Roberts v. KinderCare Learning Centers
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
896 F. Supp. 921 (1995)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Brandon Roberts (plaintiff) was a four-year-old child with developmental difficulties, a seizure disorder, and other behavioral problems. In addition, Brandon was not toilet trained. The school system developed an individualized education program for Brandon that required him to have a personal-care attendant (PCA) always accompanying him for safety. The school funded the PCA, but turnover rates for PCAs were high, often leaving Brandon without his required one-on-one care at unpredictable times. Brandon’s mother attempted to enroll Brandon full-time at KinderCare Learning Centers, Inc. (KinderCare) (defendant). KinderCare operated day-care centers but generally provided group childcare rather than individualized care except in emergency situations. Brandon’s mother requested that KinderCare provide one-on-one care for Brandon whenever the PCA was absent. KinderCare allowed Brandon to attend but only when accompanied by a PCA because KinderCare could not provide consistent, substantial one-on-one care to Brandon. Brandon’s family filed suit against KinderCare, alleging that by allowing Brandon to attend only when accompanied by a PCA, KinderCare violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). KinderCare argued that providing one-on-one care to Brandon would fundamentally alter the nature of its services and create an undue burden on the business.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Magnuson, C.J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.