U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Higher Burden of Proof for Students with Disabilities
On June 12, 2025, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo concerning the standard of proof required for parents of students with disabilities when seeking monetary damages under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“Section 504”) and/or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the “ADA”). Specifically, the Court held that parents do not need to establish that a school district acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment” – a heightened intent standard – to receive monetary damages for a violation of the ADA or Section 504 violation. Rather, parents are required to meet a lower standard – that a school district acted with “deliberate indifference.”
Background: From “Bad Faith” to “Deliberate Indifference”
In A.J.T. v. Osseo, A.J.T., a Minnesota student with epilepsy, experienced severe seizures that prevented her from attending school before noon. As a result, the student’s parents requested that the school district provide her with after-hours instruction to ensure she received the same amount of instructional time received by other students. The District denied the parents’ repeated requests for this accommodation.
A.J.T., through her parents, first filed (and won) a due process complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”) and then sued the District for disability discrimination in federal District Court under Section 504 and the ADA. The District Court sided with the school district because A.J.T. and her parents had not shown that the school district acted in “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The 8th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision.
The Supreme Court disagreed. The Court ruled that students with disabilities do not have to meet a higher standard of “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment” to hold school districts accountable for disability discrimination. Instead, the Supreme Court stated that the lower “deliberate indifference” standard, which is applied in non-education-related Section 504 and Title II ADA claims, should apply to claims involving students with disabilities.
What does this mean for your district?
When read in conjunction with the Supreme Court’s decision in Perez v. Sturgis, 598 U.S. 142 (2023), the lower standard of proof adopted in Osseo will pave the way for more special education litigation in federal court. Parents will be incentivized to plead their claims under Section 504 and the ADA to avoid the IDEA’s exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement and seek monetary damages as relief.
The application of a “deliberate indifference” standard for monetary damages, however, will still be a high hurdle for parents to clear. To prove that the district acted with deliberate indifference, a parent must establish that the district intentionally disregarded a student’s educational needs. Often, this requires a parent to prove that the district knew a particular service would aid in a student’s educational achievement, but instead willingly chose not to provide these services.
Given the high care and regard that school districts have for its students, it would be a rare circumstance for a school district to intentionally ignore a child’s needs and not provide services designed to help that child succeed. Parents may nonetheless make such allegations to meet the “deliberate indifference” standard and seek monetary damages.
To avoid any potential liability, districts should ensure that each decision regarding the provision of special education services is well documented and explained. In showing reasonable care and thought for its decisions, school districts should be able to successfully fend off claims of deliberate indifference under Section 504 and the ADA.
Unfortunately, the net result of the Osseo and Perez cases is that parents will be more likely to initiate legal actions under Section 504 and the ADA and seek monetary damages as relief. While schools may still be able to avoid liability in these cases, they will still need to expend significant resources defending these cases.
If you have any questions regarding your obligations under the IDEA, questions about the impact of the Court’s decision in A.J.T. v. Osseo, or any other related concern, please contact Ryan L. Everhart, Lindsay A. Menasco, Andrew J. Freedman, or any other member of the Hodgson Russ Education Practice.
Disclaimer: This client alert is a form of attorney advertising. Hodgson Russ LLP provides this information as a service to its clients and other readers for educational purposes only. Nothing in this client alert should be construed as, or relied upon, as legal advice or as creating a lawyer-client relationship.