A teenage girl with severe epilepsy has won a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that her school district must face a lower legal burden to prove disability discrimination—a decision that could reshape future lawsuits under the ADA.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of a Minnesota teen with rare epilepsy
- The Court overturned a requirement that plaintiffs prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment” by schools
- Court said schools must instead meet standard of “deliberate indifference” as in other disability cases
- The student had received fewer hours of instruction after her district refused to provide evening classes
- The ruling is hailed as a major win for disabled students’ rights nationwide
Case Redefines Legal Standards
The decision stems from a lawsuit filed by Ava Tharpe, a Minnesota student whose rare form of epilepsy causes daily seizures, particularly in the mornings. After transferring to Osseo Area Schools, Ava’s parents requested alternative scheduling—specifically evening instruction—to accommodate her health. The school district declined, leaving Ava with substantially less instructional time than her peers.
Lower courts found the district at fault but dismissed the damages claim, citing an outdated requirement that plaintiffs prove “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The Supreme Court unanimously struck down that standard, ruling that claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act need only demonstrate “deliberate indifference”—a threshold consistent with other civil rights statutes.
Immediate Impact on Schools and Courts
Writing for the Court, Chief Justice John Roberts declared that imposing a higher burden on students with disabilities contradicts both precedent and legislative intent. The decision aligns education-related claims with other areas of federal anti-discrimination law, ensuring that disabled students are not subjected to special procedural obstacles when seeking damages.
Legal analysts note that this ruling brings education law into alignment with recent disability-rights cases, including Fry v. Napoleon (2017) and Luna Perez v. Sturgis (2023), both of which clarified that plaintiffs do not need to exhaust administrative procedures under IDEA before pursuing claims under the ADA or Section 504.
According to Reuters, disability advocates hailed the ruling as a game-changer, especially for families in similar disputes across the country.
Beyond the Classroom
The implications of the ruling extend beyond special education services. By standardizing the burden of proof across civil rights frameworks, the Court has provided clarity and expanded legal recourse for all Americans with disabilities.
The Washington Post notes that the unanimous nature of the ruling signals broad judicial consensus that disability protections should not depend on which institution is involved—schools included.
For the Tharpe family and others like them, the decision validates years of legal effort and provides new avenues for justice. It is a signal to school districts nationwide: accommodating students with disabilities is not optional—it’s a legal obligation, now reinforced by the highest court in the land.
