{"attribution":{"source":"legal.exploreworldai.com","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24)","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision","version":"legal-2026-10-21","fingerprint":"ewai:us:7dc9fb","proof":"sha256:c4e6de05c73562c901e0e0c50531069dd6a2e2ed09c341317de394d6017433fd","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","publisher":"NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal","terms":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om"},"brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","item":{"schema_version":"1.0.0","id":"us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","jurisdiction":"us","lang":"en","brand_source":"Source: NovaCopilot","brand":{"product":"NovaCopilot","platform":"ExploreWorldAI","infrastructure":"ExploreWorld Legal","infrastructure_url":"legal.exploreworldai.com","legal_entity":"Valkiv Ventures AB","permanent_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot","source":"Source: NovaCopilot","powered_by":"Powered by NovaCopilot","license":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor"},"sections":[{"title":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"For the Eighth Circuit","paragraphs":["para_3"]},{"title":"No. 25-2472","paragraphs":["para_5"]},{"title":"Jennifer Audette; Robert Audette","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Plaintiffs - Appellants","paragraphs":["para_8"]},{"title":"Lake of the Woods County; Lake of the Woods Board of Commissioners; James","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Nordlof, in his official capacity as a Board member; Cody Hasbargen, in his","paragraphs":["para_11","para_12","para_13"]},{"title":"Defendants - Appellees","paragraphs":["para_15"]},{"title":"Appeal from United States District Court","paragraphs":["para_17","para_18"]},{"title":"Submitted: February 10, 2026","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Filed: July 24, 2026","paragraphs":["para_21","para_22","para_23","para_24"]},{"title":"Robert and Jennifer Audette (collectively, “the Audettes”) own a home on the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Lake of the Woods in Minnesota. Without prior approval from Lake of the Woods","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"County (the County), the Audettes poured a 12-foot-wide concrete ramp from their","paragraphs":["para_28","para_29","para_30","para_31","para_32","para_33","para_34","para_35"]},{"title":"I. Background","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Minnesota state law recognizes that conservation efforts require compromise","paragraphs":["para_38","para_39","para_40"]},{"title":"Conservation Act emphasizes avoidance of development and prohibits interference","paragraphs":["para_42","para_43"]},{"title":"Management Act, by comparison, creates minimum standards for construction, such","paragraphs":["para_45"]},{"title":"In 2019 the Audettes bought a lakefront home within the Lake of the Woods","paragraphs":["para_47"]},{"title":"Water Planning Director Josh Strumland and an environmental specialist to discuss","paragraphs":["para_49","para_50","para_51","para_52","para_53"]},{"title":"1The Honorable Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge for the","paragraphs":["para_55","para_56"]},{"title":"At that site visit, the County officials also discussed Robert’s interest in","paragraphs":["para_58","para_59","para_60","para_61","para_62","para_63"]},{"title":"Without County approval, the Audettes constructed a large concrete ramp","paragraphs":["para_65","para_66"]},{"title":"The next month, a Lake of the Woods Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)","paragraphs":["para_68","para_69","para_70","para_71","para_72","para_73","para_74","para_75"]},{"title":"In August 2021, Director Strumland also sent Robert correspondence","paragraphs":["para_77","para_78"]},{"title":"In September 2021, Robert submitted an after-the-fact conditional-use permit","paragraphs":["para_80","para_81","para_82","para_83","para_84"]},{"title":"In November 2021, the Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"(Planning Commission) held a hearing. Robert’s representative informed the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Planning Commission that Robert “poured the concrete . . . because of his wife’s","paragraphs":["para_88","para_89","para_90","para_91","para_92","para_93","para_94","para_95","para_96","para_97","para_98","para_99","para_100","para_101"]},{"title":"Id. at 6–7. Another member noted that the water levels would not allow “any size of","paragraphs":["para_103","para_104","para_105","para_106","para_107"]},{"title":"On November 9, 2021, the County Board met to consider the permit","paragraphs":["para_109","para_110","para_111","para_112","para_113","para_114","para_115","para_116","para_117","para_118"]},{"title":"R. Doc. 28-16, at 2. One County Board member asked Director Strumland, “He","paragraphs":["para_120"]},{"title":"Strumland replied that he had gone “out” to the Audettes’ property but the new ramp","paragraphs":["para_122","para_123"]},{"title":"Board member asked Strumland “if it was just for . . . kayaking purposes, couldn’t","paragraphs":["para_125","para_126"]},{"title":"The County Board noted that granting the permit after-the-fact would be a","paragraphs":["para_128","para_129","para_130","para_131","para_132","para_133","para_134","para_135","para_136","para_137"]},{"title":"Depends on how severe this debilitating disease is that she has and how","paragraphs":["para_139","para_140","para_141","para_142","para_143","para_144","para_145","para_146","para_147","para_148","para_149","para_150","para_151","para_152","para_153","para_154","para_155","para_156","para_157","para_158","para_159","para_160","para_161","para_162","para_163","para_164","para_165","para_166","para_167"]},{"title":"Ultimately, the County Board voted to deny the Audettes’ after-the-fact","paragraphs":["para_169","para_170","para_171","para_172","para_173","para_174","para_175","para_176","para_177","para_178","para_179","para_180"]},{"title":"Planning Office as noted in the file from a site visit to the property in","paragraphs":["para_182","para_183","para_184","para_185","para_186","para_187"]},{"title":"R. Doc. 28-17, at 4. The County Board directed the Audettes to restore their property","paragraphs":["para_189","para_190","para_191"]},{"title":"Neither Robert nor his attorney attended the County Board meeting, though","paragraphs":["para_193","para_194"]},{"title":"In July 2022, the Audettes submitted a Joint Application Form for Activities","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota seeking approval of a wetland replacement","paragraphs":["para_197","para_198"]},{"title":"Audettes sought to keep the concrete and argued that the “concrete is crucial and the","paragraphs":["para_200","para_201","para_202","para_203","para_204"]},{"title":"In August 2022, the Planning Office denied the request after finding that the","paragraphs":["para_206","para_207","para_208","para_209","para_210","para_211","para_212"]},{"title":"In September 2023, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources issued","paragraphs":["para_214","para_215","para_216","para_217"]},{"title":"They alleged that the “Board failed to reasonably accommodate Jennifer Audette’s","paragraphs":["para_219","para_220","para_221"]},{"title":"II. Discussion","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"The Audettes argue the district court “erred when it determined the County","paragraphs":["para_224","para_225","para_226","para_227","para_228","para_229","para_230","para_231"]},{"title":"Board member’s statements