Hummel v. St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners
817 F.3d 1010
7th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (individuals with disabilities and their counsel) sued St. Joseph County and the City of South Bend under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, challenging accessibility of two courthouses (South Bend and Mishawaka) and parking/snow removal near the South Bend courthouse.
- Plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief for alleged barriers: restrooms, elevators, witness stands, jury facilities, podiums, spectator seating, entrance ramps, clerk counters, services for the blind, water fountains, and parking/snow removal.
- After a preliminary injunction hearing, defendants remodeled the South Bend courthouse restrooms so they became ADA-compliant.
- At summary judgment, the district court granted defendants judgment on all remaining claims, largely because plaintiffs lacked standing for many claims and failed to present record evidence opposing defendants’ evidentiary submissions.
- On appeal the Seventh Circuit affirmed: holding varied by claim — many claims failed for lack of standing, others for insufficient evidence; the restroom claim was moot because the county had installed accessible restrooms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief re: Mishawaka Courthouse | Plaintiffs (generally) argued they seek injunctive relief to make Mishawaka accessible | Defendants: no remaining plaintiff has plans to return; injury is speculative | No standing — speculative future harm insufficient for injunction |
| Standing and damages for parking and snow removal near South Bend courthouse | Plaintiffs alleged inaccessible parking and hazardous snow removal impede access | City: accessible-space ratio meets ADA guidelines; plaintiffs have no evidence of past harm or imminent threat | No standing for damages; no injunction for snow removal — risk too speculative |
| Standing via association with disabled attorney | Plaintiffs contend discrimination against their disabled counsel harms them | Defendants: attorney’s hardship is not plaintiff’s injury without evidence of clients’ harm | Association-based standing legally possible but not supported by record; plaintiffs lack standing |
| Damages and injunctive relief for courthouse interior features (elevators, podiums, clerk counters, seating, services for blind, jury facilities) | Plaintiffs assert various features render services not readily accessible | Defendants produced affidavits/statements showing compliance or willingness to accommodate; plaintiffs produced little contrary evidence | No material factual disputes; summary judgment for defendants on merits or for lack of standing (jury facilities and services for blind lacked standing) |
| Restroom accessibility (most promising claim) | Plaintiffs argued restrooms were inaccessible and impeded access | County remodeled and installed ADA-compliant restrooms | Claim moot; injunction dismissed (no reasonable expectation of recurrence) |
| Plaintiffs’ cross-motion for declaratory judgment and injunction (and related request to be prevailing parties for fees) | Plaintiffs sought an order preserving restroom/access policies and recognition as prevailing parties | Defendants: changes mooted relief; no judicial order on merits; no prevailing-party status under Buckhannon | Cross-motion denied as moot; plaintiffs not prevailing parties under Buckhannon |
Key Cases Cited
- Rawoof v. Texor Petroleum Co., 521 F.3d 750 (7th Cir. 2008) (standard of review for summary judgment and standing issues)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (plaintiff bears burden of proof on standing; allegations insufficient at summary judgment)
- City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (injunctive relief requires "real and immediate" threat of future injury)
- Scherr v. Marriott International, Inc., 703 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2013) (standing for injunctive relief requires concrete threat of future violation)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment procedural standards; nonmovant must present evidence beyond pleadings)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S. 2000) (voluntary compliance may moot claims but defendant bears heavy burden to show recurrence unlikely)
- Buckhannon Board & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dept. of Health & Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (plaintiffs cannot be "prevailing parties" for fee awards solely because defendant voluntarily changed conduct)
- Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724 (7th Cir. 2008) (court will not infer facts based on speculation to defeat summary judgment)
- American Bottom Conservancy v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 650 F.3d 652 (7th Cir. 2011) (probability of future injury counts for standing)
- Carroll v. Lynch, 698 F.3d 561 (7th Cir. 2012) (age/condition of elevator alone insufficient to show lack of ready accessibility)