Innes v. Board of Regents of the University System
29 F. Supp. 3d 566
D. Maryland2014Background
- Three deaf plaintiffs (Innes, Rinas, Markel) attend University of Maryland athletic events and use the university athletics website (TerpsTV); audio content at stadiums and on the site lacks captions.
- Stadiums (Byrd Stadium and Comcast Center) use public-address announcements and video displays (Jumbotron, scoreboards, ribbon boards); plaintiffs allege no captions are shown on those venue displays.
- University began offering captions via smartphone/tablet streaming during 2013–2014 season; plaintiffs allege that hand-held device captioning is ineffective (sunlight/readability, inability to use ASL while holding device, connectivity/timeliness, visual strain, inability to view Jumbotron simultaneously).
- Plaintiffs contacted the university (including Innes’ pre-2007 requests and a February 8, 2013 letter) requesting visible captions on venue displays; suit filed September 2013; second amended complaint asserts Title II ADA and Section 504 Rehabilitation Act claims seeking injunctive, declaratory, and compensatory relief.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on multiple grounds: statute of limitations, redundancy of official-capacity defendants, failure to state a claim (reasonable modification / auxiliary aids), and insufficiency of notice for damages.
- Court denied dismissal as to Board of Regents and venue-based claims (communications/auxiliary aids), dismissed President Loh in official capacity as redundant, and allowed compensatory damages claim to proceed as to venue captioning (not website damages which plaintiffs abandoned).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for venue claims | Claims are continuing: each event without effective communication restarts limitations | Claims accrued at facility construction/renovation (2002/2007); thus time-barred | Continuing-violation theory plausibly pleaded; not time-barred at dismissal stage |
| Proper parties (President Loh and Board of Regents) | Need both President (to effect injunctive relief) and Board of Regents (ultimate control) | President is redundant (official-capacity suit duplicates university); Board lacks operational authority and is redundant | President Loh dismissed as redundant; Board of Regents remains a proper defendant at this stage |
| Failure to state Title II / §504 claim for venue captioning | Hand-held captioning is not effective; plaintiffs seek auxiliary aids (Jumbotron/scoreboard captioning) and reasonable modification | ADA/regs do not mandate retrofitting venue displays; offered hand-held captions are adequate | Plaintiffs plausibly alleged failure to provide effective communication; factual disputes (effectiveness, undue burden) inappropriate on 12(b)(6); claim survives |
| Compensatory damages (intent/deliberate indifference / notice) | Prior requests (Innes pre-2007; Feb. 8, 2013 letter) and this lawsuit put defendants on notice; offering lesser hand-held captions supports damages theory | Two plaintiffs lack individualized notice; no deliberate indifference alleged | Plaintiffs adequately pleaded notice and deliberate-indifference plausibly; compensatory damages claim for venue captioning survives (website damages abandoned) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state plausible claim)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (legal conclusions insufficient; plausibility standard)
- Mosier v. Kentucky, 675 F. Supp. 2d 693 (service-access continuing violation; lack of auxiliary aids can be ongoing violation)
- Feldman v. Pro Football, Inc., 419 Fed. Appx. 381 (stadium captioning and access to public-address information)
- A Soc’y Without A Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (continuing-violation accrual analysis)
- Constantine v. Rectors & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (analysis of ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against public entities)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 575 F.3d 432 (distinguishing facility-access and service-access accrual)
- Proctor v. Prince George’s Hosp. Ctr., 32 F. Supp. 2d 820 (deliberate indifference standard for damages under Rehabilitation Act)
- Pandazides v. Va. Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823 (remedies available under Title II and Rehabilitation Act)
- Will v. Mich. Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 (official-capacity suits are suits against the office/state)