Supreme Court to Determine If Epileptic Student Can Pursue Discrimination Lawsuit Against School District

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided to review whether the family of an epileptic student can sue her Minnesota school district for not providing the special accommodations she required.

The student, referred to as A.J.T. and by her first name, Ava, is pursuing the lawsuit through her parents, identified in court documents as A.T. and G.T.

The petition, submitted in September 2024, states that Ava has Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a rare form of epilepsy. She has limited intellectual abilities and experiences daytime seizures, with the most severe ones occurring in the morning. After these episodes, “she’s alert and able to learn until about 6:00 p.m.” She also requires help with walking and using the restroom.

The Supreme Court will examine whether Ava’s family must prove that the school district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in the disagreement regarding the needed accommodations.

The family contends that the school district utilized a more stringent standard in evaluating the situation than what was necessary.

Related Stories

“This question arises frequently in lawsuits initiated by children with disabilities,” the petition asserts. “It needs to be addressed by this Court.”

The family’s lawsuit includes various federal statutes, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which ensures that all children receive a “free appropriate public education.” The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) asserts that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” Similar provisions exist in the Rehabilitation Act concerning the rights of federal funding recipients, as stated in the petition.

Prior to moving to Minnesota in 2015, Ava’s public school district in Kentucky was able to meet her educational needs, including providing home instruction later in the day.

However, the Osseo Area Schools district in Minnesota “refused to accommodate her,” rejecting evening instruction and offering “a series of contradictory explanations.” Initially, the district expressed concerns about setting a negative precedent, later claiming that home education “would be too restrictive,” while also requesting additional “data” to justify a “programming change.”

During her first three years in Minnesota, Ava received only 4.25 hours of educational instruction daily, two hours less than non-disabled students. In 2018, the district further reduced her daily instruction to three hours. Her parents then attempted to negotiate for 4.25 hours per day, but the district denied their request, according to the petition.

Ava’s parents subsequently filed an IDEA complaint with the Minnesota Department of Education. An administrative law judge ruled that the district had violated IDEA provisions, stating that the district was more focused on maintaining “the regular hours of the school’s faculty” rather than prioritizing the child’s educational needs.

The judge ordered the district to provide evening instruction.

The school district countered by appealing to the federal district court. Around the same time, Ava’s parents filed a lawsuit against the district under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, seeking an injunction to ensure Ava’s right to a complete school day, as well as compensatory damages for the treatment she endured as noted in the petition.

The federal district court upheld the ruling in favor of Ava under IDEA, determining that she required “more than 4.25 hours of schooling a day.” The court concurred that “extending her instruction day until 6:00 p.m. and incorporating compensatory hours of instruction” was “the appropriate remedy” as dictated by IDEA.

However, the court ruled against Ava concerning her ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, concluding that she did not prove that the district acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment.”

A panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld this decision. In June 2024, the full circuit court denied a petition for a rehearing.

Ava’s family contended in their petition that the Eighth Circuit erred by “applying a uniquely stringent standard on children with disabilities bringing education-related claims.”

They argued that the Supreme Court should grant the petition as the circuit court “incorrectly addressed a significant question of federal law.” The circuit’s standard “allows school districts to evade accountability even when their behaviors indicate a clear disregard for students’ federally protected rights,” the petition asserted.

The school district has urged the Supreme Court not to take up the case.

“While the petitioner’s parents may disagree with certain decisions made by the district, those disagreements do not suggest discriminatory intent under any standard recognized in any circuit [court],” the brief asserted.

The school district maintained that the Supreme Court should uphold the Eighth Circuit’s ruling because, as previously stated by the high court, lower courts should not impose “their own standards of sound educational policy over those of school authorities,” according to the brief.

The Epoch Times reached out for comments from the family’s attorney, Roman Martinez of Latham and Watkins in Washington, as well as the attorneys for the school district, Lisa Blatt of Williams and Connolly in Washington, and Christian Shafer of Ratwik, Roszak, and Maloney in Saint Paul, Minnesota.

No responses were received by the time of publication.