28-04-2025
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.
