The United States Supreme Court recently decided a case in which the parents alleged that a school district discriminated against their child with a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (Section 504) and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The Court ruled in favor of the parents and clarified the standard for money damages in education-related claims under Section 504 and the ADA.
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schs., Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279 involved a student with a seizure disorder that severely limited her physical and cognitive functioning and prevented her from attending school before noon. The student was generally alert and able to learn from noon until 6:00 p.m. The parents repeatedly asked the school district to excuse her from school in the morning and provide homebound evening instruction instead. The district denied the parents’ request to provide instruction after the regular school day ended. This resulted in the student receiving 4.25 hours of daily instruction, compared to the typical 6.5 hours of daily instruction received by other students.
The parents first filed a state Individual with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA) complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education, alleging that the district failed to provide a free appropriate public education (FAPE) by refusing to provide “after hours” instruction. The Department found that the district had violated the IDEA by refusing to provide evening instruction based on administrative convenience instead of considering the student’s individual educational needs. The district was ordered to provide compensatory education and provide in-home instruction from 4:30 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. every school day. The district sought judicial review of the decision, and the district court and 8th Circuit Court of Appeals both affirmed the Department’s conclusion that the district violated the IDEA.
The parents then sued the district in federal court under the ADA and Section 504, seeking money damages, among other types of relief. The parents had been unable to obtain money damages through their previous state complaint and related litigation, because money damages are not available under the IDEA. The district court ruled in favor of the school district, finding that the parents had failed to state a case under Section 504 or the ADA, because they did not prove that school officials acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The 8th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision, reasoning that failing to provide a reasonable accommodation to a student is not enough to trigger liability. In its decision, the 8th Circuit acknowledged that its “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard for Section 504 or ADA claims in the education context set a much higher bar for plaintiffs seeking money damages than the “deliberate indifference” standard used in other disability-discrimination contexts, but it applied the higher standard nonetheless. Notably, the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (the court that would decide appeals involving Wisconsin school districts) has declined to use the higher “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard.
The U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case to resolve disagreement among the courts of appeals regarding which standard to use. The Court held that “ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”
What Does this Mean for Wisconsin School Districts?
As we discussed in our previous Legal Update, the Trump Administration’s efforts to reduce and eventually dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (DoE) may impact the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR’s) ability to promptly process and resolve Section 504 complaints, potentially giving parents and their attorneys an incentive to file federal lawsuits under Section 504 instead. Although the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision does not change the standard generally used by Wisconsin federal courts, it provides confirmation that parents bringing claims under Section 504 or the ADA related to their child’s education need not show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in order to receive money damages. The availability of money damages may further incentivize parents to file litigation as opposed to an OCR complaint or 504 due process hearing request.
The Osseo Area Schools case also raises questions about the availability of extended school day services for children who are unable to attend a full school day during regular school hours due to their disability/medical condition. We already know that the DoE and the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) have been scrutinizing shortened school days for students with disabilities.
Finally, the case provides an example of how the refusal of one request from a family can lead to years of costly litigation, highlighting the importance of conducting a thorough analysis based on the student’s individual needs, providing “prior written notice” if refusing the request, and considering alternative dispute resolution options, such as mediation through the Wisconsin Special Education Mediation System. Training staff on their obligations under Section 504 is also critical to avoid potentially costly disputes.
