6 events in Passaic County with a date

Supreme Court backs teen with epilepsy

Rejects higher barrier for disability lawsuits

By: Maureen Groppe
and Bart Jansen
USA Today

WASHINGTON - In a pair of unanimous decisions issued June 12, [2025] the U.S. Supreme Court ruled a Minnesota school district may have violated federal disability laws by not accommodating a teen's epilepsy, and ordered further review of an Atlanta family's lawsuit against the FBI for wrongly raiding their home.
.... The court unanimously sided with a disabled student trying to sue her school for not doing enough to accommodate her rare form of epilepsy, a decision that could make it easier for families to seek damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
..... The justices said a lower court used the wrong standard when rejecting the discrimination lawsuit.
..... And the court rejected an argument from the school that would have raised the bar for all victims of disability discrimination even outside of educational instruction claims.
..... The Case A.J.T. v. Osseo Area School, was being closely watched by disability rights groups who say the courts have cerated a "nearly" insurmountable barrier" for help sought by schoolchildren and their families.
..... But school officials across the country worry that making lawsuits easier to win will create a more adversarial relationship between parents and schools in the difficult negotiation needed to balance a student's needs with a school's limited resources.

Seizures prevented attendance

..... In this case, Giina and Aaron Tharpe said they spent years asking Minnesota's Osseo Ara School District to accommodat4e their daughter's serve cognitive impairment and rare form of epilepsy called Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Her seizures are so frequent in the morning that she can't attend school before noon.
..... A previous school in Tennessee shifted Ava's school day so it started in the afternoon and ended with evening instruction at home.
..... But the Tharpes say her Minnesota school system, where she is currently enrolled, refused to provide the same adjustment. As a result, she received only 4.25 hours of instruction a day, about two-thirds of what students who didn't have disabilities received.

Judge: School didn't do enough

..... A local judge said in 2021 the school district's top concern hadn't been Ava's needs: instead, they were concerned with a desire to keep employees from having to work past the traditional end of the school day. The district was required to provide more instruction under the Individual with Disabilities Education Act.
.....But while a federal judge backed that decision, the court said the Tharpes couldn't also sue the American with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 to seek compensatory damages and a court order to permanently set the hours of instruction. Section "504 plans," a central tool for providing accommodation to students with disabilities.
..... The St. Louis-based 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals likewise said their hands were tied because of a 1982 circuit decision - Monahan v. Nebraska - that said school officials need to have acted with "bad faith" or gross misjudgment" for suits involving educational services for children with disabilities.
..... The Tharpes "may have established a genuine dispute about whether the district was negligent or even deliberately indifferent, but under Monahan, that's just not enough," the appeals court said.

School denies discrimination

..... Hundreds of district court decisions across the country have been litigated under that standard, with most of them ending in a loss for the families, according to the Tharpes' attorneys.
..... Those courts were unfairly using a tougher standard than "deliberate indifferences," which is the bar for damages in disability discrimination cases not based on educational services, their attorney argued - with the support of the justice Department.
..... The school district's attorneys pushed the court to apply a tougher standard for all cases rather than lowering the bar for cases like Ava's. But because the school district didn't make the argument until after the court agreed to take the case, the justices said they could not considered it.
..... "We will not entertain the District's invitation to inject into this case significant issues that have not been fully presented," chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court.
..... Two justices said the school district raised an important issue that the court should consider in a future case.
..... "Whether federal courts are applying the correct legal standard is an issue of national importance and the Dist cit has raised serious arguments that the prevailing standards are incorrect," Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in a concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "That these issues are consequential is all the more reasons to wait for a case in which they are squarely before us and we have the benefit of adverbial briefing."

Court return FBI suit

..... Meanwhile, the Supreme Court sent a case involving an Atlanta family seeking to sue the FBI for wrongly raiding their house back to a lower court for more consideration but left unresolved the broader question of how much protection from lawsuits the courts should give law enforcement mistakes on the job.
..... Trina Martin, her son Gabe and her partner Toi Cliatt awoke one morning in October 2017 to what she called the "monstrous noise" of half-dozen FBI agents barging into their home with guns drawn.
..... But the SWAT team was at the wrong home, 436 feet from a similar beige, split-level house where a suspected gang member lived.
..... Federal courts dismissed the family's lawsuit for compensation over the mistake by ruling that courts shouldn't second-guess law enforcement officers.
..... The Supreme Court unanimously overextend the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of the case on June 12. [2025]
..... Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court that there are several exceptions to whether law enforcement officers can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act and the appeals court should review them again.

HOME