Federal Disability Laws Impacting Education
Section 504 and the ADA apply to public and private institutions, respectively. Under these similar laws, otherwise qualified individuals who have, had, or are believed to have had impairments significantly affecting one or more of life’s major activities, including schooling, cannot be denied the benefits of or participation in programs receiving federal financial aid if they can take part with the aid of reasonable accommodations.
Qualified children also receive individualized educational programs that address their needs and are protected by more far-reaching procedural due process safeguards than in the other two statutes.
Facts of A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279
A.J.T., identified as Ava Tharpe, who suffers from a rare form of epilepsy that severely limits her physical and cognitive functioning, experiences frequent seizures that prevent her from attending school before noon. However, A.J.T. is alert and can learn from noon until about 6 p.m.
In 2015, when A.J.T. was a 10-year-old fourth grader, she and her family moved from Kentucky to Minnesota, where educators denied her parents’ requests for reasonable accommodations, including evening instruction.
When A.J.T.’s parents sued under the IDEA, claiming the denial of services, an administrative judge and the federal trial court in Minnesota found in their favor. Yet, the court rejected the parents’ ADA and Section 504 claims seeking remedies, including reimbursements for various expenses and compensatory damages due to the board’s refusal to provide reasonable accommodations.
On appeal, the Eighth Circuit affirmed in favor of the board because the parents failed to prove that officials acted in bad faith or with gross misjudgment in denying the requested accommodations. On further review, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded in favor of A.J.T. and her parents for further consideration.
Chief Justice Roberts concluded by recognizing that children with disabilities and their parents “face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs.
Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Chief Justice Roberts reasoned that “[s]choolchildren bringing ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of ‘bad faith or gross misjudgment’ but instead are subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”
Roberts explained that “claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts,” adding that “[n]othing in the text of [Section 504 and the ADA] suggests that such claims should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis.”
Chief Justice Roberts concluded by recognizing that children with disabilities and their parents “face daunting challenges on a daily basis. We hold today that those challenges do not include having to satisfy a more stringent standard of proof than other plaintiffs.”
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Kavanaugh, concurred but questioned whether boards can be liable for damages without proof of intent. Justice Sotomayor’s concurrence, joined by Justice Jackson, cautioned that adopting higher standards would “eviscerate the core of both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, leaving millions of our fellow citizens without the protections Congress intended of federal disability discrimination laws.”
In clarifying the appropriate standard, the Supreme Court essentially made it easier for
parents to sue their school boards under Section 504 and/or the ADA. More specifically, the court explained that parents no longer need to prove that educators acted under the higher deliberate indifference standard when denying accommodation requests for their children.
In light of this clarified standard, SBOs, their boards, and other education leaders must be increasingly mindful of following the law when serving children with disabilities. Consequently, they may wish to consider the following suggestions to ensure compliance with Section 504 and the ADA. Policies should:
-
Be developed by teams that include representatives of key constituencies such as the district’s director of special education, teachers and administrators from various levels of schools, the SBO, a board member, the board attorney, a medical doctor, a school nurse, a faculty member from a local college or university who specializes in disability law and needs of qualified individuals, and parents of children with special needs.
-
Address timelines for parents and students who must request accommodations in writing; identify with whom requests must be filed, detail evidence needed to support requests, and outline timelines for decisions on granting accommodations and appealing if requests are denied.
Policies should be reviewed annually and updated if necessary to ensure they are up-to-date with the latest developments in federal and state law.