The Supreme Court recently heard arguments in a case involving a Minnesota school district and a family of a student with disabilities. The issue at hand was whether students with disabilities needed to prove “bad faith” on the part of the school district in failing to provide adequate accommodations, or if a lower standard of “deliberate indifference” should suffice.
The family, who had sued the Osseo Area School District near Minneapolis, argued that federal law required only a showing of “deliberate indifference” on the part of the school district. However, the school district contended that a higher standard of “bad faith” should be required, not just in this case but in all disability rights claims under the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
This argument raised concerns among disability rights groups, who feared that adopting the higher standard could make it much harder for individuals with disabilities to seek legal recourse. The case, known as A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, arose from a dispute over accommodations for a teenage girl with severe epilepsy. The family had requested evening instruction for the girl, but the district refused, leaving her with significantly fewer instructional hours than her peers.
After a finding by an administrative law judge that the district had violated federal law, the case moved to federal court. The trial judge ruled that the family needed to show either “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment” on the part of the school district to prove discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld this decision.
During oral arguments before the Supreme Court, the two sides clashed over the appropriate legal standard for proving discrimination in schools and whether this standard should be applied more broadly. The family’s lawyer argued that the district’s position would undermine disability rights and equal opportunities, while a federal government lawyer called it “breathtakingly broad.”
The school district’s lawyer defended the “bad faith” standard, arguing that lowering the bar for proving discrimination would have significant financial implications for school districts and could even jeopardize federal funding. However, some justices expressed skepticism about the potential implications of adopting such a high standard.
The tense oral argument also saw the school district’s lawyer accusing her opponents of lying, prompting a rebuke from one of the justices. Justice Sotomayor raised concerns about a possible violation of court rules by the school district’s lawyer.
A decision in the case is expected before the end of the court’s term in late June or early July. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for disability rights cases and the legal standard required to prove discrimination in schools and other settings.
