Supreme Court Rejects Higher Damage Standard in Educational Disability Cases
The Supreme Court recently issued a significant decision clarifying the standard required to establish compensatory damages in educational discrimination cases involving students with disabilities. The ruling specifically overturned a historical precedent in educational contexts that had imposed a tougher "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard on plaintiffs seeking monetary relief.
The Two Standards: Relief vs. Damages
Outside of the educational setting, establishing a violation of disability statutes and obtaining injunctive relief (such as ordering a change in action) requires demonstrating three key elements:
1. A disability exists.
2. The individual meets the standard for eligibility under the statute.
3. Discrimination occurred.
Crucially, proving intent to discriminate is not necessary for injunctive relief.
However, when seeking compensatory damages (monetary relief) under these same statutes, a showing of intentional discrimination is generally required. This intent is typically satisfied by the deliberate indifference standard.
The Deliberate Indifference Standard
The deliberate indifference standard requires a showing that the defendant disregarded a strong likelihood that the challenged action would violate a federally protected right. This is considered a lesser standard than having to prove "bad faith or gross misjudgment."
Historically, courts applying these standards in the educational context had applied the higher "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard when considering claims for compensatory damages. This is the standard the recent Supreme Court decision challenged.
The Underlying Case: A Teenage Girl with Epilepsy
The Supreme Court's decision arose from a claim brought by the parents of a teenage girl, A.J.T., who suffers from a severe form of epilepsy. Her condition prohibits her from participating in her education before noon.
• First School District: A.J.T.'s first school district permitted her to attend classes starting at noon and provided evening instruction to compensate for the missed morning hours, ensuring she received the standard 6.5 hours of instruction.
• New School District: After A.J.T. moved, the new school district denied the requests for the same schedule. As a result, A.J.T. only received 4.25 hours of instruction daily.
The parents initially filed a complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). That process resulted in a decision that ordered the district to provide compensatory education and evening instruction.
The parents then sued the school district under Section 504 and the ADA, seeking a permanent injunction, reimbursement for costs, and compensatory damages.
The Legal Battle and the Supreme Court's Decision
The Federal District Court granted the school district’s motion for summary judgment on the damages claim. The Circuit Court upheld this decision, arguing that the school district's failure to provide a reasonable accommodation was not enough to establish the prima facie case of deliberate indifference, which, in the educational context, required the higher proof of "bad faith or gross misjudgment."
The parents appealed, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
In its analysis, the Supreme Court overturned the lower court's decision, rejecting the rationale for applying a unique, higher standard for compensatory damages in the educational context than that applied in all other contexts.
The Court found that the historically higher "bad faith or gross misjudgment" standard could not be reconciled with the provisions of the IDEA, specifically 20 U.S.C. \S 1415 (l), which states:
"Nothing in the IDEA 'be construed to restrict or limit the rights procedures and remedies available' under other laws."
The Supreme Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case, instructing the lower courts to apply the standard now established by the Supreme Court, the deliberate indifference standard,when considering the compensatory damages claim.
This ruling makes it clear that students seeking compensatory damages for intentional discrimination under Section 504 and the ADA in the educational context must meet the same standard as plaintiffs in other areas: deliberate indifference.
Your Voice at the Gate: Understanding First Amendment Law in Schools
The foundation of student free speech in public schools rests on a powerful statement from the 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines: students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This means public schools are generally required to tolerate student expression, particularly political and personal viewpoints, unless school officials can demonstrate that the speech will cause a "material and substantial disruption" to the school environment or infringe upon the rights of other students. The burden of proof to show this level of severe disruption rests squarely on the school administration.
While Tinker offers broad protection, it is not absolute. Subsequent Supreme Court cases have established three main exceptions where a school's authority is stronger. First, the ruling in Bethel\ v.\ Fraser allows schools to prohibit speech that is lewd, vulgar, or plainly offensive as part of their mission to teach civil conduct. Second, Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier gives school administrators greater editorial control over school-sponsored expressive activities (like school newspapers or plays), allowing them to restrict content for legitimate educational reasons. Finally, Morse v. Frederick permits schools to punish speech that can be reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use.
