A ruling in favor of Osseo Area Schools, located in suburban Minneapolis, would mean students who claim their rights were violated will have to prove their school systems acted in 鈥渂ad faith or gross misjudgment鈥� 鈥� a higher standard than 鈥渄eliberate indifference,鈥� which the law requires in other disability discrimination cases. 

An estimated 1.5 million public school students receive disability accommodations under the ADA, ranging from modified academic materials 鈥� such as simplifying a text or supplying curriculum via a specialized device 鈥� to making classrooms, bathrooms and other school spaces accessible to wheelchair users and others. The law governs accessibility, while disabled children鈥檚 educational rights are guaranteed by a different measure, the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act.    

Teenager Ava Tharpe has a severe form of epilepsy that causes frequent seizures during the morning. While planning to move from Kentucky to Minnesota in 2015, when she was in fourth grade, a school district that would agree to start her classes at noon and extend them into the evening. After the family relocated, the district reneged, saying it was unwilling to provide services outside the normal school day. 

When the Supreme Court , the district鈥檚 position had consistently been that disability discrimination suits had to prove the school system acted out of ill intent. that the legal standard, which plaintiffs have been held to in some federal court circuits but not others, applied only to K-12 students.

But in the brief it submitted before the April 28 hearing, the district , saying that a showing of bad faith is required in all ADA cases, not just those involving schools. 

鈥淭he statutes do not impose liability for nondiscriminatory, good-faith denials of requested accommodations,鈥� the document asserts, adding that the high court 鈥渟hould not subject America鈥檚 100,000 public schools and countless other state and local entities and federal-funding recipients鈥� to the deliberate indifference standard. 

The hearing erupted in verbal fireworks after the district鈥檚 attorney accused the lawyers representing the federal government, which has sided with the family, of 鈥渓ying鈥� in saying that the district had shifted its argument. Justice Neil Gorsuch snapped back, and several minutes of heated debate ensued. 

Later in the hearing, Justice Amy Coney Barrett characterized the district鈥檚 shift as 鈥渁 pretty big sea change,鈥� according to posted by SCOTUS Blog, which also reported Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was 鈥渁ll but incredulous鈥� that the district argued that the ADA does not necessarily require accommodations for people with disabilities. 

Osseo officials declined to comment on the case, citing Tharpe鈥檚 right to privacy. 鈥淭he school district educates nearly 21,000 students, including 3,000 students with disabilities who have the right to education from birth through age 22,鈥� it said in a comment to 社区黑料. 鈥淲e’re committed to the principles and the ideals expressed by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.”

The Tharpe family initially filed a complaint with state education officials under the IDEA, which guarantees disabled pupils a 鈥渇ree and appropriate public education.鈥� Noting that the girl had a right to a full school day, even if it extended into the evening, a state administrative law judge found that Ava鈥檚 educational rights had been violated. 

When the district appealed that ruling in federal district court, the family filed a second suit under the ADA. In March 2024, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the family鈥檚 IDEA rights had been violated. But the appellate court rejected the ADA discrimination claim, ruling the Tharpes had not proven the district acted in bad faith.

The Supreme Court鈥檚 eventual ruling should not impact IDEA, which governs whether children with disabilities are entitled to special education services enabling them to make adequate progress toward their goals.

By contrast, the ADA requires equal access to school and an equal opportunity to learn once they are there, explains Ellen Saideman, one of the authors of a submitted by the Council of Parent Advocates and Attorneys and several other disability advocacy groups. They argue that a ruling in the district鈥檚 favor would unfairly subject schoolchildren to a much higher legal bar than other people who need accommodations. 

To illustrate the difference, she cites a 2004 ADA case, , brought by someone who had to crawl up the stairs to get into a Tennessee courthouse that didn鈥檛 have an elevator. Under the “gross misjudgment” standard, there wouldn’t be a claim.

鈥淭he building was built before the ADA was passed, so it wasn’t built with any discriminatory intent,鈥� says Saideman. 鈥淯nder deliberate indifference, they know a person has a disability and there are other people who have disabilities who can’t go up the stairs. If they don’t fix it, then there could be a claim.鈥�

One of the ADA鈥檚 original drafters, former Rep. Tony Coelho of California, also submitted a brief that Congress鈥� intent was that families of disabled children have 鈥渢he same rights, no more, no less, that are provided all other groups 鈥� including the right to seek relief under Section 504 [and] the ADA.鈥�

鈥嬧�婣 decision is expected in June or July, near the end of the court鈥檚 current term.

