Fact Check: Lower courts required plaintiffs to show schools used 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for claims.

Fact Check: "Lower courts required plaintiffs to show schools used 'bad faith or gross misjudgment' for claims."

What We Know

In a recent Supreme Court ruling regarding disability discrimination in schools, it was clarified that plaintiffs are not required to demonstrate "bad faith or gross misjudgment" when bringing claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) or the Rehabilitation Act. The Court determined that a standard similar to other disability discrimination contexts should apply instead (source-1). This decision arose from the case of A. J. T. v. Osseo Area Schools, where the school district had argued for a heightened standard of proof, which the Court ultimately rejected (source-2).

Prior to this ruling, some lower courts, particularly in certain jurisdictions, did impose a requirement for plaintiffs to show that schools acted with "bad faith or gross misjudgment" in cases related to educational discrimination (source-6). This standard was seen as a significant barrier for students seeking to prove their claims (source-7).

Analysis

The claim that lower courts required a showing of "bad faith or gross misjudgment" is partially true. While it is accurate that some courts, particularly in the Eighth Circuit, had indeed applied this heightened standard, the Supreme Court's ruling has now clarified that this is not a requirement under federal law for ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims (source-3).

The reliability of the sources used in this analysis is high, as they include official court documents and reputable news outlets that cover legal matters extensively. The Supreme Court's decision itself is a primary source that directly addresses the legal standards applicable to such cases (source-1). However, it is important to note that the context of the claim is crucial; while the Supreme Court has removed the requirement for a heightened standard, it acknowledges that such standards existed in certain jurisdictions prior to this decision (source-4).

Conclusion

The verdict is Partially True. The claim that lower courts required plaintiffs to show "bad faith or gross misjudgment" is accurate in the context of certain jurisdictions prior to the Supreme Court's ruling. However, the Supreme Court has since established that such a requirement is not necessary for claims under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, thereby changing the legal landscape for future cases.

Sources

1. PDF Supreme Court of The United States
2. A. J. T. v. OSSEO AREA SCHOOLS, INDEPENDENT SCHOOL ...
3. Supreme Court Sides With Teenager in School Disability Discrimination ...
4. Supreme Court win for girl with epilepsy expected to make disability lawsuits against schools easier
5. Unanimous Supreme Court makes it easier to sue schools in disability ...
6. Minnesota girl with epilepsy wins Supreme Court ruling expected to make ...
7. Supreme Court Decision Lets Students Sue Schools More Easily for ...
8. Supreme Court decision makes it easier for disabled ...