In a unanimous decision this week, the United States Supreme Court overturned a higher standard to be applied in the educational context of a need to show bad faith or gross misjudgment by school personnel in order to support a claim for compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the ADA. What does this decision mean for your school?
The Supreme Court held that, in the educational context, the same standard to establish a claim for compensatory damages applies under Section 504 and the ADA as it does in non-educational contexts. A.J.T. by and through her parents, A.T. et al. v. OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 279, et al. (June 12, 2025).
Outside the educational context, to establish violations and obtain injunctive relief, it is not necessary to prove intent to discriminate. Needed are demonstrations that a disability exists, that the individual at issue meets the standard for eligibility under the statute and that discrimination occurred.
On the other hand, outside the educational context, to establish compensatory damages under those statutes, most courts require a showing of intentional discrimination which is, in general, satisfied by a deliberate indifference standard.
The deliberate indifference standard requires a showing that the defendant disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate a federally protected right, which is a lesser standard than the need to show bad faith or gross misjudgment. However, historically, in the educational services context, courts have applied a bad faith or gross misjudgment standard for compensatory damages, that standard now challenged before the Supreme Court.
Underlying the decision of the Supreme Court were claims brought by the parents of a teenage girl who suffers from a severe form of epilepsy that prohibits her from participating in her education before noon. Her first school district permitted her to attend beginning at noon and then provided evening instruction for the missed morning hours. However, when A.J.T. moved to a new school district, the parents’ requests for the same schedule were denied, and A.J.T. received only 4.25 hours of instruction instead of the 6.5 hours provided to other students in the district.
The parents filed a complaint under the IDEA. The decision that issued held for the parents, awarded compensatory education and ordered the district to provide evening instruction. Federal courts upheld that decision on appeal.
The parents thereupon sued under 504 and the ADA, requesting a permanent injunction, reimbursement for costs and compensatory damages. In response, the Federal District Court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment.
The parents appealed, and the Circuit Court upheld the lower court’s decision on the basis that a school district’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was not enough to establish the prima facie case of deliberate indifference which required proof of bad faith or gross misjudgment.
The parents appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted certiorari.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in April and on June 12th issued its decision which overturned the lower court.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court could not find a rationale in law for a different standard to be applied to support a claim for compensatory damages in the educational context as that applied in other contexts and so it overturned the Court below and remanded the case back to the lower courts for consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision of the standard now to be applied.
Moreover, the Court found that the higher standard could not be reconciled with the provisions of the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415 (l), which provides that nothing in the IDEA “shall be construed to restrict or limit the rights, procedures and remedies available” under the ADA and Section 504.
What does it all mean?
The Decision’s significance is that the Court has made it easier for parents to support a claim for compensatory damages under the ADA and 504 against public educational entities. The IDEA does not support a claim for damages. Thus, parents who wish to pursue the remedy file under 504 and the ADA.
As a result of the Supreme Court’s decision just issued, parents must show that a school entity disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate a federally protected right.
A.J.T.’s case now returns to the lower courts to determine whether the Osseo School District’s failure to provide for the full 6.5 hours of instruction demonstrates a violation of her right to her education.
Bottom Line For Schools
It becomes even more imperative that schools focus on the needs of a student and demonstrate that that is the reason for their provision of services. The Supreme Court was unimpressed that a rationale for the school’s offering of only a half day of instruction was concern for the teachers’ work day and administrative convenience.
The IDEA forbids such considerations.