But in a moment of d茅j脿 vu, 7,339 of those Title IX complaints were filed by a single person 鈥� the same one who directed 6,157 similar claims to OCR in 2016, according to the civil rights office, which declined to name the filer, citing privacy rules. That person would have had to file an average of 20 complaints a day 鈥� or nearly one an hour 鈥� in 2022.

鈥淭his individual has been filing complaints for a very long time with OCR and they are sometimes founded,鈥� Catherine Lhamon, the department鈥檚 assistant secretary for civil rights, told 社区黑料. 

She noted anyone can file a complaint for any perceived violation.  

鈥淚t doesn’t have to be about their own experience,鈥� Lhamon said. 鈥淭here’s not a lot I can tell you about the person.鈥�

In , the office received 18,804 complaints, the highest number in its history and a figure that exceeds by 12% its previous record of 16,720 set in . Lhamon has talked on multiple occasions about how is straining its limited resources, with 2022鈥檚 being particularly challenging. 

鈥淲e investigate every complaint over which we have jurisdiction,鈥� the assistant secretary told 社区黑料. 鈥淪o the 7,339 complaints from that single individual last year took a very substantial amount of time for my staff.鈥�

And while Lhamon did note her office has found in the complainant鈥檚 favor in the past, she didn鈥檛 immediately know how often or if this happened in 2022. 

In 2016, the more than 6,000 complaints filed by that same individual alleged discrimination in school athletic programs, according to the civil rights office. Fiscal year 2022 followed much the same pattern when the office logged 4,387 allegations of Title IX discrimination involving athletics. 

One complaint could include more than one type of alleged Title IX violation, encompassing, for instance, both athletics and gender harassment. 

The 2022 athletics-related claims far outpaced the 1,030 related to sexual or gender harassment or sexual violence. The figure also swamps similar claims from when just 2,093 complaints included Title IX-related claims 鈥� with just 101 focused on athletics. More than 500 cases concerned sexual or gender harassment or sexual violence that year. 

Some wonder about the type and validity of complaints filed by one person. 

鈥淲hen you see that almost 80% of Title IX complaints filed with the Education Department were filed by a single person 鈥� and this person filed nearly 8,000 complaints in a year 鈥� it raises questions about whether at least some were filed in bad faith,鈥� said Elizabeth Tang, senior counsel at the National Women鈥檚 Law Center. 

It鈥檚 possible too, Tang said, that the uptick can be a response to increased awareness about student鈥檚 rights. It might also reflect a perception that the Biden administration is more receptive to these complaints than the prior one which, under the leadership of former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, looked to roll back more stringent investigations of campus sex assault and discriminatory discipline claims.

Liz King, senior program director of education at The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, said she hopes greater awareness is at work, but is concerned about ongoing and possibly increased civil rights violations against students. 

“Any single instance of discrimination is one instance too many,鈥� she said, adding that the civil rights office does not have the staff to meet the task it鈥檚 been given. 

The surge in complaints comes at a time when the agency faces significant challenges: It shrank from nearly 1,100 full-time equivalent staff in FY 1981 to 546 last year and is dealing with a host of issues that reflect by the pandemic.

Biden, in his March budget address, sought 鈥� to $178 million 鈥� for the civil rights office to meet its goals. Lhamon, whose 2021 confirmation Senate Republicans tried to block, said she鈥檚 grateful for the president鈥檚 support and hopes Congress approves the increase. 

Race, color, or national origin discrimination claims made up 3,329 of all complaints received in FY 2022, according to the civil rights office鈥檚 annual report, which was released last week. That鈥檚 up from 2,399 the year prior. Disability-related complaints comprised 6,467 of the total compared to 4,870 in FY 2021.  

At the same time, age discrimination claims, which made up 666 complaints in the most recent report, were down from 1,149 the prior year. The office notes the majority of these claims were also filed by a single person in both years.

The civil rights office fielded 8,934 complaints in FY 2021 and more than 9,700 the year before that, according to its annual reports. 

Lhamon said a number of cases this year involved the LGBTQ and transgender community, a student population that has become the focus of hostile legislation in multiple conservative states. The complaints can cover a wide swath of issues, she said, from the prohibition of same-sex prom kings and queens to a school鈥檚 refusal to allow an LGBTQ student group to form on campus. 

鈥淚t could be that students are not allowed to use the bathroom consistent with their gender identity or are not allowed to play on a particular sports team,鈥� she added. 

