Padilla v. School District No. 1

233 F.3d 1268 (2000)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Padilla v. School District No. 1

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
233 F.3d 1268 (2000)

  • Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD

Facts

Shayne Padilla (plaintiff) was a physically and developmentally disabled student in Denver School District No. 1 (district) (defendant). Padilla requested an administrative hearing to address an alleged failure by the district to follow her individualized education program (IEP). Padilla claimed that for five years, the district failed to provide specific services listed in her IEP and that district personnel repeatedly restrained her in a stroller and placed her in a windowless closet without supervision. One such incident led to Padilla tipping over and hitting her head, which caused a skull fracture and worsened a seizure disorder. Padilla claimed that the district also failed to provide sufficient homebound schooling for her when she had to miss school due to her injuries. At the time of Padilla’s hearing request, Padilla had moved to a new school district, and because she was no longer a resident of the district, the hearing officer denied Padilla’s request. Padilla brought two claims against the district in federal court. Padilla claimed that the district discriminated against her under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Padilla also brought claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the district denied her a free appropriate public education in violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The district moved to dismiss the ADA and § 1983 claims, but the trial court denied the motion. The district appealed to the Tenth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s judgment as to the ADA claims, finding that Padilla did not need to exhaust her administrative remedies under the IDEA before bringing the ADA claims because Padilla’s ADA claims sought relief that was not available under the IDEA. The court then addressed the § 1983 claims.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (McKay, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership