## Facts

- Brandon Roberts, age four, had multiple disabilities, including developmental delay, seizures, self-injurious behavior, limited speech, lack of toilet training, and a tendency to run away.
- Brandon qualified as a person with a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA).
- Brandon’s Individual Education Plan required a personal care attendant (PCA) to provide continuous one-on-one supervision; Medicaid authorized up to 30 hours per week of PCA services.
- Brandon’s parents experienced frequent PCA absences and turnover and sought full-time enrollment for Brandon at KinderCare’s Apple Valley, Minnesota center.
- The parents requested that, when a PCA was unavailable, KinderCare staff provide continuous one-on-one supervision in the PCA’s place.
- KinderCare operated a group day-care program and generally did not provide individualized one-on-one care except in emergencies.
- KinderCare agreed to admit Brandon only when he was accompanied by a PCA, stating it could not supply continuous one-on-one care without substantial staffing and cost impacts.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA and the MHRA required a day-care center to provide continuous one-on-one supervision as a reasonable modification when a child’s PCA was absent.
2. Whether requiring the day-care center to provide that one-on-one care would constitute a fundamental alteration of its group day-care services or impose an undue burden.

## Decision

- The court entered judgment for KinderCare after a bench trial.
- The court held KinderCare was a public accommodation subject to Title III and that Brandon was disabled within the meaning of the ADA and MHRA.
- The court concluded KinderCare had no duty to provide the requested continuous one-on-one care during times when no PCA accompanied Brandon.
- The court found the requested accommodation would fundamentally alter KinderCare’s group day-care program and would impose an undue burden.
- The court determined KinderCare did not unlawfully exclude Brandon because it permitted attendance when a PCA was present and refused only to supply PCA-level services itself.

## Legal Principles

- Title III of the ADA requires reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when necessary to provide access to individuals with disabilities, unless the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services.
- Public accommodations are not required to provide a different type of service than they offer to the public; an accommodation that effectively converts group care into individualized one-on-one care may be a fundamental alteration.
- Even if an accommodation could increase access, it is not required if it would impose an undue burden, including significant staffing, operational disruption, or financial cost.
- ADA and MHRA public-accommodation standards were treated as materially consistent for analyzing reasonable modifications, fundamental alteration, and undue burden.

## Conclusion

The court held that a group day-care provider could condition a child’s attendance on the presence of an outside PCA and was not required under the ADA or MHRA to furnish continuous one-on-one supervision itself where doing so would fundamentally alter its program and impose an undue burden.


Roberts v. KinderCare Learning Ctrs., Inc., 896 F. Supp. 921 (D. Minn. 1995)