168 F. Supp. 3d 1060
N.D. Ill.2016Background
- Plaintiff Thomas Clemons, a wheelchair user and double amputee, was detained at Cook County Jail’s Cermak medical unit from Sept. 23, 2012 to Mar. 9, 2013 and was housed in two cells (3115 and 3225) that did not meet post‑1991 ADA architectural standards.
- Defendants are Cook County (indemnification theory) and Sheriff Thomas Dart in his official capacity; the claimants asserted violations of Title II of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Monell).
- The cells lacked multiple ADA features (toilet height/clearances, grab bars, reachable sink, compliant shower door/seat) and use of portable shower chairs; Clemons suffered injuries (including a fall in the shower) and incidents related to colostomy/catheter care.
- Sheriff contended medical staff (not correctional officers) determined housing and that 24/7 nursing rendered non‑compliant fixtures acceptable as “equivalent access.”
- The court found correctional officers participated in bed assignments, there existed ADA‑compliant cells in Cermak, and the Sheriff failed to show that staff assistance provided equivalent access to compliant fixtures.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether assigning Clemons to non‑ADA cells denied him benefits of public services under Title II / Rehabilitation Act | Housing in non‑ADA cells denied access to programs (showers, toilets, hygiene); statutory standards require compliance for post‑1991 construction | Cermak provided 24/7 nursing and on‑demand assistance that gave Clemons equivalent access despite structural noncompliance | Court: Denial established — cells noncompliant and staff assistance does not constitute equivalent facilitation for new construction; MSJ for Clemons granted on ADA/Rehab Act claims |
| Scope of "equivalent facilitation" — may services/aides substitute for required post‑1991 structural features? | N/A (argued as part of merits) | Argues §35.150(b)(1) and staff aids justify deviation from structural requirements | Court: Equivalent facilitation limited to designs/products/technologies, not routine personal assistance; aides cannot substitute for required structural compliance in post‑1991 facilities |
| Required mental state under Title II — whether deliberate indifference satisfied | Deliberate indifference is met because Clemons’ obvious wheelchair dependence and injuries (fall) made need for compliant housing manifest | Defendants lacked knowledge of substantial risk; Clemons did not request accommodation; assignments were medical staff decisions | Court: Deliberate indifference satisfied — defendants knew or should have known need and failed to act; intent requirement met for damages under ADA/Rehab Act |
| Monell §1983 liability — can Clemons show municipal policy/custom causing constitutional violation? | Argues Sheriff had a practice/policy in housing disabled detainees that caused the violation | Sheriff: No express policy; staffing/medical control issues; single incident insufficient for widespread practice | Court: Grant for defendants on §1983 — plaintiff produced no evidence of a widespread, permanent custom or final‑policymaker action causing the deprivation |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (Sup. Ct. 2004) (distinguishes architectural requirements for post‑1991 construction from procedural accommodations for existing facilities)
- Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (ADA and Rehabilitation Act relief are coextensive; access to showers/meals is a program/activity)
- Love v. Westville Correctional Center, 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996) (elements of Title II/Rehab Act claim for prisoners)
- Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires policy, custom, or final policymaker causing constitutional violation)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (deliberate indifference requires knowledge of a strong likelihood of harm and failure to act)