Ava’s epilepsy prevents her from starting school before noon. The Supreme Court will hear her case.
Lower court rulings state the student must prove the school acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment.
WASHINGTON – On Friday, the Supreme Court announced it will evaluate whether a teenage girl suffering from severe epilepsy can file a lawsuit against her Minnesota school following a prolonged dispute over necessary adjustments for her condition.
The key question is whether Ava, the student whose last name remains confidential, can pursue a discrimination case. She is unable to attend school before noon, and currently, the school has been mandated by the court to extend her classes until 6 p.m.
Ava has dealt with a rare type of epilepsy known as Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome since she was a baby. This condition has led to significant cognitive impairments and frequent seizures, which are especially intense during the morning hours.
The Supreme Court will review if Ava and her family need to demonstrate that the school acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment” regarding her accommodation needs.
According to Ava’s family, the school applied an excessively strict standard that goes beyond what is necessary, and courts have mistakenly enforced this in a way that overlooks discrimination complaints from many disabled students seeking educational opportunities.
“This issue arises often in cases involving children with disabilities,” the family’s lawyers stated to the justices. “It needs to be addressed by this Court now.”
Was there any intent to discriminate against the student with epilepsy?
The Osseo Area Schools district contended that courts consistently require proof of intent to discriminate from students.
In this case, the district argued, such proof was absent since they made “continuous efforts” to cater to Ava’s needs due to her epilepsy.
“While the petitioner’s parents may disagree with certain choices made by the District, those disagreements do not signify discriminatory intent under any recognized standard,” the school’s legal representation conveyed to the court.
Ava’s parents claimed the school systematically refused their requests for evening classes at home. They filed a complaint with the state under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which mandates that children with disabilities receive a free appropriate education.
Additionally, they pursued legal action against the district based on the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, both of which ensure protection for students against discrimination due to disabilities. Their lawsuit also seeks financial damages.
The 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the district court, ruling that the lawsuit should be dismissed since “a school district’s mere failure to provide an adequate accommodation is insufficient to establish liability.”
The appeals court acknowledged that Ava might present a valid case regarding the school district’s negligence or even deliberate indifference; however, a ruling from 1982 by the same court indicated that this was not enough grounds for the lawsuit.
The school district maintained that this precedent appropriately weighs the importance of respecting the judgment and expertise of school officials while simultaneously preventing direct discrimination against students with disabilities.
However, advocates for disabled students argue that this ruling undermines federal protections against discrimination for students whose claims stem from inadequate accommodations.
