other court cases have applied tougher standard 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 the Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts are unfairly using a tougher standard than 'deliberate indifference,' which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases outside the school setting, their attorneys argue. That position is backed by the Justice Department. "There is no sound basis for applying different intent requirements," Nicole Reaves, a Justice Department attorney, told the court. Reaves said the school district is asking for a "breathtakingly broad rule" that no discrimination claims can be brought without an intent to discriminate. Blatt, the attorney for the school district, said the courts can choose to "level down" or "level up." "This is a big deal," Blatt said, agreeing with Barrett about what's at stake. "I understand that you don't want to take on this case but I didn't bring this petition. This petition said, `decide the standard.'" But Chief Justice John Roberts said the court wasn't asked to decide what the uniform standard should be, just whether there should be a different standard for discrimination claims arising out of the IDEA. A decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools is expected by summer.