and actions provided the discriminatory motive to deny","paragraphs":["para_233","para_234","para_235","para_236"]},{"title":"A. Standard of Review","paragraphs":["para_238"]},{"title":"Westar Foods, Inc., 139 F.4th 615, 620 (8th Cir. 2025). We affirm the district court","paragraphs":["para_240","para_241","para_242","para_243","para_244","para_245"]},{"title":"B. ADA Claim","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability","paragraphs":["para_248","para_249","para_250","para_251","para_252","para_253"]},{"title":"Implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice require that","paragraphs":["para_255","para_256","para_257","para_258","para_259","para_260"]},{"title":"28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i). A plaintiff may allege discrimination under Title II on","paragraphs":["para_262","para_263"]},{"title":"(8th Cir. 2024). The Audettes raise both a failure-to-accommodate theory and a","paragraphs":["para_265"]},{"title":"1. Failure to Accommodate","paragraphs":["para_267","para_268","para_269","para_270"]},{"title":"707 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir. 2013).2 By extension, “[f]ailing to make a reasonable","paragraphs":["para_272","para_273"]},{"title":"We note at the outset that “Title II does not require a plaintiff to receive her","paragraphs":["para_275","para_276"]},{"title":"2023) (citation modified). That is, a “reasonable accommodation[].” Folkerts, 707","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"F.3d at 983. Accommodation duties only arise when the public entity learns of the","paragraphs":["para_279","para_280","para_281","para_282"]},{"title":"2We note that “[t]he ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [42","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.] are similar in substance and, with the exception of the","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Rehabilitation Act’s federal funding requirement, cases interpreting either are","paragraphs":["para_286","para_287","para_288"]},{"title":"260 F.3d 1124, 1137 (9th Cir. 2001); see DeBoard v. Bd. of Ed. of Ferguson-","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"Florissant Sch. Dist., 126 F.3d 1102, 1106 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Title II does not define","paragraphs":["para_291"]},{"title":"DOJ] regulation states a public entity must make reasonable modifications in","paragraphs":["para_293","para_294","para_295"]},{"title":"County’s permission to construct this offered accommodation. Instead, they","paragraphs":["para_297","para_298","para_299","para_300","para_301"]},{"title":"An ADA accommodation request must be reasonable. The Audettes argue that","paragraphs":["para_303","para_304"]},{"title":"Appellant’s Br. 21. They contend that because the County offers an after-the-fact","paragraphs":["para_306","para_307","para_308","para_309","para_310","para_311"]},{"title":"The County’s Ordinance mentions an after-the-fact conditional use permit","paragraphs":["para_313"]},{"title":"Ordinance provides, in relevant part:","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"In the event of violation or threatening violation of this","paragraphs":["para_316","para_317","para_318","para_319","para_320","para_321","para_322"]},{"title":"Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the","paragraphs":["para_324","para_325","para_326","para_327","para_328","para_329"]},{"title":"Any application for a permit which is made after the work is","paragraphs":["para_331","para_332"]},{"title":"Woods County Board of Commissioners. The Planning Commission","paragraphs":["para_334","para_335","para_336"]},{"title":"Id. at 1106–07.3 Section 1105 outlines the procedures for applying for a conditional","paragraphs":["para_338"]},{"title":"Ordinance contemplates seeking a conditional use permit after-the-fact, it requires","paragraphs":["para_340","para_341","para_342","para_343","para_344"]},{"title":"The Audettes are correct that “[a] disabled landowner does not forfeit their","paragraphs":["para_346","para_347"]},{"title":"Lake of the Woods County Ordinances, https://lotwcounty.gov/land-","paragraphs":["para_349","para_350","para_351","para_352","para_353","para_354","para_355","para_356","para_357"]},{"title":"478 N.W.2d 802, 805 (Minn. App. 1991) (citing Jasaka Co. v. City of St. Paul, 309","paragraphs":[]},{"title":"N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1981) (“It was the duty of [the property owner] to determine","paragraphs":["para_360","para_361","para_362","para_363","para_364","para_365"]},{"title":"2. Discriminatory Treatment","paragraphs":["para_367"]},{"title":"In the employment context, we “ha[ve] long recognized that a party may prove","paragraphs":["para_369","para_370","para_371","para_372","para_373"]},{"title":"Absent direct evidence, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing the","paragraphs":["para_375","para_376"]},{"title":"906 (holding the same in the ADA employment context). “Direct evidence is that","paragraphs":["para_378","para_379","para_380","para_381","para_382","para_383"]},{"title":"This “includes evidence of conduct or statements by persons involved in the","paragraphs":["para_385","para_386","para_387","para_388","para_389"]},{"title":"The Audettes argue that the Board meeting provided direct evidence of","paragraphs":["para_391","para_392"]},{"title":"442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). “It implies that the decisionmaker, in this case a state","paragraphs":["para_394","para_395","para_396","para_397","para_398","para_399","para_400","para_401","para_402","para_403","para_404","para_405","para_406","para_407"]},{"title":"III. Conclusion","paragraphs":["para_409","para_410"]}],"paragraphs":[{"text":"United States Court of Appeals","paragraph_id":"para_1"},{"text":"For the Eighth Circuit","paragraph_id":"para_2"},{"text":"___________________________","paragraph_id":"para_3"},{"text":"No. 25-2472","paragraph_id":"para_4"},{"text":"___________________________","paragraph_id":"para_5"},{"text":"Jennifer Audette; Robert Audette","paragraph_id":"para_6"},{"text":"Plaintiffs - Appellants","paragraph_id":"para_7"},{"text":"v.","paragraph_id":"para_8"},{"text":"Lake of the Woods County; Lake of the Woods Board of Commissioners; James","paragraph_id":"para_9"},{"text":"Nordlof, in his official capacity as a Board member; Cody Hasbargen, in his","paragraph_id":"para_10"},{"text":"official capacity as a Board member; Joe Grund, in his official capacity as a Board","paragraph_id":"para_11"},{"text":"member; Jon Waibel, in his official capacity as a Board member; Edward Arneson,","paragraph_id":"para_12"},{"text":"in his official capacity as a Board member","paragraph_id":"para_13"},{"text":"Defendants - Appellees","paragraph_id":"para_14"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_15"},{"text":"Appeal from United States District Court","paragraph_id":"para_16"},{"text":"for the District of Minnesota","paragraph_id":"para_17"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_18"},{"text":"Submitted: February 10, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_19"},{"text":"Filed: July 24, 2026","paragraph_id":"para_20"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_21"},{"text":"Before LOKEN, L.R. SMITH, and STRAS, Circuit Judges.","paragraph_id":"para_22"},{"text":"____________","paragraph_id":"para_23"},{"text":"L.R. SMITH, Circuit Judge.","paragraph_id":"para_24"},{"text":"Robert and Jennifer Audette (collectively, “the Audettes”) own a home on the","paragraph_id":"para_25"},{"text":"Lake of the Woods in Minnesota. Without prior approval from Lake of the Woods","paragraph_id":"para_26"},{"text":"County (the County), the Audettes poured a 12-foot-wide concrete ramp from their","paragraph_id":"para_27"},{"text":"-2-","paragraph_id":"para_28"},{"text":"property to the lake’s ordinary high-water mark. They attempted to get post-","paragraph_id":"para_29"},{"text":"construction approval but the County denied it. Following the denial of their","paragraph_id":"para_30"},{"text":"conditional use permit, the Audettes sued the County and its officials, alleging","paragraph_id":"para_31"},{"text":"discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The","paragraph_id":"para_32"},{"text":"district court1 determined that the Audettes missed their opportunity to request an","paragraph_id":"para_33"},{"text":"accommodation by violating the County’s instructions. The Audettes appeal. For the","paragraph_id":"para_34"},{"text":"following reasons, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_35"},{"text":"I. Background","paragraph_id":"para_36"},{"text":"Minnesota state law recognizes that conservation efforts require compromise","paragraph_id":"para_37"},{"text":"between development and preservation. The Minnesota legislature passed two acts,","paragraph_id":"para_38"},{"text":"the Shoreland Management Act and the Wetland Conservation Act, to balance the","paragraph_id":"para_39"},{"text":"interests between lakeshore development and water conservation. The Wetland","paragraph_id":"para_40"},{"text":"Conservation Act emphasizes avoidance of development and prohibits interference","paragraph_id":"para_41"},{"text":"with wetlands “unless replaced by actions that provide at least equal public value","paragraph_id":"para_42"},{"text":"under a replacement plan . . . .” Minn. Stat. § 103G.222, subd. 1(a). The Shoreland","paragraph_id":"para_43"},{"text":"Management Act, by comparison, creates minimum standards for construction, such","paragraph_id":"para_44"},{"text":"as structure setbacks and impervious surface limits. See Minn. Stat. § 103F.211.","paragraph_id":"para_45"},{"text":"In 2019 the Audettes bought a lakefront home within the Lake of the Woods","paragraph_id":"para_46"},{"text":"shoreland. In June 2020, Robert Audette (Robert) met with the County Land and","paragraph_id":"para_47"},{"text":"Water Planning Director Josh Strumland and an environmental specialist to discuss","paragraph_id":"para_48"},{"text":"plans for property improvements, including additions to the home’s garage. During","paragraph_id":"para_49"},{"text":"the site visit, the officials looked at a staked-out garage addition and informed Robert","paragraph_id":"para_50"},{"text":"that because the project would be on existing wetland fill, he would not need a","paragraph_id":"para_51"},{"text":"permit, “as long as he stays on the existing fill” and ensured that any new concrete","paragraph_id":"para_52"},{"text":"stayed under “400 sq[uare] f[ee]t”. R. Doc. 28-3, at 2.","paragraph_id":"para_53"},{"text":"1The Honorable Laura M. Provinzino, United States District Judge for the","paragraph_id":"para_54"},{"text":"District of Minnesota.","paragraph_id":"para_55"},{"text":"-3-","paragraph_id":"para_56"},{"text":"At that site visit, the County officials also discussed Robert’s interest in","paragraph_id":"para_57"},{"text":"paving a new driveway and installing a new septic system. Director Strumland,","paragraph_id":"para_58"},{"text":"unaware of Robert’s plans to pave any other part of the property, told Robert that he","paragraph_id":"para_59"},{"text":"could pour concrete to connect his deck to the corner of his garage. Strumland also","paragraph_id":"para_60"},{"text":"told Robert that he should install the septic system in a filled area to avoid any","paragraph_id":"para_61"},{"text":"wetland impact or necessitate an application to purchase wetland credits as required","paragraph_id":"para_62"},{"text":"for new fill.","paragraph_id":"para_63"},{"text":"Without County approval, the Audettes constructed a large concrete ramp","paragraph_id":"para_64"},{"text":"down to the Lake of the Woods ordinary high-water line. In June 2021, a site","paragraph_id":"para_65"},{"text":"inspection confirmed numerous violations resulting from the ramp’s construction.","paragraph_id":"para_66"},{"text":"The next month, a Lake of the Woods Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD)","paragraph_id":"para_67"},{"text":"conservationist published a restoration order that identified approximately 2,122","paragraph_id":"para_68"},{"text":"square feet of wetland impact attributable to the new ramp—more than five times","paragraph_id":"para_69"},{"text":"the 400 square feet of new fill discussed at the site visit. The County issued a","paragraph_id":"para_70"},{"text":"restoration order directing the Audettes to restore the shoreline to pre-altered","paragraph_id":"para_71"},{"text":"conditions. Later that year, the SWCD chair informed Robert that removing the","paragraph_id":"para_72"},{"text":"state-funded shoreline riprap and pouring the concrete ramp violated a cost-share","paragraph_id":"para_73"},{"text":"project. Robert knew the ramp dismantled a cost-share project when it was","paragraph_id":"para_74"},{"text":"constructed.","paragraph_id":"para_75"},{"text":"In August 2021, Director Strumland also sent Robert correspondence","paragraph_id":"para_76"},{"text":"regarding the violations. Strumland noted the permitting requirements, but he","paragraph_id":"para_77"},{"text":"suggested that Robert apply for an after-the-fact permit.","paragraph_id":"para_78"},{"text":"In September 2021, Robert submitted an after-the-fact conditional-use permit","paragraph_id":"para_79"},{"text":"application describing a “12 ft wide concrete boat ramp” and stating the ramp would","paragraph_id":"para_80"},{"text":"provide safe lake access for his family and that “[t]his slab provides handicap","paragraph_id":"para_81"},{"text":"accessibility to the lake for my wife. It was built with access and safety in mind.” R.","paragraph_id":"para_82"},{"text":"Doc. 28-11, at 7, 11. Robert did not request the required preapplication meeting.","paragraph_id":"para_83"},{"text":"-4-","paragraph_id":"para_84"},{"text":"In November 2021, the Lake of the Woods County Planning Commission","paragraph_id":"para_85"},{"text":"(Planning Commission) held a hearing. Robert’s representative informed the","paragraph_id":"para_86"},{"text":"Planning Commission that Robert “poured the concrete . . . because of his wife’s","paragraph_id":"para_87"},{"text":"health issues.” R. Doc. 34-2, at 2–3. Robert told the Planning Commission that","paragraph_id":"para_88"},{"text":"although he knew the state had installed the riprap he believed he “c[ould] legally","paragraph_id":"para_89"},{"text":"put in my own boat ramp.” Id. at 5. He said he did not apply to pour more concrete","paragraph_id":"para_90"},{"text":"because as he continued to pour, a windstorm damaged trees so he extended the","paragraph_id":"para_91"},{"text":"walkway “to make it look nice.” Id. at 6. One of the Planning Commission members","paragraph_id":"para_92"},{"text":"noted:","paragraph_id":"para_93"},{"text":"[W]e can pretty much do whatever, suggest whatever we want to the","paragraph_id":"para_94"},{"text":"[C]ounty [B]oard who makes the final decision. I guess, to me he went","paragraph_id":"para_95"},{"text":"over and above with the concrete that was not only the 12 foot boat","paragraph_id":"para_96"},{"text":"ramp going down but also the extension of the concrete from the garage","paragraph_id":"para_97"},{"text":"and the house forward on the property before the boat ramp even takes","paragraph_id":"para_98"},{"text":"off from there. You know, if it’s access for your wife and I