Wolff v. South Colonie Central School District
United States District Court for the Northern District of New York
534 F. Supp. 758 (1982)
- Written by Alexander Hager-DeMyer, JD
Facts
Jean Wolff (plaintiff) was a student in South Colonie Central School District (district) (defendant). Wolff had a congenital limb deficiency that left her legs approximately one foot long, one arm amputated above the elbow, and her other arm underdeveloped. With her condition, Wolff could walk at half the speed of a normal adult and required a railing on stairs to physically lift herself from step to step. The district provided several accommodations for Wolff in school, including an aide to help carry books and protect Wolff from being jostled by crowds of students, as well as access to back hallways to assist with navigating the school. Wolff’s school planned a trip to visit Spain, and Wolff signed up to attend. The trip included group walking tours, significant amounts of stair travel, and exploration of several historical sites that lacked railings or bannisters. School officials reviewed the itinerary with Wolff and her family and stated that Wolff would need an aide present in order to go on the trip. Wolff made no attempt to obtain an aide for the trip, so the school dropped her from the program. Wolff filed suit in federal district court, claiming that the district violated the Rehabilitation Act by dropping her from the program.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Miner, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 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.