Supreme Court Rules Students Claiming Disability Discrimination Do Not Face Higher Standard of Proof than Other ADA and Rehabilitation Act Plaintiffs

On June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 that students suing educational institutions for disability discrimination should not have to face a higher standard of proof than plaintiffs in other federal discrimination lawsuits brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act”).

Factual Background

The petitioner in the case is a student with a rare form of epilepsy that significantly limits her physical and cognitive functioning. Due to frequent seizures in the morning, she was not able to attend school before noon. However, she was alert and able to learn from noon until the evening. Prior to 2015, when the family lived in Kentucky, the student received evening instruction to accommodate her need for late arrival to school. Then, in 2015, the family moved to Minnesota where the student began attending school within Osseo School District (the “District”), who no longer provided her with evening instruction, despite her parents’ repeated requests.

The student’s parents filed a complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education, alleging that the District’s refusal to provide evening instruction denied their student a free appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under federal law, specifically the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”).  An Administrative Law Judge agreed with the parents and determined that the District violated the IDEA because the District refused to provide after-hours instruction, denying the student FAPE. The ALJ ordered the District to provide the requested evening instruction, and ordered compensatory education to make up for the District’s prior failure to provide appropriate educational services. Federal courts subsequently affirmed the decision regarding the violation of the student’s IDEA rights.

After receiving a favorable ruling on their IDEA claim, the student and parents then sued the District under two other federal laws; the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, requesting a permanent injunction to provide the student with a full day of education, reimbursement for certain costs, and compensatory damages. Unlike in their previous case, here the court ruled in favor of the District, which the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Eighth Circuit reasoned that a school district’s failure to provide a reasonable accommodation requested by parents of a student was not enough to state a case of discrimination under existing precedent, specifically the case of Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F. 2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1982), which requires a plaintiff to prove more to establish a discrimination claim, notably conduct by school officials rising to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment.

Legal Background

Before the Supreme Court heard A.J.T. v. Osseo, federal appellate courts were split regarding the appropriate evidentiary standard to apply to claims brought by students and their parents seeking to establish a case of disability discrimination against educational institutions under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Most appellate courts apply a standard of “deliberate indifference,” which requires plaintiffs to show that the educational institution knew of the student’s rights and failed to act despite the known risk of harm. Five appellate courts (including the Eighth Circuit), however, apply a higher bar when the case involves students with disabilities and educational services, namely the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, which required plaintiffs to show that the educational institution acted beyond mere negligence or deliberate indifference and prove that the educational institution acted with intentional dishonesty, or with such egregious errors in judgment as to be considered fundamentally unreasonable or lacking in a proper basis. The “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard traces back to the Eighth Circuit’s opinion in Monahan v. Nebraska referenced above. In that case, the Eighth Circuit explained that the “bad faith or gross misjudgment standard” reflected what it viewed as the balance between the rights of students with disabilities, the responsibilities of the educational institution, and the role of courts to make technical judgments.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the unanimous opinion of the Court. Justices Clarence Thomas (joined by Brett Kavanaugh) and Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson) wrote separate, concurring opinions. The Court held that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act discrimination claims based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts. The Court’s analysis relied upon the text of both statutes and suggested that nothing in either the ADA or Rehabilitation Act requires that certain types of claims “should be subject to a distinct, more demanding analysis,” as was relied upon by the Eighth Circuit. The Court also noted that the plain text of the IDEA, the other relevant federal law, does not restrict or limit the rights or remedies provided by other federal laws, such as the ADA or Rehabilitation Act.

Based on this reasoning, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court’s decision that applied the higher evidentiary standard and remanded the case back to the lower court to rehear the case based on what the Supreme Court held was the appropriate standard.

Takeaways

The A.J.T. v. Osseo decision resolves a federal circuit court split on the legal standard for assessing disability discrimination cases in the education context. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which includes federal courts in Illinois, notably did not previously follow the “bad faith or gross misjudgment standard.” Moving forward, students suing educational institutions for disability discrimination under Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act will only have to meet the “deliberate indifference” standard.  While this case specifically involved a K-12 school district, the ruling impacts the interpretation and application of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, both of which apply to higher education institutions receiving federal funding.

Please contact your Robbins Schwartz attorney with questions regarding the Supreme Court’s decision or its impact on your practices regarding accommodations for students with disabilities.