Roberts by & Through Rodenberg Roberts v. KinderCare Learning Ctrs. (1995)

By Gia Scotti

Overview

Parents, on behalf of their child, filed suit against a child care center alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Minnesota Human Rights Act, when the center would admit the child only if he was accompanied by a personal care attendant. The court ruled in favor of the center, because it did not have to provide one-on-one care but only group care. Hiring the child would pose an undue burden because the center would then be required to employ additional full-time staff and would alter itself in its operations and the type of business it provides.

Summary

Brandon Richard Roberts was four years old when he and his sister, Becky, moved in with Richard Roberts and Mary Rodenberg-Roberts. Brandon was considered “disabled” under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). He was developmentally delayed, had limited vocabulary, suffered from seizures, was not toilet trained, committed self-injurious acts, took a very long time to eat his meals, suffered from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, and would frequently run away. Brandon attended Children’s World, but his adoptive parents were dissatisfied by the care that he was receiving and thought that his development would improve if he had more social interaction. However, Brandon’s individual education plan mandated that he would always need one-on-one support from a Personal Care Attendant (PCA) for safety reasons. Unfortunately, the PCA’s were not only unreliable but when they were not available, Brandon would be isolated from the other students and held in an office instead of engaging with others.

Brandon’s mother contacted another center known as KinderCare to enroll him in. She asked KinderCare to provide one-on-one care for Brandon when the PCA was not available, which the center declined because it only provided group care and not one-on-one support. It would also cost the center $200 per week to provide a full-time staff member just for Brandon. KinderCare explained to the parents that Brandon would only be able to attend if a PCA accompanied him at all times, and that KinderCare would not provide any staff members for this position. The Roberts filed suit against KinderCare and argued that the center violated the ADA and the MHRA, that KinderCare should have made more reasonable efforts to accommodate Brandon, and that it should have followed its own policies which stated that KinderCare must not make an admission decision regarding a disabled child until the child has had at least two visits to the center. 

KinderCare argued that it had no duty under both the ADA or the MHRA to provide one-on-one care to Brandon because providing such care would change the operations of the center and would impose a great financial burden. The Roberts negated the center’s reasoning and argued that since KinderCare is in the business of child care, providing one-on-one care should not be a major change in the operations and that since a PCA would already be there the majority of the time, it would not be a great expense for the center as they would not need to provide care frequently. 

1. Fundamentally Alter the Nature of its Services

The court found that group care and individual care are distinct types of services. KinderCare solely provides group child care and does not provide individual child care on a regular basis to any child unless there are exigent circumstances. Requiring KinderCare to offer one-on-one care would place the center into a different market than it intended to enter. 

2. Undue Burden

In order to address whether providing one-on-one care would create an undue burden, courts analyzed several factors such as the nature and cost of the action; the financial resources of the site involved; the number of persons employed at the site; the effect on expenses and resources; the administrative and financial relationship of the site to the corporation; and the overall financial resources of the parent corporation and number of its facilities. 

The court agreed that in order for Brandon to get the care he needed, KinderCare would have to employ a full-time care-giver which would cost the center $200 per week, while only receiving $105 per week in tuition from Brandon’s family, which would result in a $95 per week loss. The Roberts also suggested that KinderCare could have other staff members or the center director come help Brandon when the PCA was unavailable, but the director, Ms. Donahue explained that she covers for absent teachers already and that her work piles up so she must work into the night to compensate. 

3. Duty to Provide Daycare Without One-on-One Care

Additionally, the Roberts argued that since Brandon was making improvements in his behavior, he may not need to have one-on-one care. However, the court looked at evidence such as Brandon’s individual education plan, his psychologist, and his mother’s own words stating that individualized care was necessary for her son’s safety. KinderCare could not ignore these needs simply to allow Brandon to enroll as it would pose great safety risks.

4. Duty to Follow KinderCare’s Internal Guidelines

Although the Roberts argued that if KinderCare followed its own policies such as observing the child in the class or allowing a trial period, it would have seen that possibly one-on-one care was not necessary. The court found that these guidelines were not mandatory but simply suggestions, and even if these policies were followed, the outcome would still have been the same. 

In conclusion, the court held that KinderCare was not under a legal obligation to provide one-on-one care to Brandon when a PCA was not available. It would lead to an undue financial and administrative burden for the center and its daily operations and type of care would be altered. Additionally, neither the ADA nor the MHRA would require KinderCare to have offered Brandon day care services without one-one-one care and it has no legal duty to meet with him, observe him in the classroom, or offer a trial enrollment before making a decision. KinderCare offering Brandon enrollment and permitting him to be accompanied by a PCA during all times he was present was in itself a reasonable accommodation. 

Impact

This case clarified that while child care centers must make reasonable accommodations for individuals with disabilities, it does not have to make accommodations if it is going to fundamentally alter the nature of the business’s services. The court also emphasized the factors to consider whether an accommodation is truly reasonable or if instead, is a great burden. This is important for places similar to KinderCare, which only provides group care, not individualized care. It suggests the importance of considering the financial and operational feasibility as to whether a request is a “reasonable accommodation.” Furthermore, the court’s holding also implies that businesses are not required to follow its own policies if those steps would not change the outcome. 

Court Documents

Roberts by & Through Rodenberg Roberts v. KinderCare Learning Ctrs., 896 F. Supp. 921, 925 (D. Minn. 1995)

Citations

Westlaw Case Summary: Roberts by & Through Rodenberg Roberts v. KinderCare Learning Ctrs., Westlaw, https://westlaw.com. Accessed October 7, 2025.