J. v. v. Albuquerque Public Schools
813 F.3d 1289
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- C.V., a second‑grader with autism eligible for special education, became disruptive at an APS elementary school on Nov. 14, 2011—running from staff, kicking staff, and shooting rubber bands at a school security officer.
- APS School Security Officer Xiomara Sanchez responded, warned C.V., called his mother (who consented to restrain him, apparently expecting a calming hold), and ultimately handcuffed C.V. to a chair for about 15 minutes; the handcuffs were double‑locked with about one inch of space.
- C.V. exhibited continued struggling while handcuffed; his mother arrived, demanded removal, photographed him, withdrew him from the school, and he later showed lasting emotional trauma but was enrolled at another APS school for the rest of the year.
- Appellants sued APS under Title II of the ADA for (1) denial of a benefit (access to education) and (2) discrimination, asserting intentional discrimination, disparate impact, and failure to provide a reasonable accommodation (including failure to train security officers).
- The district court granted summary judgment for APS; the Tenth Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, holding Appellants failed to show APS acted "by reason of" C.V.’s disability or otherwise denied him educational benefits or engaged in actionable discrimination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether APS acted "by reason of" C.V.'s disability when handcuffing him | Handcuffing was a response to manifestations of C.V.'s autism (conduct tied to disability) | Officer acted because of C.V.'s dangerous, assaultive conduct, not his disability | Held: No evidence action was taken by reason of disability; summary judgment for APS |
| Denial of benefit (access to education) | Fifteen‑minute restraint and subsequent withdrawal denied C.V. educational access and benefits | Any interference was brief and caused by C.V.'s conduct; C.V. continued education at another APS school | Held: No denial of benefits—temporary restraint not a Title II deprivation; APS entitled to summary judgment |
| Intentional discrimination / failure to train (deliberate indifference) | APS was deliberately indifferent by failing to train officers to calm disabled students, supporting intentional discrimination | No evidence APS was on notice of training need, no pattern of prior incidents, and no deliberate indifference shown | Held: Failure‑to‑train allegation insufficient; no deliberate indifference proved; summary judgment for APS |
| Reasonable accommodation / disparate impact | APS failed to provide obvious accommodations and its policies/training produced disparate impact on disabled students | No request for accommodation; need was not obvious; no evidence of a pattern or other affected students | Held: No request or obvious need shown; no statistical or pattern evidence for disparate impact; summary judgment for APS |
Key Cases Cited
- Gohier v. Enright, 186 F.3d 1216 (10th Cir. 1999) (elements of a Title II ADA claim and framework for denial/discrimination claims)
- J.H. ex rel. J.P. v. Bernalillo County, 806 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 2015) (officer’s response to a disabled student must be "by reason of" disability to state a Title II claim)
- City of Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989) (municipal failure‑to‑train liability requires deliberate indifference standard)
- Robertson v. Las Animas Cty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007) (public entity must accommodate when need is known or obvious)
- Cinnamon Hills Youth Crisis Ctr., Inc. v. Saint George City, 685 F.3d 917 (10th Cir. 2012) (discrimination theories under Title II: intentional discrimination, disparate impact, failure to accommodate)