A.J.T., a minor child, by and through her parents, A.T. and G.T., sued Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, and Osseo School Board in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota, raising claims of disability discrimination under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted the District’s motion for summary judgment, and A.J.T. appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s ruling.
Factual Overview
A.J.T. has epilepsy, with seizures so severe in the mornings that she cannot attend school until noon. Her parents requested evening instruction from the District to provide A.J.T. with a school day closer in length to that of her peers. Yet their requests were denied. Consequently, A.J.T., through her parents, sued over violations of Section 504 and the ADA, arguing that the District’s refusal to provide evening instruction amounted to disability discrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for the District, concluding it could not be held liable without evidence of bad faith or gross misjudgment.
Legal Analysis
Reasonable Accommodations and Standard of Proof: Both Section 504 and the ADA require entities to provide “meaningful access” to their services, which often requires reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities. That said, in cases involving educational services for disabled children, merely failing to provide a reasonable accommodation does not automatically establish liability. Instead, a plaintiff must demonstrate that school officials acted with either bad faith or gross misjudgment.
A.J.T.’s Arguments and Court’s Ruling: A.J.T. may have presented a genuine dispute over whether the District was negligent or deliberately indifferent by failing to follow its own policies and by the Director of Student Services’ lack of awareness of the complaints and accommodation options. However, these actions did not rise to the level of bad faith or gross misjudgment as required by precedent. Despite any inadequacies in the District’s efforts to accommodate A.J.T.’s needs, its actions did not exhibit wrongful intent. The District had engaged in efforts to address A.J.T.’s needs, including updating her individualized education program (IEP) annually and offering various services and accommodations.
The appellate court concluded that A.J.T. had not identified conduct that met the high bar for establishing bad faith or gross misjudgment under Monahan, leading to the affirmation of the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the District.
Schrag on Law 