Supreme Court ruling in special education case may impact districts nationwide

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that may make it easier for parents of disabled students to receive monetary damages as a result of a school district's failure to provide appropriate accommodations to a student.

The basis of the lawsuit centers around accommodations for a teenage girl with a rare form of epilepsy that severely limits her physical and cognitive functioning. She suffers from seizures that are so frequent in the mornings that she cannot attend school before noon, though she is alert and able to learn from noon until 6 p.m. 

For the first few years of her schooling, school officials accommodated the student by permitting her to avoid morning activities and instead receive evening instruction. But when the family moved, a new school district denied her parents’ repeated requests to include evening instruction in the student's IEP. As a result, the student received only 4.25 hours of instruction daily, compared to the typical 6.5-hour school day for nondisabled students in the district. 

After even further cuts to the student's school day were proposed, her parents filed an Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) complaint, alleging that the school’s refusal to provide after-hours instruction denied the student a free and appropriate public education. An administrative law judge determined that the school district had violated IDEA and ordered the school to provide compensatory education and evening instruction. Federal courts subsequently affirmed that decision.

The student and her parents then sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, requesting a permanent injunction, reimbursement for costs and monetary damages. 

The district court dismissed that lawsuit, and the court of appeals affirmed that decision. In doing so, the court of appeals stated that a school district’s failure to provide an accommodation was not necessarily enough to state a case of discrimination that would justify an award of monetary damages. In reaching that decision, the court relied on a case that requires a plaintiff to prove conduct by school officials that rises to the level of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment" in order to receive monetary damages.  

The student and her parents filed an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the standard of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment" held them to a higher standard than other types of discrimination cases. They argued that their case should be reviewed according to the standard imposed in other types of discrimination cases, which generally require a showing of intentional discrimination. This standard is usually interpreted to mean “deliberate indifference,” or a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate federally provided rights. 

The school district argued that the higher standard of "bad faith" or "gross misjudgment" should apply in order to harmonize the requirements of IDEA with other federal statutes that protect individuals with disabilities and to balance the right of a disabled student to receive a free and appropriate education with the responsibilities of school administrators.  

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court agreed with the student and her parents, holding that students are entitled to the protection of both IDEA and all other federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on disability. Therefore, should they choose to file a lawsuit based on those laws, they should be held to the same standard as any other individual who is alleging discrimination based on their disability.