Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its opinion setting forth the standard that must be
applied by courts in cases involving alleged failures to accommodate students
with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
Rehabilitation Act (Rehabilitation Act). A.J.T.,
et al. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, et al.
In this case, a student with a
rare form of epilepsy filed several claims under various federal statutes
alleging that her school district failed to accommodate her when it refused to
provide certain services to her, which she claimed resulted in her receiving fewer instructional
hours than her peers without disabilities. The student’s disorder caused her to
have frequent seizures, particularly in the mornings, which she claims prevented her from
attending school before noon. For the first few years she attended school, the
student was granted various accommodations, including at-home evening
instruction to supplement the hours she was otherwise unable to attend school.
In 2015, the student and her
family moved to a different state, and the student’s new school district (District)
denied her parents’ request to include evening instruction in her
individualized education program (IEP), resulting in her receiving just over 4
hours of schooling every day (significantly less time than the typical school
day for her peers). In 2018, the student’s schedule was reduced even further,
and the family’s requests for accommodation were continually denied by the
District.
The student first filed a claim under
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alleging that the
failure to accommodate her requests for evening instruction deprived her of a
“free appropriate public education” as required under IDEA. Both the state
board of education and a federal trial court ruled in favor of the student and
ordered the District to provide her with at-home instruction on school nights.
After succeeding on her IDEA
claim, the student sued the District in federal court, claiming violations of
Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Both of these federal
laws were enacted to ensure that people with disabilities have an equal
opportunity to benefit from government services, including public education.
The District argued the case should be dismissed because the student failed to meet the standard for a successful claim under
the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. The district court and Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled
in favor of the District, finding that the student failed to show that the
District acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment when it denied her
accommodations requests. The Eighth Circuit determined that a school district’s
“simple failure” to provide a reasonable accommodation is not enough to trigger
liability under either statute.
On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court
held that the student did not need to show bad faith or gross
misjudgment by the District to move forward with her claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Instead, the student need only show that the District acted with
“deliberate indifference” when it denied her reasonable accommodation
requests—an easier standard to meet. The opinion of the Court (authored by
Chief Justice Roberts) noted that the standard that had been advocated by the
District was uniquely difficult to satisfy. Outside of the context of
elementary and secondary education, claims of disability discrimination under
the ADA and Rehabilitation Act do not require a showing of an intent to discriminate, or
animus against individuals with disabilities. The Supreme Court found there was
no evidence in the statutory language or legislative history that supported
imposing such a high burden on students when other groups with disabilities
would not be required to show bad faith or gross misjudgment to bring a
discrimination claim. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the student and determined that students with disabilities filing claims under these statutes are held to the same standard as other individuals alleging disability discrimination in different contexts.
In her concurring opinion,
Justice Sotomayor pointed out that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act were enacted with an
awareness that discrimination against individuals with disabilities is often
the product of neglect and thoughtlessness, rather than deliberate hostility.
Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel
Glink
