Supreme Court Rejects Heightened Standard for Student Disability Cases

Quick Hits

• The Supreme Court held that students bringing ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims related to their education are not required to make a heightened showing of bad faith or gross misjudgment.
• Claims under these statutes “based on educational services should be subject to the same standards that apply in other disability discrimination contexts.”
• Claims are subject to the same standards as in other disability discrimination contexts: injunctive relief does not require proof of intent, and compensatory damages generally require a showing of deliberate indifference.
• The Court vacated the Eighth Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this standard.

Background

The case arose from a dispute involving a student with a severe form of epilepsy whose school district declined to provide evening instruction as an accommodation for her disability, resulting in a shortened school day compared to her nondisabled peers. After prevailing on claims under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) before an administrative law judge and in federal court, the student and her parents pursued additional relief under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. The lower courts, following Eighth Circuit precedent, required proof that the school district acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment, and granted summary judgment to the district.

The Supreme Court’s Analysis

The Supreme Court reviewed whether a heightened intent standard applies to ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims in the educational context. The Court noted that, outside the education context, plaintiffs may establish violations and obtain injunctive relief under these statutes without proving intent to discriminate, and that compensatory damages generally require a showing of “deliberate indifference”—a standard less demanding than bad faith or gross misjudgment.

The Court found no textual basis in either Title II of the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for imposing a more stringent standard in student cases. The Court traced the heightened standard to the Eighth Circuit’s 1982 Monahan decision, which sought to “harmonize” the IDEA with the Rehabilitation Act by requiring more than a mere failure to provide a free, appropriate public education. However, the U.S. Congress subsequently amended the IDEA to clarify that its procedures do not restrict or limit the rights and remedies available under other federal disability laws, undermining the rationale for a distinct, more demanding standard.

Concurring Opinions

Concurring opinions by Justices Clarence Thomas (joined by Brett Kavanaugh) and Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Ketanji Brown Jackson) addressed additional arguments raised by the school district, including whether intent should be required for all ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims and the constitutional implications of imposing liability for unintentional discrimination. The Court declined to address these broader issues, limiting its decision to the question presented.

Implications

This decision resolves a circuit split, holding that students with disabilities seeking relief under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act in the educational context are not subject to a “uniquely stringent” standard. The ruling reinforces the availability of federal anti-discrimination protections for students with disabilities and clarifies that the IDEA does not limit the rights or remedies available under other federal disability statutes.

Educational institutions may want to review their policies and practices to ensure compliance with the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as the standard for liability in education-related disability discrimination claims is now aligned with that applied in other contexts. The decision may also prompt further litigation regarding the appropriate standard for intent in disability discrimination claims more broadly, as noted in the concurring opinions.

Ogletree Deakins’ Higher Education Practice Group will continue to monitor developments and provide updates on the Higher Education blog as additional information becomes available.

Follow and Subscribe
LinkedIn | Instagram | Webinars | Podcasts