On Monday, April 28, the Supreme Court, the highest court in the United States, heard oral arguments in a case that can have tremendous implications for the millions of children with disabilities across the country. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools involves an elementary school girl with epilepsy who requested to be able to come to school in the afternoon and to receive evening instruction at home because her seizures are most prominent in the morning. At issue is what the standard is for the school district to be in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Roman Martinez, of Latham & Watkins, argued for the student, Ava Tharpe; Nicole Reaves, the assistant to the solicitor general of the United States, argued for the government; Lisa Blatt, of Williams & Connolly, argued the school district’s position.
An administrative law judge had initially ruled that Ava was entitled to more instruction under the IDEA, and that the school district denied these services out of concern for employees working past the time that school traditionally ends. However, a federal judge ruled that Ava could not get an injunction against the school district to receive a permanent set of hours of instruction and compensation under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The Eighth Circuit ruled that Ava would have to show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to seek relief; at most she established a question of genuine fact over whether the school district was negligent or deliberately indifferent. This was not enough under existing case law.
If Ava prevails, children with special needs will have to meet a lower threshold for proving that they were denied a Free and Appropriate Education (FAPE). Students may then be entitled to extra services such as a smaller class-to-teacher ratio, aides, therapy, more services outside of school hours or even a different placement (if the school is not the most appropriate for them). Each side had 30 minutes to argue, with a rebuttal allowed for the child’s attorney at the end.
If the school district wins, the higher burden for people with disabilities to prove damages will remain in effect under the IDEA (as opposed to the lower standard of willful indifference in workplace discrimination cases under Title IX). The school district was expected to appeal to the conservative justices with a federalist argument by stating that the states should not be burdened with a federal standard that’s more appropriate for the workplace. However, the hearing was bogged down by accusations that the school district was pushing for a lower standard for schools to meet in all cases rather than raising the bar for plaintiffs like Ava. The school district further argued that if it cannot accommodate a student, it does not mean that there was intent to discriminate.
A uniform standard for education-related claims brought under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 would lower or raise the standard for families of special needs students to receive compensation. In a statement to the publication K-12 Dive, Perry Zirkel, a special education expert, said that parents want certainty. “It would be good for everybody to have a predictable standard,” he said. Absent a uniform standard, there will be “disarray,” warned Martinez during oral arguments.
District courts throughout the country have made the bar higher for families like Ava’s to sue for education-related discrimination claims than for other cases brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). When the Tharpes lived in Tennessee, Ava received afternoon classes in her local public school, with evening instruction at home. All this changed when the family moved to Minnesota. According to the Tharpes, the Osseo school district refused to accommodate Ava, and the family had to foot the bill for services at home.
The student’s attorney argued that if the school does not provide her with evening instruction, this is enough to show discrimination. Basically, a school district cannot wipe its hands clean of its obligations to provide special education services if it does not offer the service provided. It must accommodate the child or fund placement elsewhere, argues the Plaintiff. Otherwise, the school district will be liable for damages.
The defendant argues that if an elevator is not working, there is no willful intent to discriminate merely because it was not fixed. “[Y]ou don’t need antisemitism anymore or encampments. You can just say you violated the reasonable accommodation.” If a school is found to have acted in bad faith because it had a disagreement with the student’s parents about the appropriateness of an IEP (Individualized Education Plan), that would be a “big deal.” Schools will be found to be deliberately indifferent and thus lose federal funding.
The arguments were anything but straightforward. Martinez accused the School District of expanding the scope of the question presented while Blatt accused the Petitioner of “lying” to the Court. Precious oral argument time was wasted by this, with Justice Neil Gorsuch asking Blatt to back down from her assertion and state that the Petitioner was mistaken rather than lied. “You can accuse people of being incorrect, but lying is another matter,” chided Gorsuch. Blatt then withdrew the accusation. A case about intent spilled into each side’s characterization (or mischaracterization) of the case.
Plaintiff argued that Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA need to be applied to the IDEA, because if discrimination is proven but there is no compensation, a plaintiff cannot be made whole. Furthermore, the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Monahan v. Nebraska, a 1982 case that set the precedent to deny relief for thousands of children with disabilities across the country. There, the Eighth Circuit held that Section 504 relief was not available under the IDEA, which required students to prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” on the part of school districts. Five other circuit courts have followed this standard. The plaintiff now asks the Supreme Court to overrule Monahan’s “made-up” rule, which courts have relied on to deny compensatory damages to children with disabilities, according to its Reply Brief.
Counsel for the Respondent-School District had arguments with justices such as Justice Sonia Sotomayor over whether discrimination requires intent. While Blatt acknowledged that cancelling all field trips would be a violation of the IDEA, she said that where the district doesn’t have the budget to provide an accommodation, it’s not discriminatory. According to her, there was a “disagreement” over whether Ava should be able to take evening classes.
Sotomayor said that Blatt may have violated Supreme Court rules by asking the Court to require intent in all discrimination cases, not just those filed under the IDEA. This broad question was not one the Court was asked to decide, noted Chief Justice John Roberts. Both the justices and Martinez drilled down this point, much to the detriment of the school district. The Court never got to hear an argument from the school district on the state’s rights argument, as SCOTUS Blog predicted it would.
In his closing remarks, Martinez asked the Supreme Court to reject opposing counsel’s “radical arguments” and vacate the Eighth Circuit’s decision in favor of the school district. The government agreed with Plaintiff that intent should not be required for a school district to be in violation of the IDEA. The Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision in this case by the end of June.
In a statement to The Jewish Link, Martinez said: “We appreciate the Court’s close consideration of this case and the important issues it raises. It makes no sense to require students with disabilities to satisfy a more demanding test to prove disability discrimination than all other plaintiffs under the same laws. We are hopeful that the Justices will agree to overturn the Eighth Circuit’s erroneous ruling and let Ava’s claims proceed.”
