ADA

A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279

Issues

Do disabled child plaintiffs who claim that a K-12 school discriminated against them based on their disability need to satisfy a higher burden of proof than other types of plaintiffs when bringing a claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine which standard to apply to claims of disability discrimination against students in K-12 schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”) and Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Currently, multiple federal circuit courts apply the “bad faith or gross misconduct” standard, which is a higher standard than the “deliberate indifference” standard. A.T. and G.T., on behalf of their minor daughter A.J.T., argue that the “deliberate indifference” standard is more consistent with the text of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act and with the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279, and Osseo School Board counter that the precedential case that applied the “bad faith or gross misconduct” standard is still good law, and the standard does not rely on IDEA but instead a proper reading of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The outcome of this case has implications for the protection of students with disabilities against discrimination while in K-12 public schools.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education. 

A.J.T. suffers from Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, a type of epilepsy that causes seizures and diminished intellectual capacities. A.J.T. v.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

San Francisco v. Sheehan

Issues

What is the scope of reasonable police officer action under Title II of the ADA and the Fourth Amendment when dealing with armed and violent, mentally ill individuals?

The Supreme Court will determine whether the ADA requires police officers, when attempting an arrest, to reasonably accommodate a violent and armed, mentally ill suspect. San Francisco argues that Sheehan, the suspect in this case, posed a direct threat to others and, accordingly, the ADA did not apply. Moreover, San Francisco contends that, at the least, the officers did not violate a clearly established right and, thus, are protected from liability by qualified immunity. Sheehan counters that she posed a threat only to people that entered her room and that the officers’ action violated her clearly established right to be free from unreasonable seizures. The Court’s ruling will have an effect on the safety of the public, the mentally ill, and law enforcement officers. 

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

  1. Whether Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires law enforcement officers to provide accommodations to an armed, violent, and mentally ill suspect in the course of bringing the suspect into custody.
  2. Whether it clearly established that even where an exception to the warrant requirement applied an entry into a residence could be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment by reason of the anticipated resistance of an armed and violent suspect within.

In 2008, Respondent Teresa Sheehan, who has a mental illness, was a resident at the Conrad House, a group home in San Francisco for the mentally ill. See Sheehan v. San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211, 1217 (9th Cir. 2014). After a social worker, Heath Hodge, entered Sheehan’s room without her permission to check on her, Sheehan told Hodge to leave and threatened him after stating that she had a knife.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

  • Lyle Denniston: Court to rule on disability rights, mercury pollution, SCOTUSblog (Nov. 25, 2014).
  • Jessie Lorenz: SF appeal threatens protections for the disabled, The San Francisco Examiner (Jan. 20, 2015).
  • Richard Wolf: Justices to decide rights of disabled during arrests, USA Today (Nov. 25, 2014).
Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to ADA