The first resolution agreement crafted by her office on behalf of a transgender student was in 2013: It developed fewer than 20 such agreements for these children in FY 2022, Lhamon said. 

Among the allegations made against schools, the civil rights office found in April 2022 that Chino Valley Unified in California violated Title IX by failing to properly respond to a complaint of sexual harassment of students on a high school athletic team. 

This included the 鈥渧ideotaped assaults of teammates, students forcibly physically overpowering other students and sharing photos of their genitals among the team and on social media, and students placing their genitals on and near other students鈥� faces and bodies.鈥�

The response from district administrators and coaches failed to end the behavior. According to the office, Chino Valley agreed to reach out to all former athletes from the offending school鈥檚 fall 2017 team and offer counseling services or reimbursement for such services.

It also was made to conduct a climate survey of the school鈥檚 athletics teams and train district leaders, school administrators and coaches about their responsibilities for responding to such claims. 

In another case, this one involving the San Juan Bautista School of Medicine in Puerto Rico, OCR found the school failed, over the course of several years, to investigate a student鈥檚 report that another student sexually assaulted her. 

The office concluded that the school鈥檚 procedures for resolving sexual harassment complaints did not comply with Title IX. As a result, it agreed to conduct the investigation, reimburse the complainant for some coursework, train employees and align its grievance procedures with the law. 

In a third case, Tamalpais Union High School District in California was faulted by OCR for failing to investigate allegations that a transgender student was harassed about her appearance, voice, body, name and pronouns. 

The office found in June the district鈥檚 inadequate response allowed for a hostile environment for the student. The district agreed to reimburse the student and her family for counseling costs and review its policies and procedures among other measures.

The justices reversed a decision by the Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit that prohibited Miguel Luna Perez from seeking financial relief under the Americans with Disabilities Act because his family accepted a settlement under special education law.

鈥淲e clarify that nothing in that provision bars his way,鈥� Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the opinion, referring to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. He added that the court took the case because it has consequences for 鈥渁 great many children with disabilities and their parents.鈥�

In a statement, Roman Martinez, Luna Perez鈥檚 attorney, said the family now plans to pursue a lawsuit against the Detroit-area Sturgis Public Schools under the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The 鈥渃ourt鈥檚 ruling vindicates the rights of students with disabilities to obtain full relief when they suffer discrimination,鈥� he said.

The case focused on whether Congress intended for families to relinquish their rights to sue for monetary damages when they agree to a settlement under IDEA to get their children services as quickly as possible. But advocates for school districts, such as AASA, the School Superintendents Association, argued that districts could be facing multiple lawsuits from the same family.

鈥淭his is a significant ruling, and an unsurprising decision based on the oral argument,鈥� said Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director for AASA. 鈥淲e have deep concerns with injecting a legal battle over money into the IDEA process and how this ruling may undermine parents鈥� willingness to collaborate with districts in crafting an appropriate special education program for a child.鈥�

Luna Perez, whose family emigrated from Mexico, entered the Sturgis schools in 2004, when he was 9. He didn鈥檛 know American Sign Language or English. The district assigned him an aide who couldn鈥檛 sign, invented hand signals to communicate with him and often left him alone for hours. 

He received good grades, but before graduation in 2016, the district told his parents that he would not be eligible for a high school diploma 鈥� only a certificate of completion. The family sued under IDEA, which resulted in a placement in the Michigan School for the Deaf. But the family also argued that their son should be compensated for being left without the skills to get a job. IDEA includes a number of procedural steps before a case can go to court and doesn鈥檛 provide financial relief. 

The only remedy available under IDEA is compensatory education services. But Rebecca Spar, a special education attorney with the New Jersey-based Education Law Center, said that鈥檚 less important to an adult who needs to support himself.  

鈥淚t was the kind of case where appropriate education going forward could not remediate the harm to the student,鈥� she said.

Advocates for English learners said there are lessons in the case for how districts serve immigrant families whose children have disabilities. Schools need to ensure immigrant families understand their rights and provide interpretation and translation services, said Cady Landa, a researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who has the obstacles facing such families.

In the Sturgis schools, things have changed since Luna Perez was a student, said Superintendent Art Ebert, who has been with the district since 2018. The district has an interpreter and is expanding its special education department. Depending on their needs, some students with disabilities attend programs offered by county-level intermediate districts if local schools can鈥檛 provide the services.  

鈥淚 do believe that every experience provides us with an opportunity to learn and grow,鈥� Ebert said.

Comments and questions from the justices seemed to lean toward yes.

