Ava’s Epilepsy Prevents Her from Attending School Until Noon: Supreme Court to Review Her Case
Lower courts have ruled that the student must prove the school acted with bad faith or gross negligence.
WASHINGTON – On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it will review whether a teenager suffering from severe epilepsy can take legal action against her Minnesota school following a prolonged struggle for special accommodations.
The central question is whether the student, referred to only as Ava, can pursue a discrimination lawsuit. She is unable to start school before noon, and a court has ordered her school to extend her day until 6 p.m.
Ava has been diagnosed with a rare type of epilepsy known as Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome since infancy. This condition results in significantly reduced cognitive abilities and triggers seizures throughout the day, which are particularly intense in the morning.
The Supreme Court will determine whether Ava and her family must demonstrate that the school acted with “bad faith or gross misjudgment” in their fight for her educational needs.
Ava’s family argues that the school used an unnecessarily strict standard and that the courts have incorrectly applied this standard, ignoring discrimination claims from many disabled students seeking equitable education.
“This issue frequently arises in lawsuits filed by children with disabilities,” the family’s lawyers informed the justices. “It is time for this Court to address it.”
Did the School Intend to Discriminate Against a Student with Epilepsy?
The Osseo Area Schools district contends that all courts agree on the requirement for a student to demonstrate intent to discriminate.
They assert this was not established in Ava’s case, as the school made “consistent efforts” to accommodate her condition.
“While the petitioner’s parents may disagree with some of the decisions made by the district, such disagreements do not indicate discriminatory intent by any standard recognized in any circuit,” the school’s attorneys argued before the court.
Ava’s parents allege that the school repeatedly rejected their requests for home-based evening instruction. They filed a formal complaint with the state under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which mandates a free appropriate education for children with disabilities.
Additionally, they have brought a lawsuit against the school district under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, which safeguard students from discrimination due to disabilities. The lawsuit includes a demand for financial compensation.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in St. Louis, sided with the district court, stating that the lawsuit should be dismissed because “a school district’s mere failure to provide a reasonable accommodation does not establish liability.”
While the appeals court acknowledged that Ava may have a valid argument regarding the school’s negligence or indifference, it pointed to a 1982 ruling by the 8th Circuit, which concluded this was insufficient for a successful lawsuit.
The school district maintains that this precedent effectively balances the need to respect school officials’ expertise while also preventing targeted discrimination against disabled students.
In contrast, advocates for disabled students claim that this decision weakens federal protection against discrimination for those whose cases are rooted in a lack of accommodation.