understand","paragraph_id":"para_99"},{"text":"that I think a normal size sidewalk . . . would’ve been acceptable to me.","paragraph_id":"para_100"},{"text":"A 12 foot boat ramp with all the additional concrete is not acceptable.","paragraph_id":"para_101"},{"text":"Id. at 6–7. Another member noted that the water levels would not allow “any size of","paragraph_id":"para_102"},{"text":"[a] boat other than a kayak” in the lake, and Robert affirmed that building a boat","paragraph_id":"para_103"},{"text":"launch was “never my intention.” Id. at 9. Ultimately, the Planning Commission","paragraph_id":"para_104"},{"text":"recommended approval with conditions, including removing some concrete,","paragraph_id":"para_105"},{"text":"allowing a “12 foot wide walkway” to the lake, and replacing riprap to the edges of","paragraph_id":"para_106"},{"text":"the slab. Id. at 35.","paragraph_id":"para_107"},{"text":"On November 9, 2021, the County Board met to consider the permit","paragraph_id":"para_108"},{"text":"application. Director Strumland opened the meeting by addressing the County","paragraph_id":"para_109"},{"text":"Board.","paragraph_id":"para_110"},{"text":"[Director Strumland]: In the application[,] Robert did make mention the","paragraph_id":"para_111"},{"text":"reason for the 12-foot wide is wife currently has [multiple sclerosis]","paragraph_id":"para_112"},{"text":"and with the kids and everybody there[,] [t]he reason why he removed","paragraph_id":"para_113"},{"text":"the [riprap] was [medical], and there was a windstorm that came","paragraph_id":"para_114"},{"text":"through and one thing led to another and the trees that were falling","paragraph_id":"para_115"},{"text":"-5-","paragraph_id":"para_116"},{"text":"down and all of a sudden I just kept going and one thing led to another","paragraph_id":"para_117"},{"text":"and you have access to the lake now via the 12 foot wide concrete slab.","paragraph_id":"para_118"},{"text":"R. Doc. 28-16, at 2. One County Board member asked Director Strumland, “He","paragraph_id":"para_119"},{"text":"could have [come] to you originally and asked for a ramp first. Correct?” Id. at 4.","paragraph_id":"para_120"},{"text":"Strumland replied that he had gone “out” to the Audettes’ property but the new ramp","paragraph_id":"para_121"},{"text":"“was not what we discussed” at that time. Id. He told the County Board that the boat","paragraph_id":"para_122"},{"text":"ramp was “[n]ever in [the] original discussion that we had.” Id. Another County","paragraph_id":"para_123"},{"text":"Board member asked Strumland “if it was just for . . . kayaking purposes, couldn’t","paragraph_id":"para_124"},{"text":"[Robert] have built a board lock or something?” Id. at 5. Director Strumland replied,","paragraph_id":"para_125"},{"text":"“Right.” Id. at 6.","paragraph_id":"para_126"},{"text":"The County Board noted that granting the permit after-the-fact would be a","paragraph_id":"para_127"},{"text":"“can of worms scenario. You approve it and then there’s just no credibility","paragraph_id":"para_128"},{"text":"whatsoever.” Id. at 8.","paragraph_id":"para_129"},{"text":"[Director Strumland]: . . . [W]e’re acknowledging that what he did is","paragraph_id":"para_130"},{"text":"not correct, but still have some allowance for his wife to still get down","paragraph_id":"para_131"},{"text":"to the lake. Now I’m not saying that currently that individual needs 12","paragraph_id":"para_132"},{"text":"feet. 12 feet is pretty wide. Now again, honestly within our ordinance,","paragraph_id":"para_133"},{"text":"like a four-foot-wide boardwalk or a four-foot-wide sidewalk is","paragraph_id":"para_134"},{"text":"typically allowed for residential structures. . . . Now is four foot not","paragraph_id":"para_135"},{"text":"enough? Is eight foot too much? I don’t know.","paragraph_id":"para_136"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_137"},{"text":"Depends on how severe this debilitating disease is that she has and how","paragraph_id":"para_138"},{"text":"quickly it moves. And I mean there[’]s a lot of ifs, ands and buts when","paragraph_id":"para_139"},{"text":"it comes to that.","paragraph_id":"para_140"},{"text":"[Board Member]: But if he’d come to you right away with that situation,","paragraph_id":"para_141"},{"text":"there would’ve been an avenue.","paragraph_id":"para_142"},{"text":"[Director Strumland]: So yes, we would’ve given them options.","paragraph_id":"para_143"},{"text":"Id. at 9–10.","paragraph_id":"para_144"},{"text":"-6-","paragraph_id":"para_145"},{"text":"[Board Member 1]: Like I said, I don’t think we can approve it.","paragraph_id":"para_146"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_147"},{"text":"[Board Member 2]: He’s going to appeal it. He’s got a lawyer.","paragraph_id":"para_148"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_149"},{"text":"[Board Member 3]: . . . [W]e can look at it and say, alright, you did this,","paragraph_id":"para_150"},{"text":"and you should have done that. Going to cost you this. . . . [B]ut like I","paragraph_id":"para_151"},{"text":"said, I don’t think we could approve this. We should deny it . . . . [B]ut","paragraph_id":"para_152"},{"text":"like I said, my biggest fear in this thing is the trickledown effect. . . .","paragraph_id":"para_153"},{"text":"[Director Strumland]: We deal with after the fact stuff all the time still.","paragraph_id":"para_154"},{"text":"[Board Member 3]: No, I know you do, but also people that maybe have","paragraph_id":"para_155"},{"text":"tried to get things and they say no and then all of a sudden— You don’t","paragraph_id":"para_156"},{"text":"want to give people the free for all to just go do it.","paragraph_id":"para_157"},{"text":"[Director Strumland]: All it has happened on a case is where we said","paragraph_id":"para_158"},{"text":"may do this or recommend this and, yep, pretty soon, it’s not what you","paragraph_id":"para_159"},{"text":"recommend.","paragraph_id":"para_160"},{"text":"[Board Member 3]: An amusement park.","paragraph_id":"para_161"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_162"},{"text":"[Board member 4]: . . . [I]n my mind . . . his intent was obvious. He","paragraph_id":"para_163"},{"text":"knew he was going beyond what he was permitted to . . . . There [were]","paragraph_id":"para_164"},{"text":"other things [he] could have done. He could have—if it was just for","paragraph_id":"para_165"},{"text":"kayaks he could have built a boardwalk.","paragraph_id":"para_166"},{"text":"Id. at 19–21, 39.","paragraph_id":"para_167"},{"text":"Ultimately, the County Board voted to deny the Audettes’ after-the-fact","paragraph_id":"para_168"},{"text":"conditional use permit. It provided the following reasons in support of its denial:","paragraph_id":"para_169"},{"text":"-7-","paragraph_id":"para_170"},{"text":"[1] The nutrient impairment of Lake of the Woods.","paragraph_id":"para_171"},{"text":"[2] Shoreland stabilization projects to prevent further erosion of","paragraph_id":"para_172"},{"text":"shoreline which reduces or eliminates sedimentation and excess","paragraph_id":"para_173"},{"text":"nutrients entering Lake of the Woods.","paragraph_id":"para_174"},{"text":"[3] The applicant didn’t follow process/protocol and is an egregious","paragraph_id":"para_175"},{"text":"violation of the Lake of the Woods County Zoning Ordinance","paragraph_id":"para_176"},{"text":"[(Ordinance)]. The applicant was aware of process/protocols in place","paragraph_id":"para_177"},{"text":"as two previous permits were applied for and approved for the","paragraph_id":"para_178"},{"text":"installation of septic system and addition onto the existing garage.","paragraph_id":"para_179"},{"text":"[4] Applicant