Education Law Attorney
Kennedy & Graven, Chartered
A Minnesota lawsuit, A.J.T., by and Through her Parents, A.T. and G.T., Petitioner, v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, has wound its way to the highest court in the United States. On January 17, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the petition for certiorari by the petitioning parents asking the high Court to review a decision by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral argument before the Supreme court is set for April 28, 2025.
It is rare that a case is accepted for review by the Court. Each year, the Supreme Court receives approximately 7,000 to 8,000 petitions but accepts only about one percent of them. Not surprisingly, the legal issues presented in those cases for review are usually quite consequential, both to the parties appearing before the Court and to the country. The A.J.T. case is no exception. The Supreme Court’s decision could have a profound impact on public school districts.
The student at issue, A.J.T., suffers from a unique form of epilepsy, called Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, and experiences severe seizures as a result. Because her seizures are most frequent in the mornings, her parents and the school district had agreed that she could not attend school before noon. A.J.T.’s parents therefore asked the school district to provide her with in-home evening instruction until 6:00 p.m., an instructional schedule apparently provided to A.J.T. by her former school district in Kentucky. Osseo Area Schools declined to provide in-home evening instruction, but did agree to extend A.J.T.’s school day until 4:15 p.m. While A.J.T.’s school day concluded after that of her regular education peers, she received a shorter, 4.25-hour school day in comparison to a typical 6.50-hour school day for most students in the school district.
In response, A.J.T.’s parents sued the school district, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Section 504) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). But before the case could proceed to trial, the lower court granted the school district’s motion to dismiss. That court held the school district was not liable under Section 504 or the ADA because school district officials had not acted with bad faith or gross misjudgment. In reaching this conclusion, the lower court relied on Monahan v. Nebraska, a longstanding precedential case from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Decided in 1982, the court in Monahan held that, to show a violation of Section 504, a plaintiff must prove more than a mere failure to provide a free appropriate public education. The court reasoned that the discrimination prohibition in Section 504 meant that something “more than an incorrect evaluation, or a substantively faulty individualized education plan,” was needed for liability to exist under Section 504. In the Monahan court’s view, Section 504 was not intended by Congress as a vehicle through which plaintiffs could assert general tort-like claims alleging educational negligence or malpractice. A plaintiff would instead need to show that an educator’s decision deviated so substantially from accepted professional judgement, practice, or standards as to demonstrate a wrongful intent. The practical effect of this stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard, first articulated in Monahan, meant that courts generally would not find school districts liable for mere differences of opinion about the appropriateness of an evaluation or educational program.
Dissatisfied with the lower court’s decision, A.J.T.’s parents appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Bound by Monahan, however, the Eighth Circuit’s three-judge panel affirmed the lower court’s dismissal – albeit seemingly reluctantly. In its opinion, the panel opined that A.J.T.’s parents may well have established a genuine dispute about whether the school district was negligent (or even deliberately indifferent), but because “A.J.T. has failed to identify conduct clearing Monahan’s bar, so we are constrained to hold that summary judgment [dismissal] was proper.” In a very revealing and ominous footnote, the panel further questioned the holding in Monahan, saying, “Why do we have such a high bar for claims based on educational services when we require much less in other disability-discrimination contexts?” “Monahan has been questioned . . . . But for the time being, it remains the law of our circuit.”
Following dismissal by the Eighth Circuit’s three-judge panel, A.J.T.’s parents attempted, unsuccessfully, to secure en banc review, meaning a new review conducted by all judges sitting in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Left with no other option for further appeal, the parents petitioned for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to overturn the Eighth Circuit’s longstanding Monahan “bad faith and gross misjudgment” standard for plaintiffs who seek relief from schools for alleged discrimination related to the provision of educational services under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA.
At least for now, the “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard announced in Monahan remains in place, but the A.J.T. case is positioned before the U.S. Supreme Court to potentially upend the Monahan standard and replace it with one that is less onerous for plaintiffs to meet. Lawyers who work with public school districts will be paying close attention to the Justices’ questions during oral argument. If the Supreme Court ultimately agrees with A.J.T.’s parents and lowers the standard for liability under Section 504 and Title II of the ADA, then schools may experience an increase in claims and related litigation in response to disputes arising from the provision of educational accommodations, modifications, services, and supports under these laws.
This article is intended to provide general information with commentary. It should not be relied on as legal advice. If required, legal advice regarding this topic should be obtained from district legal counsel.
Alex Ivan is a shareholder at Kennedy & Graven, Chartered, whose practice is focused on all aspects of education law, with particular emphasis in special education law and civil litigation. For more information, please contact him at (612) 337-9304 or aivan@kennedy-graven.com.
© Alex D. Ivan (2025). Used with permission.
