The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari on January 17, 2025, in A.J.T. by and through A.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 279, 96 F.4th 1058 (8th Cir. 2024), cert. granted sub nom. A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, No. 24-249, 2025 WL 226839 (U.S. Jan. 17, 2025). At issue is whether students with disabilities are required to satisfy a “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief against school districts they allege have violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, referred to as Ava in court documents, is a child with epilepsy. Her seizures are particularly severe in the mornings. Her parents requested evening instruction so that Ava could begin school at noon and have a school day equal in length to her peers. The school district denied this request, although it offered other accommodations, such as providing Ava with one-on-one instruction, extending her school day by fifteen minutes to allow her to safely leave the building after the hallways cleared, and offering her sixteen three-hour home sessions each summer.
Circuit Split
The Eighth Circuit and four other circuits (the Second, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Circuits) currently follow the standard that a student must prove a school district acted with “either bad faith or gross misjudgment.” This is shown by statutory non-compliance that deviates “substantially from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards.” Two other circuits, the Third and Ninth Circuits, require “deliberate indifference” in ADA and Rehabilitation Act cases brought by students with disabilities. The Eighth Circuit in A.J.T. agreed there “may have been a genuine dispute of fact whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent,” but ruled there was not enough evidence to establish wrongful intent, which the Circuit requires.
Parties’ Arguments
Lawyers for both Ava and several friends of the Court filing briefs in support of her position highlight that the text of neither the ADA nor Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act require “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment,” and other classes of people suing under those statutes outside of the education setting do not have to meet that standard. The district argues that any variation of how the standard is worded between circuits is a distinction without a difference and either standard has an intent to discriminate requirement. The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the case this session, with a decision coming before the 2025-26 school year.
What This Means to You
A reversal of the Eighth Circuit’s decision by the Supreme Court could mean that some districts will need to reexamine their accommodation processes. Even prompt evaluations of accommodation requests and a robust individualized education program process may not be enough to escape liability if they do not provide the student with meaningful access. On the other hand, even if the Supreme Court does reverse, it is possible that the difference between “bad faith or gross misjudgment” and “deliberate indifference” may not have much practical effect.
The K-12 Team at Husch Blackwell will monitor this case closely and update this article with highlights from oral arguments. In addition, we will monitor any effects, if any, that the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision may have across the country. If you have questions about your district’s accommodation process, please reach out to your Husch Blackwell attorney.