Opinion ID: 3178921
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Benefit

Text: Appellants provide no authority to support their argument that C.V. was denied access to education when Officer Sanchez handcuffed him or when his mother withdrew him from one school operated by APS and enrolled him in another APS school. Any educational interference from Officer Sanchez’s handcuffing C.V. to his chair was the product of C.V.’s behavior. Moreover, Appellants provide no authority suggesting a 15-minute interference with a disabled child’s education can be considered a denial of benefits under Title II. Appellants do cite evidence that C.V. had lasting emotional trauma from this incident. C.V. would throw up when driving by the school - 11 - and experienced fear and anxiety around police officers. But this evidence alone does not create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether APS kept C.V. from attending or learning at school. The evidence showed just the opposite—C.V. was enrolled at another APS school after the incident and completed the school year there. Appellants’ cases are inapposite because they involve pervasive and continual interference with disabled students’ education. See S.S. v. E. Ky. Univ., 532 F.3d 445, 454 (6th Cir. 2008); K.M. ex rel. D.G. v. Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist., 381 F. Supp. 2d 343, 360 (S.D.N.Y. 2005); T.K. v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of Educ., 32 F. Supp. 3d 405, 419 (E.D.N.Y. 2014). APS is therefore entitled to summary judgment on Appellants’ denial of benefits claim.