Supreme Court to give opinion on Osseo Schools disability discrimination case

Go Deeper.
Create an account or log in to save stories.
Like this?
Thanks for liking this story! We have added it to a list of your favorite stories.
June is typically the time of year when the United States Supreme Court hands down their opinions on the cases they decided to take up this session. One of the cases up for a decision is a disability discrimination case involving a Minnesota family that sued Osseo Area Schools.
The family has a daughter with severe epilepsy and cognitive disabilities. They requested that Osseo Area Schools allow their daughter to have a later school schedule because she tends to suffer from seizures in the morning. The school did not make that accommodation and the family is working to prove that public school officials violated the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.
The case could test the reach of federal laws that promise special help for children with disabilities in public schools. Jill Hasday, a law professor at the University of Minnesota, joined Minnesota Now to explain the case.
Use the audio player above to listen to the full conversation.
Subscribe to the Minnesota Now podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
We attempt to make transcripts for Minnesota Now available the next business day after a broadcast. When ready they will appear here.
Turn Up Your Support
MPR News helps you turn down the noise and build shared understanding. Turn up your support for this public resource and keep trusted journalism accessible to all.
Audio transcript
So joining me now to explain the case is Jill Hasday, a law professor at the University of Minnesota. Thank you for coming back on with us.
JILL HASDAY: Thanks for having me.
NINA MOINI: I wondered if you would start by telling us what you about this case. Why is the family suing Osseo Area Schools?
JILL HASDAY: So Ava Tharpe is a teenage girl with severe epilepsy and cognitive deficits. She's now a 19-year-old high school junior. Two federal statutes, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, require institutions receiving federal funds, which is basically every public school, to provide reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities. And the idea of reasonable accommodations is that, by changing the structures to a reasonable amount, you can enable disabled people to participate in every aspect of life.
So relying on these statutes, Eva's family asked the Osseo School District to provide Eva with a reasonable accommodation that would enable her to have a full school day that started at noon. And she needed this accommodation because she has severe seizures in the morning. So she can't attend school in the morning. She needs to start at noon. They want a full school day that starts at noon.
The school provided Eva with afternoon classes. But they refused to have evening instruction. Basically, they cut her off when the ordinary school day cuts off. So she receives only about 65% of the school hours that other students received. And that's why they sued.
NINA MOINI: OK. Can you also describe-- and thank you so much for that. That's really helpful to have the background. But how the case got all the way to the Supreme Court?
JILL HASDAY: OK, so the Eighth Circuit has a special standard that it applies for reasonable accommodation suits in the educational context, which requires a higher level of proof for plaintiffs. In the Eighth Circuit, plaintiffs have to prove that the school acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. This is a special standard in the educational context. The Eighth Circuit has it. And a total of four circuits have it. Every other circuit in the United States, every other part of the United States says, educational suits are subject to the same standard of proof that generally applies in ADA lawsuits. That's a lower standard that requires proving deliberate indifference.
One way to think about it is, the Eighth Circuit says, in a school-- in a challenge to a school, you have to show that the school had bad thoughts in its head. It was trying to harm this kid, as opposed to the ordinary standard, which is deliberate indifference is, they didn't have bad thoughts in their head. They were just too thoughtless and too focused on their own wants, needs, and convenience.
I suspect the Supreme Court took the case because this case involves what lawyers call a circuit split, which is just a fancy way of saying that different courts have reached different standards. And one of the primary jobs of the Supreme Court is to reconcile and make the law consistent. So, as I said, four circuits have held that plaintiffs should meet this higher standard only in the educational context of proving bad faith or gross misjudgment. Every other circuit, the eight other circuits, say, no, the same standard should apply in education suits as generally apply, this lower standard of deliberate indifference.
NINA MOINI: OK.
JILL HASDAY: So I think that's why the court took the case.
