WASHINGTON − TheSupreme Courton June 12 unanimously sided with a disabled studenttrying to sueher school for not doing enough to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, a decision that could make it easier for families to seek damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act. The justices said a lower court used the wrong standard when rejecting the discrimination lawsuit. And the court rejected an argument from the school that would have raised the bar for all victims of disability discrimination even outside of educational instruction claims. The case,A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, was being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have created a "nearly insurmountable barrier" for help sought by schoolchildren and their families. But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiations needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources. In this case, Gina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Osseo Area School District to accommodate their daughter's severe cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon. A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home. But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what nondisabled students received. A local judge said in 2021 the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs; instead, they were concerned with a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. But while a federal judge backed that decision, the court said the Tharpes couldn't also use the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 andSection 504of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and court order to permanently set the hours of instruction. Section 504 is the law that started school-based "504 plans,"a central tool for providing accommodations to students with disabilities. More:For students with disabilities, what's the difference between IEPs and 504 plans? The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision – Monahan v. Nebraska − that said school officials need to have acted with "bad faith or gross misjudgment" for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities. The Tharpes "may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough," the appeals court said. More:Will a Texas-led legal fight over gender dysphoria threaten disabled student protections? Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to Tharpes' attorneys. Those courts were unfairly using a tougher standard than "deliberate indifference," which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases not based on educational services,their attorneys argued− with the support of the Justice Department. The school district's attorneys pushed the court to apply atougher standardfor all cases rather than lowering the bar for cases like Ava's. But because the school district didn't make that argument until after the court agreed to take the case, the justices said they could not consider it. "We will not entertain the District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. Two justices said the school district raised an important issue that the court should consider in a future case. "Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard is an issue of national importance, and the District has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "That these issues are consequential is all the more reason to wait for a case in which they are squarely before us and we have the benefit of adversarial briefing." Ava's lawyers had warned that the school's argument threatened "to eviscerate protections for every American who endures disability discrimination – and quite possibly other kinds of discrimination too." "This outcome gets the law exactly right, and it will help protect the reasonable accommodations needed to ensure equal opportunity for all," Roman Martinez, who represented the Tharpes, said in a statement. "We are thrilled for Ava and her family." The court's decision revives, but does not settle, the Tharpe's lawsuit. Attorneys for the district said the school had not shown "deliberate indifference." Although the school declined to provide after-school support at Ava's home, officials said they offered other measures to accommodate her needs while "effectively utilizing scarce resources shared among all students, including others with disabilities." This article originally appeared on USA TODAY:In unanimous decision, Supreme Court sides with teen who has epilepsy
