Latest news with #Tharpes
USA Today
15-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits
Why two conservative justices want courts to reconsider disability discrimination suits The high court unanimously said courts can't use a higher standard to block suits for damages for some disability discrimination claims and not others. But they declined to set the standard. Show Caption Hide Caption Supreme Court sides with straight woman in 'reverse discrimination' case The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding with a woman who claims she didn't get a job and then was demoted because she is straight. Scripps News WASHINGTON – Disability rights advocates breathed a sigh of relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools for damages. Not only did all the justices agree that some courts were using too tough a standard to block lawsuits like one brought by a Minnesota teenager with a rare form of epilepsy, but they also rejected her school's argument that the real issue is the standard is too lax for other types of disability discrimination claims. 'The very foundation of disability civil rights was on the line,' Shira Wakschlag, an attorney with The Arc of the United States, said in a statement after the decision. But the court didn't settle the larger issue of what the standard should be in all cases. The justices only said there shouldn't be different standards for discrimination claims involving educational instruction. And two of the court's six conservatives – Justices Clarence Thomas and Brett Kavanaugh – said the school raised 'serious arguments' that courts are getting that standard wrong. In a concurring opinion, Thomas wrote that he hopes 'lower courts will carefully consider whether the existing standards comport with the Constitution and the underlying statutory text.' Two of the court's three liberals – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson – pushed back, saying the school's argument that a person with a disability must prove there was an intent to discriminate is clearly wrong. 'The statutes' text and history, as well as this Court's precedent, foreclose any such purpose requirement,' Sotomayor wrote in a concurring opinion. More: In unanimous decision, Supreme Court makes it easier for students with disabilities to sue schools How the case got to the Supreme Court The issue in the Minnesota case was whether the school failed to accommodate the special needs of Ava Tharpe, whose rare form of epilepsy makes it difficult to attend school in the morning. Federal courts agreed with the family that the school hadn't done enough and needed to provide evening instruction. But the courts said the Tharpes couldn't use the Americans with Disabilities Act to try to get the school to pay for outside teachers and other expenses incurred before they won their case. And they said the Tharpes couldn't use the Rehabilitation Act to seek a court order binding the school to teach Ava after regular school hours. Judges on the St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals 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 to go forward involving educational services for children with disabilities. That's a tougher standard than the 'deliberate indifference' rule often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims. The school argued that 'deliberate indifference' is too lax. Their lawyers said the plain text of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit only intentional discrimination. What the Supreme Court decided The Supreme Court said they couldn't consider that argument because they'd only been asked to decide whether the lower courts were correct to apply a 'uniquely stringent' standard for cases like Ava's – not to decide what the standard should be in all cases. 'We will not entertain the (school) District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented,' Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Thomas said he agreed that it wouldn't have been right for the court to take on the larger issue with its significant ramifications for disability rights. But in his concurring opinion that Kavanaugh joined, Thomas said he'd be willing to do so in an 'appropriate case.' 'Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard under two widely utilized federal statutes is an issue of national importance,' he wrote, 'and the (school) District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect.'
USA Today
12-06-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case
Supreme Court sides with teen with epilepsy in disability discrimination case At issue: a student was receiving only about 4 hours of instruction a day, less than her nondisabled peers, because of a lack of accommodation for her disability. 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.
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.
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.
