BlogLine

Supreme Court rejects heightened standard in school disability lawsuits

6/17/25

By: Thomas R. Starks

In a decision issued on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Ava Tharpe, a Minnesota student with severe epilepsy who was denied an accommodation request, in the case of A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279. The Court determined that students bringing disability discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Rehabilitation Act) are not required to meet a heightened standard of bad faith or gross misjudgment. The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination based on disability for programs that receive federal funding. The ADA prohibits disability-based discrimination in employment, public accommodations, and state or municipal government services, such as public schools. Essentially, the decision ensures that the same legal standards used in other contexts of disability discrimination apply equally to public education. 

Ava’s condition made it challenging for her to attend school in the mornings due to seizures, though she was able to participate in evening instruction. After transferring to Osseo Area Schools in 2015, her request for evening accommodations was denied, resulting in her receiving fewer hours of school instruction than her peers. Her family filed a discrimination lawsuit, which was initially dismissed by lower courts applying the strict bad faith or gross misjudgment standard. The bad faith or gross misjudgment standard previously caused a circuit split, stemming from a 1982 case, Monahan v. Nebraska, that required bad faith or gross misjudgment for Individuals with Disability Education Act (IDEA) cases. The Supreme Court rejected the requirement of bad faith or gross misjudgment, because it imposed a higher standard for disability in an educational setting than in a non-educational setting. The Court held that the heightened standard violated the plain language of the IDEA because the IDEA does not restrict rights and remedies asserted under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act. 

Per the ADA, plaintiffs are required to show that they have a disability, the school discriminated by failing to ensure accessibility or provide a reasonable accommodation, which caused harm or limited the student’s participation, and for compensatory damages, that they were intentionally discriminated against, including through deliberate indifference. The Rehabilitation Act requires a showing of a disability, exclusion from participation or denial of benefits from a program receiving federal funds, and intentional discrimination, which again can include deliberate indifference. Deliberate indifference is satisfied if a school district had knowledge that their action or inaction would be substantially likely to violate a federally protected right.   

The Court’s decision has broad implications for schools and students with disabilities nationwide. By rejecting the more burdensome legal threshold, it makes it easier for students to bring suit against schools when accommodations are denied or poorly provided.  

Ultimately, the Supreme Court’s ruling in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools sets out the standard for judging disability discrimination in schools, putting it in line with disability discrimination law outside the educational arena.  

For more information, please contact Thomas R. Starks at thomas.starks@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.