The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case that questions whether students filing disability discrimination claims must prove that public school officials acted with discriminatory intent through “bad faith or gross misjudgment.”
In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a Minnesota student, Ava, and her parents are challenging an 8th Circuit ruling from March 2024 that children with disabilities who claim disability discrimination in educational settings under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 must meet a high standard to potentially receive monetary damages.
The petitioners say this "stringent test" only applies to school settings in the 8th Circuit and four other circuits across the country and not to other ADA and Section 504 plaintiffs raising claims outside of school settings. "Those plaintiffs — and only those plaintiffs — must prove that school officials acted with ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ to obtain any kind of relief," the petition said.
In their filing, the petitioners are asking the Supreme Court to "resolve deep divisions in the lower courts and enforce the plain terms of key statutes protecting vulnerable children from discrimination by their schools."
If the justices provide and clearly define a uniform standard for damages for disability discrimination claims under ADA and Section 504 in school settings, their decision could raise or lower school districts' liability exposure nationally, said Perry Zirkel, an expert in special education law.
The Supreme Court has not yet scheduled a date for oral arguments.
Dispute over instructional time
The origins of the case began in 2018 with Ava, a student with epilepsy who was transitioning to a middle school in Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279. Her parents said the school district limited Ava's instructional time to less than half the time her peers were receiving. Ava's disability prevented her from attending school before noon.
While previously an elementary school student in Kentucky, Ava received instruction from noon to 6 p.m. The family's request for evening instruction was rejected by Osseo Area Schools, the petition said.
Ava and her parents filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education, claiming a denial of "free, appropriate public education" under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. An administrative law judge found that the district had violated IDEA and awarded Ava additional services. A district court also ruled in Ava's favor.
Additionally, Ava sued the school district under the ADA and Section 504, seeking an injunction that would permanently secure her right to a full school day, as well as “compensatory damages” for the entire duration of her mistreatment, according to the petition.
The district court ruled against Ava and in favor of the district, saying the district's actions didn't meet the bad faith and gross misjudgement standard. The 8th Circuit rejected Ava's ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, pointing to the 1982 decision by the 8th Circuit in Monahan v. Nebraska that established the bad faith or gross misjudgement standard.
People successful in their ADA and Section 504 claims can be entitled to monetary damages, which IDEA cases do not offer.
Potential impacts of a decision
In a December 2024 filing, Osseo Area Schools asked the Supreme Court to reject a hearing on the case. In that brief, the district said that while various circuit courts use different language to describe the standard for intentional discrimination, "they agree an intent standard exists; that it is high; and that it requires a deviation from accepted professional practices."
Osseo Area Schools added that through the IDEA dispute process, the plaintiffs disagreed with the district's decisions, but that "those disagreements do not evince discriminatory intent under any standard used in any circuit."
In a friend of the court brief filed in October 2024, the Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates had urged the Supreme Court to take up the case, saying the 8th Circuit's ruling was incorrect because it is "contrary to the text of IDEA, and undermines Section 504 and the ADA, to the significant detriment of children with disabilities."
COPAA's brief was joined by the National Center for Youth Law, the National Disability Rights Network, Learning Rights Law Center and the Education Law Center.
Denise Marshall, CEO of COPAA, said in a Jan. 20 statement that the 8th Circuit's standard is "very high, making it difficult for students with disabilities to prevail on disability discrimination claims."
Zirkel said a higher standard for proving disability discrimination lessens school districts' liability exposure and that a lower standard would increase it.
Either way, he said having a national uniform standard would reduce confusion and increase clarity as to the criteria and level of rigor for the chosen standard. "It would be good for everybody to have a predictable standard," Zirkel said.
