“In normal ADA cases, the parent’s burden is just to establish that their child has a disability and that they asked for an accommodation but were denied,” Gibson said.
“That is supposed to be enough to proceed to trial, where the school then bears the burden of proving that it would either be too unsafe or too expensive to provide the accommodation that the child’s doctor recommends. This is a high burden.”
In cases involving requests to accommodate exemptions from vaccine and mask mandates, Gibson said school districts have been routinely denying the requests — without allowing the parents to present evidence about what their children need — simply because the school disagrees with the child’s treating physicians about what the child needs to stay safe.
“That is what initially happened in this case,” Gibson said.
The 2nd Circuit’s decision protects against these types of dismissals, Gibson said, by affirming that it’s outside the school’s field of expertise to determine the safety of a child whose disability exemption is denied.
“The school’s job is to educate children, not second guess their doctors.”
The 2nd Circuit’s three-judge panel also ruled that parents do not need to exhaust administrative remedies under the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act before filing a lawsuit under the ADA.