In the digital age, much of the legal debate centers on what a student says off-campus, particularly on social media. The 2021 Supreme Court decision, Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., provided students with greater protection in this area, ruling that a Pennsylvania school violated a student's rights by punishing her for a profane, off-campus social media post. The Court affirmed that a school's authority is diminished when speech occurs away from school grounds, outside of school hours, and does not involve severe bullying, threats, or a failure to follow educational rules.
This principle was reinforced in the 2025 Third Circuit case, Jorjani v New Jersey Institute of Technology. Although this case involved a university lecturer and not a K-12 student, the court’s reasoning is highly relevant: it ruled that the institution could not discipline an employee for controversial off-campus speech because the school could not provide sufficient evidence of actual, substantial disruption. The court stressed that student complaints or administrative discomfort—the so-called "heckler's veto"—is insufficient to justify restricting protected expression. Ultimately, the First Amendment ensures that public schools remain places where students learn to become engaged citizens, protecting their right to express unpopular or controversial opinions so long as they do not fundamentally derail the educational process.
Victory for Parents: PA Court Upholds Right to Due Process Over Student Records
A recent decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania has delivered a significant win for parents of students with disabilities, clarifying their right to challenge a denial of access to educational records through the due process system.
Posted on October 21, 2025, the ruling in Sandra S. v. Upper Darby Sch. Dist. confirms that parents can initiate a due process complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) solely based on a school district's refusal to provide all requested educational records.
The Core of the Dispute
The case involved parents of a student with autism who, through their attorney, requested their child's educational records from the District. When the District failed to produce all the records, the parents filed a due process complaint.
The District attempted to dismiss the remaining claim after an independent education evaluation mooted the initial complaint, arguing that the IDEA's due process mechanism could not be used just to challenge a records denial. However, the federal court disagreed.
The Court's Key Finding on IDEA
The Court's conclusion centered on the broad scope of the IDEA, which grants parents the right to review all records relating to their child. The IDEA permits parents to file a due process complaint concerning "any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education".
The Court held that the phrase "Any matter" includes the fundamental right to access educational records. This access is crucial because it ensures parents can fully participate in discussions about their child’s needs and determine whether the student is receiving a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE).
What This Means for Families and Schools
This decision emphasizes a critical procedural right for parents across Pennsylvania and serves as a powerful reminder to school districts:
* Empowered Parents: Parents can now directly challenge the denial of educational records using the established IDEA due process procedures, rather than relying on other, less direct legal avenues.
* Procedural Compliance: School districts are on notice that they must be highly vigilant in complying with the legal rights of parents and guardians to access their student's records under the IDEA.
While parents still bear the ultimate burden of establishing a denial of FAPE, this ruling makes it easier to obtain the foundational evidence, the records, needed to pursue that goal. It reaffirms the parent's role as a co-equal partner in their child's special education journey.
No Higher Bar: SCOTUS Scraps Extra Hurdle for "Majority Group" Discrimination Claims
The Supreme Court issued a significant, unanimous ruling in June 2025 that reshaped the analysis for employment discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, particularly those brought by plaintiffs who are members of historical "majority groups" (e.g., white, male, heterosexual). The case, Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, specifically addressed the "background circumstances" rule that had been adopted by several federal circuit courts. Under this rule, a plaintiff who was a member of a majority group—such as a straight woman alleging discrimination after a gay man was promoted over her—was previously required to meet a higher evidentiary standard than a minority plaintiff. They had to first prove that the employer was "that unusual employer who discriminates against the majority" before their case could even proceed.
The Court's unanimous decision vacated the "background circumstances" rule, holding that it imposed an additional, unwarranted burden that is simply not supported by the text of Title VII. The justices emphasized that Title VII universally prohibits discrimination "against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment." Because the statute does not contain any language suggesting that a plaintiff's membership in a majority group requires a higher standard of proof, the Court ruled that all employees must be treated equally by the law when bringing a discrimination claim. This means the standard for establishing a case under Title VII is now the same for every plaintiff, regardless of their demographic status.
This 2025 Supreme Court decision resolves a split among the federal circuit courts and has immediate, practical implications for employers across the country. Employers operating in circuits that previously utilized the "background circumstances" rule must now prepare to defend claims from majority-group employees with the same diligence and standard of evidence as any other discrimination case. The focus of litigation will now squarely be on the traditional burden-shifting framework: Did the employee suffer an adverse action, and does the evidence show that the employer's decision was motivated by discriminatory intent? This ruling is particularly relevant amid increased legal scrutiny of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, as it makes it easier for employees who feel disadvantaged by race- or sex-conscious decisions to have their claims heard, as the initial, extra evidentiary hurdle has been eliminated.
IEPs and the High Bar: What Parents Need to Know After the S.M. v. Chichester School District Ruling
The question of when a student’s disabilities are severe enough to require a residential educational placement is one of the most contentious issues in special education law, as these placements represent the most restrictive and costly option under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A significant September 2024 ruling by the Third Circuit in S.M., by & through his parents, Michael C. & Danielle C. v. Chichester School District offers crucial guidance, especially for families with children facing severe emotional or behavioral challenges. The case involved S.M., a 17-year-old with severe autism and intellectual disabilities who required a structured, round-the-clock environment to manage his complex needs following a stay in a residential treatment facility (RTF).
The core dispute was whether the school district denied S.M. a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) by failing to offer a residential placement. The Third Circuit affirmed the lower court's finding, establishing that the school district was required to create a "contingent IEP"—a plan to be implemented upon S.M.'s discharge—that included an appropriate educational setting. Critically, the court emphasized that a residential placement is mandated only when the necessary educational, psychological, or medical services cannot be provided without round-the-clock attention. Given the severity of S.M.'s challenges, the court determined that a less restrictive environment could not effectively address his extensive needs or allow for meaningful progress.
This decision is an important legal tool for parents. Not only did the Circuit Court reinforce the high standard of FAPE, but it also upheld a preliminary injunction that forced the school district to fund the student's residential placement while the case proceeded. This demonstrates that when a student is in a crisis and requires a highly specialized setting for their educational needs, the courts will intervene immediately. The takeaway for parents is clear: if your child's complex disabilities demand a structured, 24-hour therapeutic and educational environment to make meaningful progress, this case provides strong legal precedent to argue that a residential educational facility is the only way for the school district to meet its FAPE obligation.
AI Bias Is a Legal Risk: What the Workday Case Means for Employees and Students
Artificial intelligence is now woven into nearly every part of modern life — from hiring and grading systems to workplace and school evaluations. But when technology makes decisions that affect real people, the question becomes: who’s accountable when the algorithm gets it wrong?
A recent case, Mobley v. Workday, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2024), is helping to answer that question. In that case, a federal judge allowed a class-action lawsuit to proceed against Workday, whose AI-driven recruiting software allegedly screened out applicants based on race, age, and disability. The court rejected Workday’s defense that it was “just a vendor,” ruling that companies deploying biased algorithms may still face liability under the ADA, Title VII, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
Why It Matters
This case marks a turning point. It confirms that AI tools are not above the law. If an automated system contributes to discrimination, the employer — and sometimes the software company — can still be held accountable.
For employees and job applicants, that means hiring bias or wrongful exclusion based on a “machine’s” decision can still violate civil rights laws.
For students, the same principle applies: automated grading, behavioral evaluations, or “predictive” analytics that penalize students with disabilities can raise serious IDEA and Section 504 concerns.
The Broader Message
Whether it’s an employer using an algorithm to “screen out” candidates or a school district using AI to assess student behavior, automation doesn’t erase responsibility. The same civil rights protections that apply to human decision-makers still apply to AI.
How Baikow Disability and Education Law Group Helps
At Baikow Disability and Education Law Group, we represent employees, students, and parents who are harmed by unfair or biased systems — including the use of automated tools that discriminate or deny accommodations. We investigate, advocate, and litigate under the ADA, IDEA, Section 504, Title IX, and related laws to ensure that both human and technological decisions comply with civil rights standards.
Technology may evolve, but accountability remains the same.
How the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA is affecting Discrimination Law
There’s been a lot of confusion lately about what’s really changed with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. President Trump’s recent Executive Order on “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” has received wide attention — but its reach is limited. The order applies directly to federal agencies, contractors, and grant recipients, not all private employers. Some parts of it have already been challenged in court, so enforcement remains uncertain and will likely vary by agency until the courts clarify what can stand. That said, the order clearly signals a new federal posture against DEI programs that use race or gender as a factor in hiring, contracting, or training, and organizations tied to federal funding should be reviewing their certifications carefully.
The Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) decision doesn’t directly change employment law either — it dealt with college admissions under the Equal Protection Clause — but its logic is spreading. The ruling emphasized that any use of race must meet strict scrutiny, and that “racial balancing” is unconstitutional. Employment law already follows a similar principle under Title VII, but after SFFA, some judges and agencies are interpreting DEI hiring or promotion goals more narrowly. In practice, this means that employers who use race-based preferences, quotas, or “diversity statements” as hiring criteria could face greater risk of reverse-discrimination claims.
The IEE Advantage: Your Right to an Independent Educational Evaluation
If you fundamentally disagree with the school district's evaluation of your child, whether it minimizes the disability, misses a diagnosis, or fails to recommend the necessary services, you have a crucial legal right: the Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE). An IEE is an assessment conducted by a qualified professional who is not employed by the school district, ensuring an unbiased, fresh perspective. This is your most powerful tool for ensuring an accurate diagnosis and appropriate service recommendation. You must request the IEE in writing, and once you do, the school district has only two choices: it must either agree to fund the IEE at public expense, or it must immediately file for a Due Process Hearing to prove that its own evaluation was appropriate.
For parents, this right levels the playing field, shifting the burden and the expense onto the district. If the school district fails to file for Due Process to defend their evaluation, or if the hearing officer rules against the district, the school must pay for the independent evaluator of your choice (within reasonable, public expense limits). The most important takeaway is that the IEE results must be considered by the IEP team when making placement and service decisions. This leverage allows you to challenge an inadequate school evaluation and secure the comprehensive, accurate information needed to advocate for a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) for your child.
IEP vs. 504 Plan Implications for Parents
When a child begins to struggle in school, navigating the world of educational support can feel overwhelming. Parents quickly encounter two distinct and often confusing legal terms: the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the 504 Plan. Choosing the wrong path can mean the difference between getting the specialized instruction your child needs and settling for basic, insufficient accommodations. Understanding the core difference is the first, most crucial step in successful advocacy for your child.
The practical implications for parents choosing between an IEP (Individualized Education Program) and a 504 Plan center on accountability and parental rights. An IEP, governed by the special education law IDEA, offers a higher degree of protection: schools must have parental consent for evaluation, are held accountable for the child meeting measurable annual goals, and parents have access to strong, formal Due Process Hearings if they disagree with the plan.
Conversely, the 504 Plan, governed by civil rights law, focuses strictly on equal access and accommodations; it does not set measurable academic goals or require progress reports, and its dispute resolution process is generally less formalized. Therefore, parents must push for an IEP if their child needs specialized instruction and measurable progress, but should secure a 504 Plan if the child only needs accommodations to level the playing field due to a medical or mental health condition.
Your most powerful tool is your voice, but your most effective tool is a pen. If you believe your child needs support, do not wait for the school to suggest it. Take action by submitting a formal written request to the school administration (principal or Director of Special Education) asking for a comprehensive evaluation for special education services under IDEA.
