Supreme Court to Hear Arguments on Standards for Special Education Discrimination Cases
The Question before the Court: Do the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education?
On Monday, April 28, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, the latest chapter in a decades-long debate over the rights of schoolchildren with disabilities. This case hinges on the interplay between two key federal laws: the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and anti-discrimination statutes, namely the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The IDEA mandates that school districts provide a “free appropriate public education” (FAPE) to students with disabilities, but limited federal funding often pits parents, who seek the best for their children, against school districts aiming to control local budgets. The ADA and Rehabilitation Act, meanwhile, prohibit public entities like schools from discriminating by reason of disability.
At issue is whether a student denied an appropriate education can seek damages under both the IDEA and the anti-discrimination laws. The IDEA clearly allows students to compel schools to provide FAPE. But can students also claim damages under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, arguing that a school’s failure to provide FAPE constitutes disability-based discrimination? The answer isn’t straightforward.
Initially, the Supreme Court viewed the IDEA as the exclusive remedy for such failures, but Congress disagreed. In 1986, it passed Section 1415(l) of the IDEA, clarifying that the IDEA does not limit rights under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. This opened the door for students to pursue damages under the anti-discrimination laws, provided they prove “intentional discrimination.” Most lower courts have adopted a “deliberate indifference” standard for such claims, borrowing from the Supreme Court’s interpretation of Title IX, a civil rights law with similar language to the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
However, a split exists. While some courts apply the deliberate indifference standard to students, most impose a higher bar for schoolchildren: “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” This discrepancy lies at the heart of A.J.T.’s case.
The Case of A.J.T.
A.J.T., a student with severe epilepsy, cannot function at school in the mornings. In Kentucky, her elementary school accommodated her by providing evening instruction, ensuring she received the same hours of education as her peers. After moving to Minnesota, however, the Osseo Area Schools refused this accommodation, offering only three hours of daily instruction. A.J.T. sued, and the courts readily found that the district violated the IDEA by failing to provide FAPE. Yet, they denied her damages under the anti-discrimination laws, ruling that the district’s “deliberate indifference” didn’t meet the “bad faith” threshold required for students.
The Legal Debate
A.J.T.’s attorneys argue that this higher standard for students is unjust. With Section 1415(l) explicitly preserving rights under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, they contend that students should face the same burden as other plaintiffs alleging disability discrimination: proving deliberate indifference. They cite the Supreme Court’s Title IX precedent and Congress’s intent for consistent standards across these laws.
The school district, conversely, argues for uniformity but in the opposite direction. They claim the deliberate indifference standard, rooted in Title IX’s workplace harassment context, doesn’t fit disability discrimination in schools. Citing federalism concerns, they urge the Court to require “bad faith” for all plaintiffs under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, shielding local governments from excessive liability.
What’s at Stake
The case exposes a tension between protecting students’ rights and respecting local governments’ fiscal constraints. Some justices may lean toward a higher standard to limit lawsuits against schools, while others will likely prioritize the clear text of Section 1415(l) and the parity it demands. Expect sharp questioning as the Court grapples with balancing these competing principles.
This case could redefine how students with disabilities seek redress for discrimination, with ripple effects for schools, families, and disability rights nationwide.
Why the Fodera Law Firm?
The attorneys at the Fodera Law Firm can assist you if you have a disability, requested reasonable accommodations, or were discriminated against. We can explain your rights and provide legal advice to guide you through your quest for justice. The Fodera Law Firm represents private sector clients in the following disability related matters:
EEOC Charges of Discrimination
DC Office of Human Rights or Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination complaints, conciliation, and hearings
State lawsuits
Federal lawsuits
Mediation and Arbitration
Settlement negotiations
See our contact information below or click the Book a Consultation button above to speak with one of our attorneys. The Fodera Law Firm offers strategic and results-driven legal services to private sector clients in Washington, DC & Massachusetts.
