A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools: Defining the standard of “reasonable”
This case comes to us from the Minneapolis suburbs, where a student, A.J.T. (“Ava”), with a profound disability moved to the school district and sought reasonable accommodations for her rare form of epilepsy that causes daily seizures and impairs her cognitive and physical functioning. Specifically, she sought additional schooling after normal hours of instruction, since the seizures most frequently occur in the morning, up to the standard number of hours per day. The school district cited logistical problems in providing the extensive after-hours instruction and made several counterproposals seeking to address Ava’s concerns. Consensus could not be reached so Ava, through her parents A.T and G.T., sought relief, first through the Minnesota Department of Education, and eventually through the federal courts, citing the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (specifically, Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).
There has been ample jurisprudence on these laws; it has been established that they “live and die together, as the enforcement, remedies, and rights are the same under both,” as cited by the panel for the Eighth Circuit Court (spanning Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Nebraska, and North and South Dakota). The chief “circuit split” and the question before the Supreme Court is whether the precedent set for the Eighth Circuit in Monahan v. Nebraska in 1982 is the proper interpretation of the relevant federal laws. Monahan specifies that a school district is not liable merely for statutory non-compliance, but must demonstrate that there was wrongful intent, by demonstrating “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” Importantly, this is not the standard nationwide; it has been adopted by some Circuits but not others, and it falls to the Supreme Court to resolve the question.
The question at hand was the standard by which a school district can be adjudicated to be out of compliance with ADA and 504. The Monahan standard basically decrees the school district in compliance, so long as it makes a good faith effort to provide a free and appropriate public education, which Respondent (the school district) demonstrates it did. Petitioner (A.J.T.) argues that Monahan establishes a second, more stringent standard before injunctive relief can be granted, for which the relevant statutes do not allow; rather, the same standard of “appropriateness” as applies in all ADA/504 cases should apply here as well.
Overturning the Monahan decision would be advantageous to the disability community because it would provide more leverage during negotiations between students (and parents) versus school districts who might be looking for shortcuts and cost savings rather than providing the best education they are able to construct.
Alas, the Court ruled one day after the Summer newsletter went to the printer, so we’re reporting the news here. In a unanimous decision written by the Chief Justice, with relatively minor concurring opinions from Thomas and Sotomayor, the Supreme Court ruled the Monahan ruling had no basis in the any of the controlling statutes, and thus was in error. Monahan is overturned, and the circuit split is resolved; the new law of the land is re-interpreted to be the original law, that compliance with Section 504 and the ADA is subject to the plain language of the statute, that all students are entitled to a free and appropriate public education, and that necessary accommodations needed to make that happen for students with disabilities or other special needs are mandatory. This is a victory for disability rights, all the sweeter amidst looming threats to our freedoms and rights from the political branches.