Supreme Court Clarifies Lower Standard Applies When Suing Schools Under Disability Laws

As we previously reported in our Supreme Court preview alert, this term the Supreme Court heard a lawsuit regarding what standard of liability applies when a student with a disability sues a school under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) or the Rehabilitation Act. In that case, A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, a student (A.J.T.) with epilepsy sued the Osseo Area Schools for disability discrimination. The student’s epilepsy was severe in the morning, and she was therefore often unable to attend school until noon. However, the school refused to provide an accommodation that would modify her daily schedule. A.J.T. filed for due process, alleging that the school district’s refusal to modify the schedule was a denial of FAPE. An administrative law judge found in favor of A.J.T., and federal courts later affirmed the parents’ victory.

Parents then filed a subsequent lawsuit alleging that the District’s failure to modify the schedule constituted discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Applying the standard established by Monahan v. Nebraska, the Eighth Circuit found in favor of the school district holding that the school district’s actions, while a denial of FAPE, did not rise to the level of “bad faith or gross misjudgment” and therefore could not sustain a claim of disability discrimination. A.J.T. then appealed the Eighth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. In her appeal, the student argued that in was an error for the Eighth Circuit to apply the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard. Rather, the student argued, the Eighth Circuit should have reviewed the school district’s denial under a “negligence or deliberate-indifference” standard – a much lower burden of proof for the student.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling in this case on June 12. In its decision, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the district’s argument, holding that “school children bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”  The Supreme Court first found that the student’s preferred “deliberate indifference” standard applied in other non-education related disability discrimination cases. The Justices then noted that nothing within the text of the ADA, Section 504, or the IDEA suggested that claims based on educational services should be subject to a different and more demanding analysis than other, non-education related, claims. Finally, the Justices further rejected the district’s argument on procedural grounds. Because the district had not made the burden of proof argument to the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that the argument could not properly be brought before the Supreme Court.

By clarifying a lower burden of proof, this decision will likely make it easier for students to bring and prevail on lawsuits alleging disability related discrimination by schools. In light of this ruling, it is particularly important for school districts to train their staff members on the various disability laws, what they require, and how to make (and document) non-biased and informed decisions related to accommodations and students with disabilities generally. We encourage you to reach out to your Franczek attorney with any questions related to this ruling.