On Monday, the Supreme Court is set to hear pivotal arguments in a case that examines the extent of federal laws designed to provide special support for children with disabilities in public schools. This case centers around Ava Tharpe, a teenage girl who struggles with significant disabilities due to a rare form of epilepsy. Ava requires assistance with daily activities such as walking and using the toilet, and her condition leads to numerous seizures each morning.
To accommodate her needs, Ava's public school in Kentucky tailored her schedule to afternoon classes, supplemented by evening instruction provided at home. However, after her family relocated to Minnesota for her father's job, Ava's new school in the Twin Cities denied her the same flexibility with her schedule. Consequently, her school hours were reduced to just 65% of her peers, which sparked a legal battle.
Ava and her parents initiated a lawsuit against the Osseo Area School System, arguing that the school district violated the stipulations outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act. These three crucial federal laws mandate that schools receiving federal funding must offer reasonable accommodations to children with disabilities.
A state administrative law judge ruled in favor of Ava's family, concluding that the school district's justifications for limiting her instructional time were not credible. Following this ruling, Ava's parents escalated the case to federal court to protect her right to a comprehensive education. Ultimately, the school district agreed to provide Ava with a full day of schooling, yet her parents also sought compensatory damages that are not obtainable under the IDEA but are permissible under the other two disability rights statutes.
The lower courts are currently divided on the evidence parents must present to qualify for these compensatory damages. In several regions, including the federal appeals court encompassing Minnesota, the threshold is exceedingly high, making it nearly impossible for parents to succeed in similar cases. This divide is what makes Ava's case particularly significant, according to her father, Aaron Tharpe. He stated, "If we're successful before the Supreme Court, we can change the standard and help countless families across the country ensure their disabled children receive the support they are entitled to under the law."
Five federal appeals courts have established a stringent criterion for parents seeking compensatory damages, requiring proof that the school district acted in bad faith or with "gross misjudgment." In contrast, two other appeals courts have adopted a less rigorous standard, only necessitating evidence of deliberate indifference by the school system. The critical question before the justices on Monday is which legal standard should prevail.
Disability rights organizations are rallying behind Ava, advocating for her cause to ensure equitable access to education for children with disabilities. On the other hand, the Osseo Area School District argues that a ruling in Ava's favor could impose overwhelming liability on school systems, complicating their ability to function effectively.
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for the rights of children with disabilities across the nation, setting a precedent for how schools accommodate and support their educational needs.
