In A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, the Supreme Court unanimously held that students bringing disability discrimination claims under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act are not required to meet a heightened standard of “bad faith or gross misjudgment.” The case involved a student with severe epilepsy who was denied evening instruction in her Individualized Education Program (IEP), despite her inability to attend school before noon due to frequent seizures. The Court vacated the lower court’s decision and clarified that such claims should be evaluated under the same standards applied in other contexts of disability discrimination, reinforcing equal protection for students with disabilities in public education.
In Mahmoud et al. v. Taylor et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow parents to opt their children out of classroom instruction involving LGBTQ+-inclusive storybooks when such content conflicts with sincerely held religious beliefs. The Court found that rescinding the district’s prior opt-out policy burdened the parents’ First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion, citing precedent that protects parental authority in directing their children’s religious upbringing. The decision granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the parents and emphasized that public education cannot condition access on compromising religious convictions.
In Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, the Supreme Court held that plaintiffs who are members of a majority group are not required to meet a heightened evidentiary standard to establish a prima facie case of employment discrimination under Title VII. The case involved a heterosexual woman who alleged she was denied a promotion and later demoted in favor of LGBTQ+ individuals due to her sexual orientation. Lower courts had dismissed her claim, applying a “background circumstances” rule that imposed additional burdens on majority-group plaintiffs. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that rule, finding it inconsistent with Title VII’s text and precedent, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Don’t miss out on ED311 blog posts! Subscribe to the ED311 newsletter.