logo
logo

Supreme Court to Decide on Disability Discrimination in Schools Lawsuit

Society
‌
‌
sparksAI summary
Display highlights
  • Supreme Court case on disabled student's fight for fair treatment in schools
  • Issue of accommodating students with disabilities under federal laws
  • Potential impact on discrimination claims in educational settings
360 summary
  • The school district's top concern was avoiding employees working past the traditional end of the school day, rather than meeting the disabled student's needs.
  • This led to the disabled student, Ava, receiving only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, significantly less than what nondisabled students received.
  • As a result of the district's priorities, Ava's educational opportunities were limited, with her instructional time set to decrease even further as she entered middle school.
usatoday.com
  • The Tharpes were unable to seek compensatory damages and a permanent injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 due to a previous circuit court decision.
  • Courts across the country have applied a stricter standard, requiring "bad faith or gross misjudgment" by school officials in cases involving educational services for children with disabilities, leading to many families losing their cases.
  • The Justice Department supports the argument that a tougher standard than "deliberate indifference" is being unfairly applied in disability discrimination cases within the school setting.
usatoday.com
  • In many parts of the country, including the federal appeals court that covers Minnesota, parents face a very high bar to qualify for compensatory damages, making it challenging for them to prevail.
  • Federal appeals courts have established varying standards for parents to qualify for compensatory damages, with some requiring a showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" by the school district, while others only demand a demonstration of "deliberate indifference."
  • A successful outcome before the Supreme Court could potentially change the standard for qualifying for compensatory damages, benefiting numerous families across the country in securing proper accommodations for their disabled children.
NPRNPR
Explore
The above information is compiled by usatoday.com、NPR and does not represent any position of Arbor. It does not constitute any investment advice made by Arbor. Before making any investment decisions, investors should consider the risk factors related to the investment products based on their own circumstances and seek advice from professional investment advisors if necessary. We strive to ensure but cannot guarantee the truthfulness, accuracy, and originality of the above content, and we make no promises or guarantees in this regard. As machine learning has a probabilistic nature, it may lead to incorrect reflection of facts in certain situations. You should appropriately evaluate the accuracy of any information summary based on your usage, including through manual evaluation of the information summary. We are not responsible for any losses or liabilities incurred by you due to your use, viewing, and access of the platform or failure to do so.
mobile

Remove Duplicated Information

app-iconLess is More
app-icon
Applicable for iOS and Android systems
Follow Us
logo
All rights reserved © 2025 Arbor.