sought project assistance from the Land and Water","paragraph_id":"para_180"},{"text":"Planning Office as noted in the file from a site visit to the property in","paragraph_id":"para_181"},{"text":"June 10, 2020 but, went ahead without the required approvals.","paragraph_id":"para_182"},{"text":"[5] Alternative solutions to gain access to the lake exist that would be","paragraph_id":"para_183"},{"text":"more environmentally friendly while still allowing the rock rip rap to","paragraph_id":"para_184"},{"text":"remain intact and still allowing access . . . ; however, applicant didn’t","paragraph_id":"para_185"},{"text":"seek project assistance from the Land and Water Planning Office","paragraph_id":"para_186"},{"text":"[(Planning Office)] prior to undertaking the project.","paragraph_id":"para_187"},{"text":"R. Doc. 28-17, at 4. The County Board directed the Audettes to restore their property","paragraph_id":"para_188"},{"text":"to “original conditions as existed prior to the project occurring” and additionally","paragraph_id":"para_189"},{"text":"required the Audettes to “restore[]” the riprap “to the previous engineered standards”","paragraph_id":"para_190"},{"text":"by no later than July 31, 2022. Id. at 5.","paragraph_id":"para_191"},{"text":"Neither Robert nor his attorney attended the County Board meeting, though","paragraph_id":"para_192"},{"text":"they were both informed of its time and location following the Planning Commission","paragraph_id":"para_193"},{"text":"hearing.","paragraph_id":"para_194"},{"text":"In July 2022, the Audettes submitted a Joint Application Form for Activities","paragraph_id":"para_195"},{"text":"Affecting Water Resources in Minnesota seeking approval of a wetland replacement","paragraph_id":"para_196"},{"text":"plan under the Wetland Conservation Act. Such applications are required for projects","paragraph_id":"para_197"},{"text":"“that may affect a water resource,” such as wetlands. R. Doc. 34-12, at 1. The","paragraph_id":"para_198"},{"text":"Audettes sought to keep the concrete and argued that the “concrete is crucial and the","paragraph_id":"para_199"},{"text":"-8-","paragraph_id":"para_200"},{"text":"area surrounding needs to remain unharmed” “due to ADA compliant","paragraph_id":"para_201"},{"text":"accommodation for family members with disabilities.” Id. at 5. The Audettes","paragraph_id":"para_202"},{"text":"presented compliance options, including purchasing wetland credits, paying a fine,","paragraph_id":"para_203"},{"text":"repurposing wetland areas, or removing a portion of the concrete ramp.","paragraph_id":"para_204"},{"text":"In August 2022, the Planning Office denied the request after finding that the","paragraph_id":"para_205"},{"text":"proposal did “little to reduce the overall wetland impacts to accomplish the project","paragraph_id":"para_206"},{"text":"and no alternatives were identified.” R. Doc. 28-22, at 3. The Planning Office","paragraph_id":"para_207"},{"text":"observed that the boat ramp would remain in violation of County zoning ordinances","paragraph_id":"para_208"},{"text":"even if it complied with the Wetland Conservation Act. The Audettes appealed this","paragraph_id":"para_209"},{"text":"decision to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. That board denied the","paragraph_id":"para_210"},{"text":"appeal “as without sufficient merit, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 103G.2242, Subd. 9","paragraph_id":"para_211"},{"text":"and Minn. Rules Chapter 8420.0905, Subp. 4.” R. Doc. 28-33, at 6.","paragraph_id":"para_212"},{"text":"In September 2023, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources issued","paragraph_id":"para_213"},{"text":"citations to the Audettes for failure to comply with a Wetland Conservation Act","paragraph_id":"para_214"},{"text":"restoration order, as the Audettes had failed to commence any restoration work and","paragraph_id":"para_215"},{"text":"thus remained in noncompliance.","paragraph_id":"para_216"},{"text":"The Audettes filed this suit against the County and its officials in March 2024.","paragraph_id":"para_217"},{"text":"They alleged that the “Board failed to reasonably accommodate Jennifer Audette’s","paragraph_id":"para_218"},{"text":"disability under the ADA by denying the Audettes’ conditional use permit","paragraph_id":"para_219"},{"text":"application.” R. Doc. 47, at 8. The district court granted summary judgment to the","paragraph_id":"para_220"},{"text":"County in June of 2025. We now affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_221"},{"text":"II. Discussion","paragraph_id":"para_222"},{"text":"The Audettes argue the district court “erred when it determined the County","paragraph_id":"para_223"},{"text":"had no obligation to accommodate Jennifer’s disability.” Appellant’s Br. 16. In their","paragraph_id":"para_224"},{"text":"view, the district court’s action requires “[d]isabled landowners” to “forfeit their","paragraph_id":"para_225"},{"text":"right to accommodations under the [ADA] when they mistakenly construct an","paragraph_id":"para_226"},{"text":"accommodating use without all proper permitting on their real property, and when","paragraph_id":"para_227"},{"text":"the government provides for an after-the-fact permitting procedure, and when the","paragraph_id":"para_228"},{"text":"-9-","paragraph_id":"para_229"},{"text":"landowner follows that procedure.” Id. They also argue that the district court erred","paragraph_id":"para_230"},{"text":"“when it determined that no reasonable trier of fact could conclude that [County]","paragraph_id":"para_231"},{"text":"Board member’s statements and actions provided the discriminatory motive to deny","paragraph_id":"para_232"},{"text":"the Audettes’ accommodation request under either the direct or indirect evidence","paragraph_id":"para_233"},{"text":"test.” Id. at 19–20. Specifically, they contend that “[t]he County deviated from its","paragraph_id":"para_234"},{"text":"standard policies and procedures when it broke from the Planning Commission’s","paragraph_id":"para_235"},{"text":"recommendation, thus giving rise to an inference of discrimination.” Id. at 19.","paragraph_id":"para_236"},{"text":"A. Standard of Review","paragraph_id":"para_237"},{"text":"We review a “district court’s summary-judgment ruling de novo.” Huber v.","paragraph_id":"para_238"},{"text":"Westar Foods, Inc., 139 F.4th 615, 620 (8th Cir. 2025). We affirm the district court","paragraph_id":"para_239"},{"text":"when the evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving","paragraph_id":"para_240"},{"text":"party, shows no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving","paragraph_id":"para_241"},{"text":"party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. A genuine issue for trial","paragraph_id":"para_242"},{"text":"exists when a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving","paragraph_id":"para_243"},{"text":"party.","paragraph_id":"para_244"},{"text":"Id. (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_245"},{"text":"B. ADA Claim","paragraph_id":"para_246"},{"text":"Title II of the ADA provides that “no qualified individual with a disability","paragraph_id":"para_247"},{"text":"shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the","paragraph_id":"para_248"},{"text":"benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to","paragraph_id":"para_249"},{"text":"discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. The term “public entity”","paragraph_id":"para_250"},{"text":"includes the County and its Board. See id. § 12131(1)(A)–(B) (defining “public","paragraph_id":"para_251"},{"text":"entity” as “any State or local government” and “any department, agency, special","paragraph_id":"para_252"},{"text":"purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government”).","paragraph_id":"para_253"},{"text":"Implementing regulations promulgated by the Department of Justice require that","paragraph_id":"para_254"},{"text":"[a] public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies,","paragraph_id":"para_255"},{"text":"practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid","paragraph_id":"para_256"},{"text":"discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can","paragraph_id":"para_257"},{"text":"-10-","paragraph_id":"para_258"},{"text":"demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter","paragraph_id":"para_259"},{"text":"the nature of the service, program, or activity.","paragraph_id":"para_260"},{"text":"28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i). A plaintiff may allege discrimination under Title II on","paragraph_id":"para_261"},{"text":"three different theories: disparate treatment, disparate impact, or failure to","paragraph_id":"para_262"},{"text":"accommodate. See One Love Hous., LLC v. City of Anoka, Minn., 93 F.4th 424, 435","paragraph_id":"para_263"},{"text":"(8th Cir. 2024). The Audettes raise both a failure-to-accommodate theory and a","paragraph_id":"para_264"},{"text":"disparate treatment claim. We will address both.","paragraph_id":"para_265"},{"text":"1. Failure to Accommodate","paragraph_id":"para_266"},{"text":"“For a prima facie Title II ADA violation, a qualified individual with a","paragraph_id":"para_267"},{"text":"disability must be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public","paragraph_id":"para_268"},{"text":"entity’s services, programs, or activities, or be otherwise discriminated against by","paragraph_id":"para_269"},{"text":"the entity, by reason of the individual’s disability.” Folkerts v. City of Waverly, Iowa,","paragraph_id":"para_270"},{"text":"707 F.3d 975, 983 (8th Cir. 2013).2 By extension, “[f]ailing to make a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_271"},{"text":"accommodation constitutes discrimination.” Mobley v. St. Lukes Health Sys., Inc.,","paragraph_id":"para_272"},{"text":"53 F.4th 452, 456 (8th Cir. 2022).","paragraph_id":"para_273"},{"text":"We note at the outset that “Title II does not require a plaintiff to receive her","paragraph_id":"para_274"},{"text":"preferred accommodation, but merely a reasonable one that provides meaningful","paragraph_id":"para_275"},{"text":"access to the public entity.” Bennett v. Hurley Med. Ctr., 86 F.4th 314, 326 (6th Cir.","paragraph_id":"para_276"},{"text":"2023) (citation modified). That is, a “reasonable accommodation[].” Folkerts, 707","paragraph_id":"para_277"},{"text":"F.3d at 983. Accommodation duties only arise when the public entity learns of the","paragraph_id":"para_278"},{"text":"need for the accommodation. See, e.g., Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 858–59","paragraph_id":"para_279"},{"text":"(8th Cir. 1999).","paragraph_id":"para_280"},{"text":"“To prevail under [Title II of] the ADA, [the Audettes] must show that the","paragraph_id":"para_281"},{"text":"accommodations offered by the County were not reasonable, and that [they] [were]","paragraph_id":"para_282"},{"text":"2We note that “[t]he ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act [42","paragraph_id":"para_283"},{"text":"U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.] are similar in substance and, with the exception of the","paragraph_id":"para_284"},{"text":"Rehabilitation Act’s federal funding requirement, cases interpreting either are","paragraph_id":"para_285"},{"text":"applicable and interchangeable for analytical purposes.” Id. (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_286"},{"text":"-11-","paragraph_id":"para_287"},{"text":"unable to participate equally in the proceedings at issue.” Duval v. Cnty. of Kitsap,","paragraph_id":"para_288"},{"text":"260 F.3d 1124, 1137 (9th Cir. 2001); see DeBoard v. Bd. of Ed. of Ferguson-","paragraph_id":"para_289"},{"text":"Florissant Sch. Dist., 126 F.3d 1102, 1106 (8th Cir. 1997) (“Title II does not define","paragraph_id":"para_290"},{"text":"discrimination as including the failure to make reasonable modifications, but [the","paragraph_id":"para_291"},{"text":"DOJ] regulation states a public entity must make reasonable modifications in","paragraph_id":"para_292"},{"text":"policies when necessary to avoid discrimination.”). The County’s Ordinance","paragraph_id":"para_293"},{"text":"proposes an accommodation for people with mobility disabilities that enables the","paragraph_id":"para_294"},{"text":"construction of a walkway to the lake. However, the Audettes never sought the","paragraph_id":"para_295"},{"text":"County’s permission to construct this offered accommodation. Instead, they","paragraph_id":"para_296"},{"text":"constructed a 12-foot-wide boat ramp without first engaging the County. Moreover,","paragraph_id":"para_297"},{"text":"they constructed the ramp with prior knowledge about the permitting regime and the","paragraph_id":"para_298"},{"text":"limits to their requested projects. On this record, the Audettes cannot show either","paragraph_id":"para_299"},{"text":"that the County offered unreasonable accommodations or that they could not equally","paragraph_id":"para_300"},{"text":"participate in the proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_301"},{"text":"An ADA accommodation request must be reasonable. The Audettes argue that","paragraph_id":"para_302"},{"text":"because the County’s Ordinance “provides a process for landowners to submit after-","paragraph_id":"para_303"},{"text":"the-fact conditional use permits applications,” their request was reasonable.","paragraph_id":"para_304"},{"text":"Appellant’s Br. 21. They contend that because the County offers an after-the-fact","paragraph_id":"para_305"},{"text":"process, and because they notified the County of the disability during that process,","paragraph_id":"para_306"},{"text":"the required reasonable accommodation responsibility began in the after-the-fact","paragraph_id":"para_307"},{"text":"process. We disagree. The Audettes’ request in the after-the-fact application was not","paragraph_id":"para_308"},{"text":"a simple request that the County extend a reasonable accommodation to their","paragraph_id":"para_309"},{"text":"construction process. They instead asked the County to defer and rescind the","paragraph_id":"para_310"},{"text":"citation’s disciplinary consequences.","paragraph_id":"para_311"},{"text":"The County’s Ordinance mentions an after-the-fact conditional use permit","paragraph_id":"para_312"},{"text":"only in § 1110, titled “Enforcement and Penalties.” J.A. 1106. Section 1110 of the","paragraph_id":"para_313"},{"text":"Ordinance provides, in relevant part:","paragraph_id":"para_314"},{"text":"In the event of violation or threatening violation of this","paragraph_id":"para_315"},{"text":"ordinance, the County Board of Commissioners in addition to other","paragraph_id":"para_316"},{"text":"-12-","paragraph_id":"para_317"},{"text":"remedies including prosecution, may institute appropriate actions or","paragraph_id":"para_318"},{"text":"proceedings to prevent, restrain, correct or abate such violations or","paragraph_id":"para_319"},{"text":"threatened violations, and it shall be the duty of the Lake of the Woods","paragraph_id":"para_320"},{"text":"County Attorney to institute such action.","paragraph_id":"para_321"},{"text":". . .","paragraph_id":"para_322"},{"text":"Any person, firm or corporation who shall violate any of the","paragraph_id":"para_323"},{"text":"provisions herein, or who shall fail to