Case Summary: A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
Issue at Stake:
The core question in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools is whether students with disabilities must meet a uniquely high standard—proving “bad faith or gross misjudgment”—to prevail in disability discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) when the discrimination is related to educational services.

Background: A.J.T. (“Ava”) is a student with severe epilepsy. Her condition limits her ability to attend school during the standard day, but she is alert and able to learn in the late afternoon and evening. While living in Kentucky, her school accommodated her needs by providing evening instruction. When she moved to Minnesota and enrolled in Osseo Area Schools, the district refused to continue those accommodations.

Over several years, Ava’s parents repeatedly requested adjustments to her educational program, including later instruction. The district not only declined those requests but reduced her instructional day to just three hours—less than half the time her nondisabled peers received. The district offered various shifting justifications: an interpretation of state law, citing staffing logistics, and questioning the restrictiveness of the home setting.

After exhausting administrative remedies, an ALJ found the district violated the IDEA by denying Ava a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). However, when Ava’s parents sought compensatory damages and injunctive relief under Section 504 and the ADA, both the district court and the Eighth Circuit denied relief based on the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard established in Monahan v. Nebraska (1982).

Monahan v. Nebraska (1982) is a landmark Eighth Circuit case in which the court held school districts are not liable under the IDEA merely because an IEP fails to produce the desired educational outcomes. The court emphasized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (then the Education for All Handicapped Children Act) does not guarantee a student’s success but rather mandates the provision of a program reasonably calculated to provide educational benefit. It clarified a school district is not in violation of the law unless it acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment.

Deliberate Indifference vs. Bad Faith/Gross Misjudgment: The typical legal standard under Section 504 and the ADA for awarding compensatory damages is deliberate indifference. This requires showing the school district knew of the student’s rights and failed to act despite the known risk of harm.

However, five circuits—including the Eighth—apply a higher bar when the case involves students with disabilities and educational services. Under this “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, plaintiffs must prove that school officials either knowingly acted with malicious intent (bad faith) or exercised such poor judgment that it shocks the conscience (gross misjudgment). This is harder to prove than deliberate indifference.

In Ava’s case, the Eighth Circuit panel acknowledged the district may have been “negligent or even deliberately indifferent” but ruled that this was “not enough” under the Monahan standard. In essence, Ava’s factual evidence would have been sufficient in the Third or Ninth Circuits—but not in the Eighth.

Examples of Deliberate Indifference in the Case:

• Years of Inaction Despite Repeated Requests: The district was repeatedly informed of Ava’s medical needs and her success with evening instruction but took no substantive action to accommodate.
• Shifting and Contradictory Rationales: The justifications provided by Osseo Area Schools changed over time—from logistical inconvenience to policy concerns—suggesting avoidance rather than genuine deliberation.
• Failure to Prioritize the Student’s Needs: Decisions were based on staff convenience and district precedent, not Ava’s individualized needs, a fact confirmed by the ALJ and upheld by the federal district court.

Implications if the School District Prevails: If the Supreme Court affirms the Eighth Circuit’s ruling, the Monahan standard remains intact in at least five circuits. The result would be:

1. Two-tiered justice for students with disabilities: K-12 students face a higher standard to prove discrimination than college students with disabilities or adults in public services.
2. Weakened accountability: Schools may avoid consequences for failing to provide accommodations, so long as they avoid obvious malice or extreme recklessness.
3. Widening circuit split: The disparity between circuits would persist, creating inconsistent legal protections depending on geography.
4. Undermining the ADA and Section 504: Congress intended these statutes to apply uniformly. Narrowing their scope in schools distorts that intention.

Implications if the Parents Prevail: If the Supreme Court overturns the Eighth Circuit decision:

1. Uniform standard restored: Students with disabilities would have the same rights under Section 504 and ADA regardless of setting or state.
2. Strengthened protections: Deliberate indifference, a more balanced standard, would apply, allowing legitimate claims to move forward while filtering out frivolous ones.
3. Alignment with Congressional intent: Congress clarified in the Handicapped Children’s Protection Act of 1986 the IDEA does not limit rights under Section 504 or the ADA. Reverting to this understanding respects that legislative direction.
4. More consistent enforcement: Parents would no longer be forced to navigate dramatically different standards depending on circuit, improving access to justice.

Conclusion:  A.J.T. v. Osseo raises the fundamental question: should public schools be held to the same legal standard for discrimination as other entities under the ADA and Section 504? The case exemplifies why courts should not insulate educational institutions from liability with an elevated standard that has no textual basis in law. Ava’s situation illustrates how legal loopholes can allow real harms to go unremedied, even when all agree those harms occurred. The outcome of this case will have nationwide implications for how students with disabilities are treated under federal law.