鈥淎ll she wants is to be compensated for what she says occurred to her during the period of her education,鈥� Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, offering a hypothetical example of a senior who wants to drop out. 鈥淒oes she have to sit in front of a hearing officer and talk about ways in which her education could be changed?鈥� 

While the arguments in the case are complex, they come down to whether Congress meant for students to give up their rights under IDEA 鈥� which does not provide monetary damages 鈥� in order to bring a lawsuit seeking a financial award under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Advocates for students with disabilities argue that was never the intention of the law, while those representing school districts are concerned about the potential for 鈥渄ual-track litigation鈥� under both IDEA and ADA.

鈥淭hat could be extremely expensive for districts,鈥� said Sasha Pudelski, advocacy director for AASA, the School Superintendents Association. A ruling in favor of the plaintiff, she added, 鈥渉as the potential to shift parents鈥� and districts鈥� focus to money rather than educational needs.鈥�

The case, , focuses on a deaf immigrant from Mexico, now 27, who entered the Michigan district in 2004, when he was 9. The district assigned Miguel Perez to an aide who didn鈥檛 know American Sign Language and invented hand signals to communicate with him. 

鈥淭his shameful conduct permanently stunted Miguel’s ability to communicate with the outside world,鈥� said his attorney Roman Martinez. 

The family sued and agreed to a settlement under IDEA that allowed Perez to attend Michigan School for the Deaf. But his parents also sought monetary damages for emotional distress and lost income under ADA.

Shay Dvoretzky, representing the school district, said Congress didn鈥檛 want families to do an end run around the administrative process outlined in special education law 鈥� such as attending a resolution conference and filing a formal complaint 鈥� in order to seek damages.

鈥淐ongress carefully crafted those procedures, and it wanted parents and school districts to go through them鈥� in order to ensure the student receives appropriate services, he said.

But Justice Elena Kagan, one of the liberals on the court, said it鈥檚 unlikely families would pass up services for a child under IDEA in order to reserve their right to sue.

鈥淚t’s the parents that have the greater incentive to get the education fixed for their child,鈥� she said. 

鈥楥annot remedy the harm鈥�

Rebecca Spar, an attorney with the New Jersey-based Education Law Center, who has argued special education cases, said a key issue is Perez鈥檚 age. His parents brought the case after the district told him he would be eligible only for a certificate of completion, not a diploma.

If a child is denied services at a young age, the educational relief provided through IDEA can make a real difference in the child鈥檚 future, she said. But the options for older students are far more limited. 

鈥淲hen you get older, there are all kinds of complications,鈥� she said. 鈥漈hen you cannot remedy the harm.鈥�

Kagan and Dvoretzky also exchanged words over the meaning of relief. Dvoretzky suggested it doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean money and that it was sufficient for the district to address Perez鈥檚 loss of an appropriate education by getting him into the school for the deaf.

鈥淚t’s 鈥� a situation where you may not get what you ask for, but you get what you need,鈥� he said.

But Kagan said it鈥檚 clear what the family is seeking. 

鈥淚t’s relief in the normal sense: What did you get? How much money was put on the table?鈥� she said.

If the court rules for Perez, it鈥檚 possible districts would include language in any IDEA settlement that parents are giving up their rights to sue under other laws. 

鈥淭hat would close the door for ADA relief,鈥� Pudelski said.

Martinez said he can鈥檛 predict whether the court will allow Perez鈥檚 ADA lawsuit to move forward, but the decision has 鈥渋mportant implications not only for Miguel, but for parents and students across the country.鈥�

A lower court ruled that Miguel Perez, now an adult, is not entitled to sue for monetary damages for emotional distress or lost income under the American with Disabilities Act because his family settled the case under special education law. 

鈥淭he parents were really over a barrel here,鈥� said Mark Weber, a law professor at DePaul University in Chicago who co-wrote to the court on behalf of the plaintiff. 鈥淭hey needed to get services right away for this kid. The kid鈥檚 not getting any younger.鈥�

While the case, , delves into the complex procedural rules that govern special education, it speaks to the frustration many families whose children have disabilities feel in systems that often seem stacked against them. Navigating that legal landscape is even trickier for immigrant families, who are 鈥渓ikely unfamiliar with U.S. school systems鈥� and are unused to the 鈥渋dea of children with disabilities having a right to education,鈥� said Cady Landa, a researcher at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign who has the obstacles immigrant families face when seeking special education services. 

Immigrant parents, she said, are often unsure how to talk to school staff and may have 鈥渟maller social circles that are less likely to include other parents who have navigated special education for their children.鈥� 

The Perez lawsuit asks whether families can sue for damages under other federal laws that prohibit discrimination even if they haven鈥檛 exhausted their rights under the Individuals with Disabilities Act, or IDEA. Perez鈥檚 petition argues that there鈥檚 a conflict in the lower courts over this issue. 

But lawyers for the Sturgis district disagree. They also note that the Supreme Court ruled last year that the Americans with Disabilities Act for emotional distress and that Perez changed his request to ask for lost income.

鈥淣ow he says in his reply that he wants to amend his complaint,鈥� they wrote. 鈥淭oo late.鈥�

鈥楢cademic and social outcast鈥�

Perez, now 27, entered the Sturgis, Michigan, school district in 2004 as a 9-year-old deaf English learner from Mexico. The district assigned him a classroom aide who didn鈥檛 know sign language and even made up hand signals to try to communicate with Perez, according to court documents.

鈥淭here was one other deaf student, but we couldn鈥檛 communicate with each other,鈥� he said in a statement provided through an interpreter. 

As he got older, the assistant would often leave Perez alone for hours, 鈥渞endering him unable to learn or communicate with others and making him an academic and social outcast,鈥� according to his lawyers.

Despite not being able to read or write, Perez received A鈥檚 and B鈥檚 and made the honor roll every semester. But just weeks before he was set to graduate in 2016, the district told his parents that he would only be eligible for a certificate of completion, not a diploma.

The case, Landa added, points to the need for more translation and interpretation services, specifically for newcomer families whose children have disabilities.

In 2017, the family filed a complaint with the Michigan Department of Education, arguing that the district violated IDEA, the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, as well as two state laws.

In 2018, they settled the IDEA claim. The district agreed to place Perez in the Michigan School for the Deaf, pay for additional services and provide the family with sign language instruction. The district also paid the family鈥檚 attorney鈥檚 fees.

But that left the remaining complaints under the other laws unresolved, leading the family to file a lawsuit in federal district court, asking for social work services and additional financial relief. 

鈥淚 wish I could have gone to college,鈥� Perez said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 have a job, but I want to have one. I want to make my own choices.鈥�

The 6th Circuit ruled the family wasn鈥檛 eligible to sue because their IDEA complaint never went to a hearing.

鈥楾rying to settle鈥�

The special education complaint process allows parents multiple opportunities to avoid drawn-out legal battles so children can be served as soon as possible. Districts automatically hold and can offer settlements before parents go to court.

鈥淎ll the way, you鈥檙e trying to settle,鈥� said Rebecca Spar, a special education attorney with the New Jersey-based Education Law Center. 

In in support of the school district, administrator organizations 鈥� such as AASA, the School Superintendents Association and the National Association of School Nurses 鈥� argued that a decision in favor of Perez would 鈥渦ndermine the collaborative nature of the IDEA process, and will shift the parties鈥� focus to money rather than the student鈥檚 education needs.鈥�

Another issue is the cost of litigation, which often discourages families from suing.

鈥淚f you decide not to settle with them, they just start running up the legal bills. Our trial was eight days,鈥� said Hayley Grunvald, a San Diego-area parent who is awaiting the outcome of the Perez case. 鈥淚t鈥檚 unaffordable for any parent. I don鈥檛 buy Prada bags. I shop at Walmart.鈥�

She filed a complaint against the San Dieguito Union High School District, arguing that officials didn鈥檛 evaluate her son Adrian for special education even though they knew he received accommodations and services for ADHD in a prior district.

In December, a judge agreed that the district should have assessed Adrian, but the family lost on other technical points and plans to appeal.

Experts expected the Supreme Court to settle the issues before the court in Perez back in 2017 when they heard . In that case, the Supreme Court found in favor of another Michigan family who sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 when officials wouldn鈥檛 allow a service dog to accompany their daughter to school. 

The girl has cerebral palsy and the dog helps her stay balanced while using a walker, opens and closes doors and provides other services that help her be more independent. The family sought monetary damages, saying their daughter experienced 鈥渆motional distress and pain, embarrass颅ment, [and] mental anguish.鈥�

The appellate court had ruled that the family would have to exhaust the IDEA process before suing under other laws even though it wasn鈥檛 a special education case. The Supreme Court disagreed, but left open the question of whether a family still has to seek relief under IDEA given that monetary damages aren鈥檛 available under that law.

鈥淗ad it clarified everything,鈥� said Weber at DePaul University, 鈥渨e probably wouldn鈥檛 have this case.鈥