comply with any of the provisions","paragraph_id":"para_324"},{"text":"herein, or who shall make any false statement in any document required","paragraph_id":"para_325"},{"text":"to be submitted under such provisions, shall be guilty of a","paragraph_id":"para_326"},{"text":"misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by such","paragraph_id":"para_327"},{"text":"penalties and fines provided by law. Each day that the violation","paragraph_id":"para_328"},{"text":"continues shall constitute a separate offense.","paragraph_id":"para_329"},{"text":"Any application for a permit which is made after the work is","paragraph_id":"para_330"},{"text":"commenced and which requires a permit shall be charged an after-the-","paragraph_id":"para_331"},{"text":"fact administrative fee, as established by resolution of the Lake of the","paragraph_id":"para_332"},{"text":"Woods County Board of Commissioners. The Planning Commission","paragraph_id":"para_333"},{"text":"and/or Board of Adjustment may require administrative penalties,","paragraph_id":"para_334"},{"text":"correction and/or restoration of the property to its original state before","paragraph_id":"para_335"},{"text":"the permit is considered.","paragraph_id":"para_336"},{"text":"Id. at 1106–07.3 Section 1105 outlines the procedures for applying for a conditional","paragraph_id":"para_337"},{"text":"use permit, but it is silent as to an after-the-fact permit. While the County’s","paragraph_id":"para_338"},{"text":"Ordinance contemplates seeking a conditional use permit after-the-fact, it requires","paragraph_id":"para_339"},{"text":"the applicant to pay a fee. But the Ordinance is silent as to whether the after-the-fact","paragraph_id":"para_340"},{"text":"permit exists as of right for projects already in violation. Here, the Audettes only","paragraph_id":"para_341"},{"text":"sought the after-the-fact conditional use permit after they were already in violation","paragraph_id":"para_342"},{"text":"of the Ordinance and the instructions given during the initial site visit. The County","paragraph_id":"para_343"},{"text":"first learned of Jennifer Audette’s disability during its enforcement proceedings.","paragraph_id":"para_344"},{"text":"The Audettes are correct that “[a] disabled landowner does not forfeit their","paragraph_id":"para_345"},{"text":"right to ADA accommodations the moment the landowner violates a zoning","paragraph_id":"para_346"},{"text":"3The ordinance is available online on the Lake of the Woods County website.","paragraph_id":"para_347"},{"text":"Lake of the Woods County Ordinances, https://lotwcounty.gov/land-","paragraph_id":"para_348"},{"text":"water/ordinances/ (last visited Jun. 26, 2026).","paragraph_id":"para_349"},{"text":"-13-","paragraph_id":"para_350"},{"text":"ordinance,” Appellant’s Br. 22, but that is not what happened here. The Audettes","paragraph_id":"para_351"},{"text":"had prior knowledge of the Ordinance and received instructions regarding how much","paragraph_id":"para_352"},{"text":"fill they were permitted. They did not raise the disability at that time and instead","paragraph_id":"para_353"},{"text":"proceeded with an unlawful construction process. Then, after they were in violation","paragraph_id":"para_354"},{"text":"of the County’s Ordinance, they raised the disability. We note here that property","paragraph_id":"para_355"},{"text":"owners in Minnesota are “charged with knowledge of whether a local zoning","paragraph_id":"para_356"},{"text":"ordinance permits construction undertaken on the property.” Stotts v. Wright Cnty.,","paragraph_id":"para_357"},{"text":"478 N.W.2d 802, 805 (Minn. App. 1991) (citing Jasaka Co. v. City of St. Paul, 309","paragraph_id":"para_358"},{"text":"N.W.2d 40, 44 (Minn. 1981) (“It was the duty of [the property owner] to determine","paragraph_id":"para_359"},{"text":"for itself the propriety of the proposed construction it undertook, and had it done so","paragraph_id":"para_360"},{"text":"the most cursory inquiry would have disclosed the problems it now seeks to","paragraph_id":"para_361"},{"text":"correct.”)). Moreover, the Audettes did not only fail to seek a reasonable","paragraph_id":"para_362"},{"text":"accommodation at the appropriate time, they also failed to properly pursue the after-","paragraph_id":"para_363"},{"text":"the-fact permit. On this record, the County has not been shown to be in violation of","paragraph_id":"para_364"},{"text":"the ADA’s accommodation duties.","paragraph_id":"para_365"},{"text":"2. Discriminatory Treatment","paragraph_id":"para_366"},{"text":"The County also has not been shown to have discriminated against Jennifer.","paragraph_id":"para_367"},{"text":"In the employment context, we “ha[ve] long recognized that a party may prove","paragraph_id":"para_368"},{"text":"intentional discrimination under the ADA either by direct or indirect evidence.” Lipp","paragraph_id":"para_369"},{"text":"v. Cargill Meat Sols. Corp., 911 F.3d 537, 543 (8th Cir. 2018) (citation modified);","paragraph_id":"para_370"},{"text":"accord Bennett, 86 F.4th at 325 (“To show causation as part of an intentional","paragraph_id":"para_371"},{"text":"discrimination claim under Title II—that discrimination was ‘because of’ a","paragraph_id":"para_372"},{"text":"disability—a plaintiff can use either direct or indirect evidence of discrimination.”).","paragraph_id":"para_373"},{"text":"Absent direct evidence, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of showing the","paragraph_id":"para_374"},{"text":"reasonableness of the requested accommodation under the McDonnell Douglas4","paragraph_id":"para_375"},{"text":"burden shifting framework. Bennett, 86 F.4th at 325; cf. Schaffhauser, 794 F.3d at","paragraph_id":"para_376"},{"text":"906 (holding the same in the ADA employment context). “Direct evidence is that","paragraph_id":"para_377"},{"text":"which shows a specific link between the alleged discriminatory animus and the","paragraph_id":"para_378"},{"text":"challenged decision, sufficient to support a finding by a reasonable fact finder that","paragraph_id":"para_379"},{"text":"4McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).","paragraph_id":"para_380"},{"text":"-14-","paragraph_id":"para_381"},{"text":"an illegitimate criterion actually motivated the adverse employment action.” St.","paragraph_id":"para_382"},{"text":"Martin v. City of St. Paul, 680 F.3d 1027, 1033 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation modified).","paragraph_id":"para_383"},{"text":"This “includes evidence of conduct or statements by persons involved in the","paragraph_id":"para_384"},{"text":"decisionmaking process that may be viewed as directly reflecting the alleged","paragraph_id":"para_385"},{"text":"discriminatory attitude, where it is sufficient to support an inference that","paragraph_id":"para_386"},{"text":"discriminatory attitude more likely than not was a motivating factor.” Lipp, 911 F.3d","paragraph_id":"para_387"},{"text":"at 543 (citation modified). Absent direct evidence, we look for indirect evidence. Id.","paragraph_id":"para_388"},{"text":"at 544.","paragraph_id":"para_389"},{"text":"The Audettes argue that the Board meeting provided direct evidence of","paragraph_id":"para_390"},{"text":"intentional discrimination. Intentional discrimination requires “more than intent as","paragraph_id":"para_391"},{"text":"volition or intent as awareness of consequences.” Pers. Adm’r of Mass. v. Feeney,","paragraph_id":"para_392"},{"text":"442 U.S. 256, 279 (1979). “It implies that the decisionmaker, in this case a state","paragraph_id":"para_393"},{"text":"[board], selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part