Maple Grove Family’s Disability Suit Lands at U.S. Supreme Court
Lawyers for a Maple Grove family and the Osseo Area School District were at the U.S. Supreme Court this week to argue a case that could have significant implications for school districts and students with disabilities.
The case was filed by the family of Ava Tharpe, a student in the Osseo Area School District with epilepsy.
She had frequent seizures in the mornings and couldn’t attend classes before noon, her family said.
The family asked the district to provide evening classes, but the district declined and offered other accommodations.
Tharpe’s family then filed a lawsuit suit, claiming the district had not provided adequate learning opportunities.
The case rose through the federal court system until reaching the nation’s highest court, where attorneys delivered their oral arguments on Monday, April 28.
The court’s decision could have a significant impact on the standard used to when judging disability cases brought against school districts.
Ava Tharpe is pictured here with her family. Attorneys representing Tharpe argued her case against the Osseo Area School District at the Supreme Court this week.
Lower courts have ruled that students claiming a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act must show they’ve suffered discrimination due to “bad faith or gross misjudgment” on the part of school administrators.
However, the Tharpe family’s lawyers argue that this is a heightened standard that isn’t spelled out in the law.
Rather, the “deliberate indifference” standard is typically used in ADA cases.
Altogether, the court’s decision is expected to impact the ease or difficulty a family will face when claiming disability discrimination against a school district.
“This case presents an exceptionally important issue for children with disabilities and their families,” said Roman Martinez, who argued the case on behalf of the Tharpe family. He’s a partner at the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP.
“Both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act provide much-needed relief for educational discrimination, which often has life-altering consequences for children with disabilities. Yet, as this case illustrates, an atextual rule being imposed in five circuits makes it far harder for them to prove their claims — for no good reason, and with real consequences. We hope to persuade the Justices to reject the Eighth Circuit’s approach and vindicate Ava’s rights and those of other children with disabilities.”
A spokesperson for the Osseo Area School District submitted the following statement to CCX News regarding the case:
“The school district educates nearly 21,000 students including 3,000 students with disabilities whom have the right to education from birth through age 22. While the district cannot comment on this particular student without parental permission, the goal of our dedicated educators is to ensure that every scholar has what they need to benefit from the exceptional opportunities, support and partnerships available in the Osseo Area Schools. We’re committed to the principles and the ideals expressed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).”
