Written By: Matthew Reimann
On April 
28, 2025, the Supreme Court heard heated oral arguments in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools. This case raises the issue of what liability standard governs schoolchildren’s claims for compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act and the American with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”).
Path to the Supreme Court
Ava Tharpe is a teenage girl with a rare and rather severe form of epilepsy. This disability causes almost daily seizures, especially in the mornings. These ailments prompted Ava’s parents to work with school officials in order to develop an alternative schedule. Accommodations, such as an afternoon only schedule with some evening instructions, were given by Ava’s public school in Kentucky; however, everything would change once the family moved to Minnesota. Despite repeated requests, Osseo Area School District officials remained adamant that evening lessons were not feasible. Continued refusals resulted in reduced school-hours, as Ava received only around 65% of what her peers did.
Outraged by the School District’s conduct, Ava’s parents brought suit under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (the “IDEA”). These federal laws work in conjunction to ensure schools receiving federal funding provide reasonable accommodations for children with disabilities. While schedule alternatives were eventually achieved through their successful IDEA proceeding, the family’s claim for compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act and ADA have faced several challenges.
Relying on circuit precedent which requires a showing of wrongful intent, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the School District, finding that the Tharpe family only established negligence. On appeal the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, ultimately taking the matter to the Supreme Court which granted certiorari on January 17, 2025.
What is and is not at Issue
With accommodations already received, the sole issue presented to the Supreme Court is what schoolchildren must establish to be entitled to compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. To answer this question, the Court is tasked with resolving a circuit split over federal disability jurisprudence.
The Rehabilitation Act and the ADA both demand that meaningful access to public services, such as federally funded education, cannot be deprived due to one’s disability. An institution’s failure to comply with these requirements exposes them to liability for compensatory damages. Typically, a plaintiff need only show deliberate indifference to establish a claim, yet a stronger showing in the school context has been crafted by some courts.
Five circuits across the country, including the Eighth Circuit in Monahan v. Nebraska, have held that a disabled child must show “bad faith or gross misjudgment” to make a valid claim against a school. Rationalized as a necessary precaution to avoid punishing schools for mistakes reached after good-faith disagreement, this heightened standard has nevertheless proved a robust barrier to many actions, including the Tharpe family’s. The present case invites the Court to resolve the controversy and determine what liability standard applies in the school context.
Turmoil at the Courthouse
Although centralized upon a specific legal question, oral arguments raised an array of substantive, administrative, and professional issues. Instead of focusing on why an intent-based standard is needed for claims brought by disabled schoolchildren, counsel for the School District began advocating for a broader holding. In particular, it was contended that this “bad faith” approach should be the universal rule for all compensatory claims brought under these Acts, rather than a unique standard in the education context. The surprise would only continue as the School District’s counsel characterized the opposing side as liars when they identified the sudden change in legal issue.
After exhibiting dismay at the unorthodox proceeding of events, the Justices returned to the original matter presented. Upon this return, the Court seemed inclined to remove the heightened liability standard for compensatory claims brought by disabled schoolchildren. Justice Sotomayor went as far to say that “I don’t know where the bad-faith standard comes from.”
The Significance of this Decision
Beginning as a simple pursuit for educational accommodations, this case now stands to fundamentally alter federal disability law. If the Tharpe family prevails, as predicted, then a universal standard will apply to all seeking compensatory damages under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, one far less restrictive than the wrongful intent requirement now imposed in many jurisdictions. Moreover, permitting compensation upon a showing of negligence alone is likely to spur change in school districts to ensure their accommodation process avoids litigation. Irrespective of the exact outcome, this decision poses to clarify and drastically reshape the legal options for schoolchildren with disabilities across the nation.
Sources:
Abbie VanSickle, Justices Appear Skeptical of School District in Student Disability Rights Case, New York Times (Apr. 28, 2025).
A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Sch., 96 F.4th 1058 (8th Cir. 2024).
Mark Walsh, Supreme Court Poised to Back Student in Key Disability – Rights Case, Educ. Week (Apr. 28, 2025).
Monahan v. Nebraska, 687 F.2d 1164 (8th Cir. 1982).
Nina Totenberg, Supreme Court to hear school disability discrimination case, NPR (Apr. 28, 2025, 5:00 AM).