NINA MOINI: No, that makes sense. What you're talking about, deliberate indifference, and how things are defined legally sometimes can be so different from how we would use them conversationally, right? I'm just curious to know, what is the district's argument for their decision making?
JILL HASDAY: Well, one of the arguments that-- I would say the primary argument the school makes is, this lower standard is going to be too expensive. There's going to be too many lawsuits. We're going to lose too many of these lawsuits. There's so many schools that this is basically going to be impractical. That's their primary argument in the Supreme Court. And in fact, in the Supreme Court, not only did they defend this idea of this higher standard for educational suits of bad faith or gross misjudgment, but the school district, by the time they get to the Supreme Court, says, actually, I think the higher standard should apply in every suit, in every context.
The family comes back and says, first, proving bad faith is extremely difficult for a lot of reasons. One, I think it's unlikely that officials actually have bad faith. Two, if they did, it's going to be very hard to prove it. Why would you write down, ha, ha, ha, yes, we're trying to be mean to this family?
NINA MOINI: Right.
JILL HASDAY: It's very difficult. And they also say, none of this-- that the initial idea of the Eighth Circuit had of this special higher standard for education doesn't have any root in the statute. The laws itself don't draw a distinction between the educational context and other contexts. Why treat people suing public schools so much more harshly?
NINA MOINI: Hmm, so there are implications for other cases, other people. But what would happen to Ava's family if they were to win?
JILL HASDAY: Well, in the lower courts, the lower court found that they had evidence of negligent and even deliberate indifference. So this is a good example of, when you're outside law, these disputes about standards of proof seem really technical and nitty-gritty, but the standard of proof is basically about who wins and who loses. The reason the school district wants this bad faith or gross misjudgment standard is they know, under that standard, almost no one is going to be able to successfully sue a school. The reason the family wants this deliberate indifference standard is because then it's much more possible to sue.
And in fact, I think Eva Tharpe is likely to win under that lower standard, because she does have evidence of deliberate indifference. Basically, the school was too focused-- her argument is the school is too focused on the fact that they're not set up to have evening classes. The school day ends. But the statute says, you have to not only consider your own interests but also the interests of this child, who is in an unusual situation and can't go to school until noon.
NINA MOINI: Right. Well, so, it's interesting because I feel like the Supreme Court cases or the cases before the court that people talk about a lot tend to be more politicized. Does this fit into that picture, and how so?
JILL HASDAY: I think of this as an ordinary, old school Supreme Court case--
NINA MOINI: Huh.
JILL HASDAY: --meaning one of the primary jobs of the Supreme Court is to resolve circuit splits. So in this case, you have federal appeals courts interpreting the same statutory language differently. And the role of the Supreme Court at the top of this federal hierarchy is to resolve that kind of conflict.
NINA MOINI: Sure.
JILL HASDAY: So it's not the kind of case that's likely to be on the front page of every newspaper outside of Osseo, which I assume is covering it quite intensely. But it has an enormous impact on people's lives. I guess one more thing I can say is that generally, federal statutes, actually, most of the details are not there. So both of these statutes were very important advances recognizing this right to reasonable accommodation. But what that means in practice is often worked out in the judiciary. And this case is a great illustration of that.
Now, it's possible, after the Supreme Court makes a decision about, should there be a higher standard or not, Congress could always come back and rewrite the statute and clarify. This isn't a constitutional case. So there's no limit on Congress's ability to come back. But realistically, the odds of Congress coming back and rewriting the statute are small.
NINA MOINI: OK.
JILL HASDAY: So the ultimate reach of this law is really going to be determined by what the court decides.
NINA MOINI: Jill Hasday, thank you so much for stopping by. And we don't know exactly when, but I know that you think the court will probably want to be wrapped up and issue their opinion by around 4th of July. But thank you for stopping by.
JILL HASDAY: Thanks for having me.
NINA MOINI: Jill Hasday is a law professor at the University of Minnesota.
Download transcript (PDF)
Transcription services provided by 3Play Media.