Hayden v. Redwoods Community College District
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 835, 33 NDLRP 250 (2007)

- Written by Miller Jozwiak, JD
Facts
Mandi Hayden (plaintiff) was a student at the College of the Redwoods (college) (defendant). Hayden also lived with an impairment that totally prevented her from hearing. Hayden applied to the college’s Disabled Student Programs and Services (DSPS) for assistance with her impairment. Specifically, Hayden applied for an American Sign Language interpreter. During the following years, Hayden received interpreter services from several interpreters and declined captioning and transcription services. However, Hayden did not receive a full-time interpreter and did not receive an interpreter for all classes. Assigning a full-time interpreter that Hayden selected, as she requested, would constitute 7 percent of the DSPS’s budget. The college offered other aids, such as notetakers and audiotaping services. Hayden sued the college for violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The parties cross-moved for summary judgment on various issues. The college claimed that (1) the alternative aids offered to and rejected by Hayden were sufficient to meet its reasonable-modification obligations, (2) a full-time interpreter for Hayden would constitute an undue hardship in terms of cost, and (3) allowing Hayden to be involved in selecting the interpreter would be an undue administrative burden.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vadas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.