勛圖眻畦 Celebrates Supreme Court Decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools
Ruling Affirms Right of Students with Disabilities to Challenge Discrimination in Their Education
WASHINGTON The U.S. Supreme Court today the rights of students with disabilities to access their education, ruling that they do not need to prove bad faith or gross misjudgment to pursue discrimination cases.
The decision in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 reverses the Eighth Circuits ruling, which held discrimination cases in the context of education to a higher legal standard than any other disability discrimination case.
This decision from a unanimous Supreme Court recognizes that all students with disabilities are entitled to an education free of disability discrimination. Students with disabilities should not be subject to unfair legal barriers that prevent them from vindicating their rights simply because the discrimination they face occurs in schools, said Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the 勛圖眻畦s Disability Rights Program. Disability discrimination is often the result of indifference and carelessness, and the Supreme Court today reaffirmed that discrimination, even if not motivated by malice, is illegal in schools. Were glad the Supreme Court affirmed schoolchildren dont have to meet a higher legal standard to vindicate their rights. This ruling is a critical step toward ensuring that all students with disabilities receive the support to which they are legally entitled, allowing them to learn, thrive, and participate fully in their education.
The case involves a teenage student who, because of her disability, required evening instruction. The Osseo Area Schools refused to accommodate her parents repeated requests for evening instruction, resulting in her receiving less instruction than her peers. The court below held that, because the student could not prove that this denial was the result of bad faith or gross misjudgment, the student had no legal recourse. Todays unanimous Supreme Court decision reversed that holding.
The ruling is here: