912 F. Supp. 2d 828
D. Ariz.2012Background
- EEOC sues Creative Networks under ADA Title I and Title V and Civil Rights Act Title I for discrimination against disabled applicants; Duran has severe to profound hearing loss and sought a sign language interpreter for pre-employment orientation/training; Creative Networks limited interpreter assistance to $200 and urged Duran to find her own interpreter; EEOC alleged policy or practice denying accommodations costing more than $200; case procedural history includes prior Rule 56(d) requests, class discovery, and EEOC’s partial summary judgment motion; Court ultimately grants EEOC’s partial summary judgment on failure to accommodate and failure to hire, and dismisses class relief while denying defendant’s injunctive relief motion; EEOC continues to seek injunctive relief in the public interest tied to ADA violations; ADAAA issues noted but not retroactive for this analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Creative Networks violated the ADA by failing to provide a reasonable accommodation | EEOC asserts Duran needed a sign-language interpreter; $200 cap is unlawful and the interactive process was not engaged | Creative Networks argues no failure to accommodate occurred; policy to cover up to $200 was reasonable | EEOC’s motion granted; failure to accommodate established |
| Whether Creative Networks’ denial of accommodation caused a failure to hire | Denial of accommodation prevented Duran from completing training and thus from being hired | Duran never reached hiring stage due to process steps; denial of training does not equate to failure to hire | EEOC’s motion granted for failure to hire as to Duran |
| Whether class claims should be dismissed and whether injunctive relief is proper | EEOC withdrew monetary/class relief but seeks injunctive relief in public interest; witnesses relevant for injunctive relief | Class claims should be dismissed; injunctive relief premature absent resolved liability | Class claims dismissed; injunctive relief denial deemed premature but court retains authority to issue injunctive relief if warranted |
| Whether EEOC can pursue injunctive relief in the public interest under §706 (without pattern-or-practice pleading) | EEOC may seek public-interest injunctive relief beyond individual relief | Injunction should be limited; trial on liability pending | Court allows public-interest injunctive relief under §706; not limited to pattern-or-practice |
| Whether evidentiary issues regarding class witnesses preclude liability findings | Witness testimony shows broader discriminatory policy; not limited to Duran | Witnesses not tied to class claims; EEOC withdrew class relief | Issues remain material; court denies broad summary judgment on class evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Head v. Glacier Northwest, Inc., 413 F.3d 1053 (9th Cir. 2005) (discrimination as a motivating factor standard under ADA)
- Goodyear Aerospace Corp., 813 F.2d 1539 (9th Cir. 1987) (EEOC may seek injunctive relief for discrimination even without pattern or practice pleading)
- Frank's Nursery & Crafts, Inc., 177 F.3d 448 (6th Cir. 1999) (EEOC may obtain permanent injunction even where not alleging pattern or discrimination)
- Hacienda Hotel, 881 F.2d 1504 (9th Cir. 1989) (high burden to show no likelihood of repetition for mootness in injunctions)
- Orantes-Hernandez v. Thornburgh, 919 F.2d 549 (9th Cir. 1990) (factors for determining likelihood of future violations in injunctions)
- Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (Supreme Court 2002) (EEOC may vindicate public interest beyond victim-specific relief)
- United States v. W.T. Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629 (1953) (burden-shifting framework and injunction standards in discrimination cases)
- Ruggles v. California Polytechnic State Univ., 797 F.2d 782 (9th Cir. 1986) (adverse employment decision framework in discrimination claims)
- Int’l Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977) (discriminatory impact can deter applications even without final hiring)
- Humphrey v. Mem’l Hosp. Ass’n, 239 F.3d 1128 (9th Cir. 2001) (interactive process requirement under the ADA)