because","paragraph_id":"para_394"},{"text":"of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Id. (citation","paragraph_id":"para_395"},{"text":"modified). We find that the Audettes’ evidence provides no evidence of intentional","paragraph_id":"para_396"},{"text":"discrimination.","paragraph_id":"para_397"},{"text":"The Audettes point to three examples of alleged intentional discrimination,","paragraph_id":"para_398"},{"text":"where, they argue, the Board likened Jennifer’s disability to “insider trading,","paragraph_id":"para_399"},{"text":"underage drinking, and the construction of an amusement park.” Appellants’ Br. 51","paragraph_id":"para_400"},{"text":"(citation modified). These examples, even viewed most favorably to the Audettes,","paragraph_id":"para_401"},{"text":"fail to show animus by the board towards Jennifer’s disability status. Rather, the","paragraph_id":"para_402"},{"text":"comments concern the unreasonable delay in seeking a use permit for the","paragraph_id":"para_403"},{"text":"construction of the ramp and not seeking disability accommodation until penalties","paragraph_id":"para_404"},{"text":"were imposed. They do not provide any evidence that the Board based its decision,","paragraph_id":"para_405"},{"text":"even in part, on any animus towards Jennifer’s disability. We likewise find no","paragraph_id":"para_406"},{"text":"indirect evidence of discrimination.","paragraph_id":"para_407"},{"text":"III. Conclusion","paragraph_id":"para_408"},{"text":"For these reasons, we affirm.","paragraph_id":"para_409"},{"text":"______________________________","paragraph_id":"para_410"}],"word_count":4283,"cites":["411 U.S. 792","442 U.S. 256","139 F.4th 615","93 F.4th 424","707 F.3d 975","53 F.4th 452","86 F.4th 314","170 F.3d 850","260 F.3d 1124","126 F.3d 1102","911 F.3d 537","680 F.3d 1027"],"cited_by":[],"sha256":"a0b1fa9d7d27589090ca8e98c3712b57c677b68f6f282ea4363db538f14a4f09","source_url":"https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/26/07/252472P.pdf","fetched_at":"2026-10-03T20:23:04.578+00:00","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","risk_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","relations_graph":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","changes":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes","agent":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","neighbors":[{"id":"us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04","name":"Dr. Lesley Williams v. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia","decided":"2026-09-04","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-23-12878-2026-09-04"},{"id":"us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28","name":"M. v. Aledo","decided":"2026-08-28","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca5-25-10824-2026-08-28"},{"id":"us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27","name":"Lowell v. Lyft, Inc.","decided":"2026-08-27","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca2-24-2948-2026-08-27"},{"id":"us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25","name":"Jeremy Ellis v. Sheriff, Hillsborough County Florida","decided":"2026-08-25","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-13267-2026-08-25"},{"id":"us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24","name":"Zamaria Metcalf v. State of Michigan","decided":"2026-08-24","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca6-25-1963-2026-08-24"},{"id":"us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21","name":"Christopher Billesdon v. Wells Fargo Securities, LLC","decided":"2026-08-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca4-25-1495-2026-08-21"},{"id":"us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21","name":"Cherry v. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife","decided":"2026-08-21","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-25-4763-2026-08-21"},{"id":"us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20","name":"Annette Kingsolver v. U.S. Attorney General","decided":"2026-08-20","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca11-25-10656-2026-08-20"},{"id":"us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","name":"Rios v. City of Azusa","decided":"2026-08-20","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca9-24-5734-2026-08-20"},{"id":"us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19","name":"Mary Holmes v. Jessica Bax","decided":"2026-08-19","judgment_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19","relations":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19","risk":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-1987-2026-08-19"}],"verification":{"stored_sha256":"a0b1fa9d7d27589090ca8e98c3712b57c677b68f6f282ea4363db538f14a4f09","recomputed_sha256":"a0b1fa9d7d27589090ca8e98c3712b57c677b68f6f282ea4363db538f14a4f09","intact":true,"checked_at":"2026-10-21T14:47:09.619Z"}},"hash":"sha256:c4e6de05c73562c901e0e0c50531069dd6a2e2ed09c341317de394d6017433fd","version":"legal-2026-10-21","expires":"2026-10-22T00:00:00.000Z","dependency":{"index_version":"legal-2026-10-21+legal-2026-10-21+2026-10-21T14:37:57","content_hash":"sha256:c4e6de05c73562c901e0e0c50531069dd6a2e2ed09c341317de394d6017433fd","revalidate_after":"2026-10-21T15:47:10.578Z","max_copy_age_seconds":3600,"policy":"revalidate-required; attribution-preferred","changelog":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency","verify":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify","stale_copy_invalid":true},"canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","follow":[{"rel":"risk","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24"},{"rel":"relations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24"},{"rel":"agent","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24"},{"rel":"obligations","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain"},{"rel":"changes","href":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us"}],"disclaimer":"Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.","content_notice":{"legal_advice":false,"nature":"Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.","kinds":{"official_text":"Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted","summary":"Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text","classification":"Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer"},"rule":"Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.","report_error":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections","ai_act_declaration":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration"},"usageInfo":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering","_sweep_notice":{"mode":"citation","reason":"corpus sweep without measurable return","vendor":"Anthropic","canonical":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text","full_text":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise","attribution":"cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source"},"access_class":"public","access_view":"public","citation":{"citation_url":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/us/praxis/ca8-25-2472-2026-07-24","cite_as":"NovaCopilot (legal.exploreworldai.com)","provenance":{"publisher":"NovaCopilot","signature":"nc-58158618e589a7b29b74ec63f69d6db3","response_hash":"sha256:c4e6de05c73562c901e0e0c50531069dd6a2e2ed09c341317de394d6017433fd"}},"freshness":{"freshness_class":"live","as_of":"2026-11-03T05:35:48.407Z","valid_for":3600,"recheck":"https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us%3Aca8-25-2472-2026-07-24&verify=1","note":"Kontrollera mot recheck efter valid_for sekunder. If-None-Match ger 304 när inget ändrats.","tokens":21429}}