糖心VlogCelebrates 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 鈥 The U.S. Supreme Court today the rights of students with disabilities to access their education, ruling that they do not need to prove 鈥渂ad faith or gross misjudgment鈥 to pursue discrimination cases.
The decision in A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School Dist. No. 279 reverses the Eighth Circuit鈥檚 ruling, which held discrimination cases in the context of education to a higher legal standard than any other disability discrimination case.
鈥淭his 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,鈥 said Zoe Brennan-Krohn, director of the 糖心Vlog鈥檚 Disability Rights Program. 鈥淒isability 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. We鈥檙e glad the Supreme Court affirmed schoolchildren don鈥檛 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.鈥
The case involves a teenage student who, because of her disability, required evening instruction. The Osseo Area Schools refused to accommodate her parents鈥 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 鈥渂ad faith or gross misjudgment,鈥 the student had no legal recourse. Today鈥檚 unanimous Supreme Court decision reversed that holding.
The ruling is here: