The High Court unanimously said the court cannot use a higher standard to block lawsuits for damages for some disability discrimination claims. However, they refused to set the standard.
Straight woman and the Supreme Court in “Reverse Discrimination” case
The Supreme Court made a unanimous decision after siding alongside a woman who claimed she would not be in the job and was demoted for being straight.
Scripps News
WASHINGTON – Disabled rights advocates sighed for relief when the Supreme Court on June 12 made it easier for students with disabilities to sue the school for damages.
Not only did all judicial authors agree that some courts were using too strict standards to block cases like cases like the rare forms of epilepsy, they also rejected her school’s claim that the actual issues are standard for other types of disability identification claims.
“The foundations of civil rights for people with disabilities were well,” U.S. Arc’s lawyer, Silla Waxhrag, said in a statement after the decision.
However, the courts did not resolve the major question of what the standard should be in all cases. The judiciary said there should not be a different standard for discrimination claims, including educational guidance.
And two of the six Conservatives in the court — Judges Clarence Thomas and Judges Brett Kavanaugh — said the school had raised a “serious argument” that the court was incorrect in its standards.
In a agreed opinion, Thomas wrote that “lower courts hope to carefully consider whether existing standards are composing with the constitution and underlying statutory texts.”
Two of the three Liberal parties in the court – Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, said the school’s claim that people with disabilities must prove that they intend to discriminate are clearly incorrect.
“The text and history of the statute, as well as this court precedent, seizes the requirements for such purposes,” Sotomayor wrote in his agreed opinion.
The issue with the Minnesota incident was whether the schools were unable to accommodate Ava Tharpe’s special needs.
The federal court agreed with the family that the schools were not adequate and that night guidance should be provided.
However, the court said Tharpes could not use the American Disability Act to force schools to pay for external teachers and other expenses incurred before winning their lawsuit. They said that Sarsp cannot use the rehabilitation law to seek court orders detaining schools to teach AVAs after regular school hours.
A judge of the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals said their hands were tied for the 1982 circuit decision – Monaghan v. Nebraska – said school officials need to make “malicious or serious misjudgment” to involve educational services for children with disabilities.
This is a stricter standard than the “intentional indifference” rules that are often used when weighing other types of disability discrimination claims.
The school argued that “intentional indifference” was too loose. Their lawyers said the plain textbook and rehabilitation law of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits intentional discrimination only.
What the Supreme Court has decided
The Supreme Court said it could not consider the argument as it was asked to determine whether the lower courts were correct to apply “uniquely strict” standards to cases like the AVA.
“We don’t enjoy important issues that have not been fully presented with an invitation to inject this case in the (school) district,” Chief John Roberts wrote to the court.
Thomas said he agreed that it would not be right for the court to take on a bigger issue regarding the significant impact on the rights of people with disabilities.
However, in his consent that Kavanaugh had been involved, Thomas said he was willing to do so in “the right case.”
“It is a nationally important question whether federal courts apply the correct legal standards under two widely used federal laws,” he wrote.