Gifted Education Programming
Gifted education, while essential for advanced students, often struggles with a major issue of equity and access. As a former civil rights litigator and attorney for school districts, I've seen firsthand how the identification processes—relying on subjective referrals or culturally biased assessments—can inadvertently violate a student’s right to fair access under the principles of Title VI and Title IX. The result is often the systemic exclusion of high-potential students from diverse socioeconomic, racial, and linguistic backgrounds. Furthermore, the Twice-Exceptional (2e) student—who is both gifted and disabled—is frequently overlooked, as their disability may mask their high ability, or vice versa. These students have the right to both services, and any system that denies one based on the existence of the other is failing its civil rights mandate.
For both parents and school leaders, moving toward equity requires deliberate, systemic action. Parents should advocate for non-discriminatory, multi-faceted identification that includes non-verbal or portfolio assessments, rather than relying solely on standardized tests. For organizations, the critical step is to conduct a proactive equity audit of the gifted program roster; if the demographics don't mirror the school's population, the identification system is biased and exposing the district to risk. By applying a legal and civil rights lens to gifted education, we move beyond basic compliance and ensure these vital programs operate with true integrity and inclusion for every child.
Your Right to Work From Home: What Disabled Employees Need to Know
The COVID-19 pandemic proved that many of us can be just as effective working from the kitchen table as we are in the office. If you have a disability that makes coming into the workplace difficult or impossible, this shift is critical for your rights. Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you can still perform the core duties of your job, your employer must provide a "reasonable accommodation"—and that often means allowing you to work remotely.
While many companies are demanding "return-to-office," courts are increasingly skeptical of an employer's simple claim that "being present" is an essential function of your job. The law requires a close look at what you actually do. If your essential duties—like financial reporting or making calls—can be done from your home computer, judges are likely to side with you, regardless of what your employer puts on a job description. The key is showing that remote work allows you to perform the fundamental tasks that your job requires.
Workplace Gossip Is Gender Harassment: Third Circuit Cracks Down on Toxic Rumors ⚖️
If you are a victim of persistent, humiliating workplace rumors, a recent ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has significantly strengthened your right to a harassment free work environment.
In a powerful decision, the court ruled in Cuff v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections that an employee subjected to persistent, gendered rumors—specifically accusations of trading sexual favors for workplace benefits—can sue for unlawful harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
This ruling sends a critical message to employers: Gossip is not always "just gossip"—when rooted in gender bias, it is a form of illegal discrimination.
What This Means for Employees
If you face relentless, gender based rumors in your workplace, the Cuff ruling is a powerful tool. You do not have to endure a toxic environment where your professional reputation is undermined by sexualized stereotypes.
Take Action: Document every incident, report the harassment to HR or management, and preserve any evidence related to your complaints.
If your employer minimizes your concerns or fails to act, you need an advocate on your side. We stand ready to hold employers accountable when they allow toxic gossip to destroy careers.
If you have been subjected to hostile, gender based rumors or workplace discrimination, contact us today for a confidential consultation.
Major Legal Battle Over Student Communication: What Parents Need to Know
A recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Le Pape v. Lower Merion School District (June 4, 2024), highlights the struggle parents face when advocating for nonverbal students to use new communication techniques in school.
The case involved a student with autism whose parents requested the school adopt a method called "Spelling to Communicate" (S2C) into his Individualized Education Program (IEP).
The district resisted, citing a lack of published research, leading to a long legal fight that included claims under the IDEA, Section 504, and the ADA.
Ultimately, the court sided with the school district, finding they did not deny the student a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) because the district’s initial skepticism was reasonable and existing communication methods were already deemed functional.
This decision underscores a critical lesson for parents: while you have the right to request new accommodations, courts place a heavy burden on you to prove that a school’s existing methods are inappropriate and that the new method is medically or scientifically effective when challenging the school's professional judgment.
If seeking money damages under the ADA, the burden of proof is even higher, requiring evidence of intentional discrimination.
The key takeaway for special education parents is to always have robust medical documentation from treating physicians and outside experts to support why the school’s current plan is failing and how a specific new method is necessary for your child's well being and educational progress.