Opinion ID: 3178921
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: By Reason of a Disability

Text: Both ADA claims require proof that APS either denied a benefit or discriminated by reason of C.V.’s disability. Because Appellants did not provide such evidence, APS is entitled to summary judgment. Our recent decision in Bernalillo County addressed a similar claim and supports affirmance here. In that case, we rejected the claim that an officer violated the ADA when he arrested a disabled student for kicking a teacher, holding the officer acted based on the student’s conduct and not his disability. 806 F.3d. at 1257, 1260. In this case, Officer Sanchez, like her counterpart in Bernalillo County, handcuffed C.V. based on his conduct—two hours of disruptive behavior, including running from room to room and kicking Ms. Martinez and Officer Sanchez and refusing to stop—not by reason of his disability.2 Instead of offering evidence that Officer Sanchez’s handcuffing of C.V. or any other action taken by APS staff was “by reason of [C.V.’s] disability,” § 12132, Appellants contend C.V.’s behavior was a “manifestation[] of his disability,” Aplt. Br. at 26. Appellants fail to cite any evidence showing his conduct indeed was a manifestation 2 In Bernalillo County, we recognized that an ADA discrimination claim may be viable when a plaintiff’s “disability might cause the police to incorrectly suspect that an individual committed a crime.” See 806 F.3d at 1260 (citing Lewis v. Truitt, 960 F. Supp. 175, 176-77, 179 (S.D. Ind. 1997)). As in Bernalillo County, we do not find that circumstance present in this case. - 10 - of his disability. Also, they cite no authority suggesting a school may not regulate a student’s conduct if that conduct is a manifestation of a disability. Rather, as Bernalillo County indicated, a student’s conduct may be regulated, so long as action is not taken by reason of the student’s disability. 806 F.3d at 1260. Because Title II claims require a showing that a public entity acted “by reason of” a person’s disability, and because Appellants have failed to provide evidence that APS or its staff took any action by reason of C.V.’s disability, all their claims fail. Even if Appellants’ lack of proof on the third element of an ADA claim—the “by reason of” element—is not dispositive of all of their claims, each claim also fails for lack of proof on the second element—that C.V. “was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of some public entity’s services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by [APS].” Gohier, 186 F.3d at 1219 (quotations omitted).