Johnathan Lacy v. Cook County, Illinois, 897 F.3d 847

Background

Five wheelchair-using detainees sued Cook County and the Sheriff under Title II of the ADA and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging inaccessible entrance ramps and holding-cell bathroom facilities at six courthouses.
The district court held a consolidated multi-day hearing on injunctive relief, made extensive factual findings, and entered a permanent injunction ordering changes to the Sheriff’s ramp-assistance policy.
After that ruling the district court granted partial summary judgment for the named plaintiffs on liability for their individual damage claims, relying on its injunctive-relief factual findings, and applied a ‘‘deliberate indifference’’ standard for intentional discrimination damages.
A jury subsequently awarded nominal damages to some plaintiffs; the district court also later granted a supplemental injunction requiring small modifications (moving privacy screens) to two Maywood holding cells.
On appeal the Seventh Circuit concluded the district court improperly resolved fact issues common to both equitable and legal claims before a jury, vacated the partial summary judgment, vacated the jury damage verdicts and the ramp-policy injunction, affirmed class certification, and affirmed the Maywood privacy-screen injunction.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court could rely on its bench findings from injunctive hearing to decide liability for individual damage claims	Plaintiffs argued the court’s factual findings established past ADA violations and supported partial summary judgment on liability	Defendants argued their jury-trial right was preserved and the court improperly usurped factual issues and credibility determinations that belong to a jury	Vacated partial summary judgment; remanded for jury trial on liability because equitable and legal claims sharing facts require jury resolution absent clear waiver
Standard for proving intentional discrimination (compensatory damages) under Title II/§504	Plaintiffs supported deliberate indifference standard (knowledge of substantial likelihood of harm + failure to act)	Defendants urged higher animus-based standard or other limitations	Seventh Circuit adopted deliberate indifference standard for damages under Title II/§504
Class certification of all wheelchair-assigned Cook County Jail detainees	Plaintiffs: class is ascertainable and claims share common questions (ramps, bathrooms, policies) suitable for Rule 23(b)(2) injunctive relief	Defendants: class overbroad, not ascertainable, lack of commonality and typicality, named representatives lack credibility	Affirmed certification under Rule 23(b)(2); class was ascertainable and common questions predominate
Whether County must move Maywood holding-cell privacy screens after alterations (triggering 2010 standards)	Plaintiffs: County’s alterations intended full cell upgrades, so 2010 standards apply; moving screens is feasible	County: alterations were limited, screens are embedded; moving them is technically infeasible	Affirmed injunction ordering screens moved; district court’s factual finding that full-space alteration was intended and moving screens was feasible was not clearly erroneous

Key Cases Cited

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (discusses ADA’s remedial purpose and Title II scope)
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500 (1959) (jury rights when legal and equitable claims are joined)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (1979) (issue preclusion principles where claims are in separate actions)
Lytle v. Household Mfg., Inc., 494 U.S. 545 (1990) (reversal/remand where jury-trial rights were denied for legal issues joined with equitable claims)
Allen v. Int’l Truck & Engine Corp., 358 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 2004) (effect of jury findings on subsequent injunctive relief)
Hussein v. Oshkosh Motor Truck Co., 816 F.2d 348 (7th Cir. 1987) (preservation of jury right on issues common to legal and equitable claims)
New West, L.P. v. City of Joliet, 891 F.3d 271 (7th Cir. 2018) (preference to try jury issues before bench issues)
S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248 (3d Cir. 2013) (adopting deliberate-indifference standard for intentional discrimination under Title II)
Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001) (formulation of deliberate-indifference test)
Liese v. Indian River Cty. Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir. 2012) (deliberate-indifference standard applied)
Love v. Westville Corr. Ctr., 103 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 1996) (elements of a Title II claim)
Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (respect due to DOJ interpretations implementing the ADA)
Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (discussing discrimination by benign neglect and §504 purposes)
Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393 (1975) (standing and class representative considerations)
Kohen v. Pac. Inv. Mgmt. Co., 571 F.3d 672 (7th Cir. 2009) (class definition and whether class includes many uninjured persons)
Jamie S. v. Milwaukee Pub. Sch., 668 F.3d 481 (7th Cir. 2012) (ascertainability and commonality limits)
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011) (commonality requirement for class actions)