A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools

The following is a summary of the request by the parents for the Supreme Court to hear this case. The Court accepted the case with oral arguments expected in April.

Summary of the Petitioners Brief

The petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools focuses on a significant issue under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act: the unequal treatment of children with disabilities in educational settings. The case seeks to challenge the ruling by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, which applies a uniquely stringent standard—requiring a showing of “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—for children seeking relief for educational discrimination under these statutes.

Case Background

A.J.T., the petitioner, is a student with epilepsy that impacts her ability to attend school during standard hours. While her previous school district in Kentucky provided accommodations, including evening home instruction, her new district in Minnesota, Osseo Area Schools, refused to extend the same accommodations. Over multiple years, the district significantly reduced her instructional hours, offering fewer hours than her non-disabled peers and failing to accommodate her schedule despite repeated requests from her parents.

Her parents filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), arguing the district denied A.J.T. a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). A state administrative law judge ruled in their favor under the IDEA, awarding compensatory education. However, A.J.T. also pursued claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for broader relief, including compensatory damages and permanent protections. These claims were dismissed because the Eighth Circuit requires plaintiffs in educational contexts to meet the heightened standard of proving “bad faith or gross misjudgment.”

The Legal Problem

The heightened standard imposed by the Eighth Circuit is not rooted in statutory text. Under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, plaintiffs generally need to show a public entity failed to provide “reasonable accommodations” to ensure equal access, and compensatory damages require proof of “deliberate indifference.” However, for children with disabilities in educational contexts, the Eighth Circuit and four other circuits apply the much stricter “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, effectively limiting the protections of these federal laws.

This case highlights a 5-2 circuit split:

• Five Circuits (Eighth, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth): Apply the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard to children’s educational discrimination claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.
• Two Circuits (Third, Ninth): Treat claims by children with disabilities in education the same as other claims under these statutes, applying the general standards of no intent required for injunctive relief and “deliberate indifference” for damages.

The petitioner argues this heightened standard is inconsistent with statutory language and undermines the broader purpose of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, which seek to protect all individuals from disability-based discrimination without carving out special exceptions.

Key Arguments for Supreme Court Review

1. Circuit Split: The disagreement among circuits creates inconsistent outcomes for children with disabilities based solely on geography. For instance, A.J.T. could have obtained relief if her case were in the Third or Ninth Circuit, but she was denied under the Eighth Circuit’s stricter rules.
2. Atextual Standard: The “bad faith or gross misjudgment” rule lacks any foundation in the ADA or Rehabilitation Act’s text. These statutes mandate equal protections for all individuals without distinguishing between education and other contexts.
3. National Implications: The stricter standard severely limits the ability of children with disabilities to seek redress for educational discrimination, affecting thousands of students across the country. This creates a barrier to equitable education access and undermines the statutes’ intent to provide robust protections against discrimination.
4. Judicial Criticism: Both the Eighth and Sixth Circuits have acknowledged the heightened standard imposed by earlier precedent (e.g., Monahan v. Nebraska in the Eighth Circuit) is flawed. Judges in these circuits have openly criticized the rule as inconsistent with statutory language and Congressional intent, but they remain bound by precedent.

Broader Impacts

The decision to deny A.J.T.’s claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act illustrates how the heightened standard prevents meaningful accountability for school districts that fail to accommodate students with disabilities. This case underscores the life-altering consequences of educational discrimination for children like A.J.T., whose ability to learn and thrive depends on access to appropriate accommodations.

Relief Sought

The petition urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari, resolve the circuit split, and restore uniform protections under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for children with disabilities. By doing so, the Court can ensure that statutory protections apply equally across the country and eliminate the arbitrary and unjustified barriers imposed on educational discrimination claims.

This case has the potential to significantly impact the interpretation and application of disability rights laws, particularly for students with disabilities. The petition emphasizes the urgency of restoring the broad protections intended by Congress and addressing the entrenched judicial divide that leaves many children without recourse.