Loye v. County of Dakota
625 F.3d 494
| 8th Cir. | 2010Background
- In Sep. 6, 2004, mercury was released at a playground; SOT decontaminated 49 exposed individuals, including four plaintiffs who are deaf.
- Plaintiffs (Loye, Gist, Marshall, Stiles) later filed MHRA charges alleging failure to provide ASL interpreters by Dakota County, Rosemount, Minnesota, and Red Cross; state proceedings yielded No Probable Cause against some responders.
- The district court granted Dakota County summary judgment, finding plaintiffs had meaningful access during three periods: decontamination, large-group meetings, and individual nurse meetings.
- Plaintiffs argued interpreters were needed at decontamination and that the large-group and private meetings lacked full accessibility.
- The court analyzed ADA/RA/MHRA claims together, applying ‘meaningful access’ standard and evaluating communications across the three periods.
- On appeal, the Eighth Circuit panel affirmed summary judgment, holding Dakota County provided meaningful access given exigent circumstances and the nature of the communications.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Dakota County violated ADA/RA/MHRA by failing to provide interpreters during decontamination | Loye/Gist/Marshall/Stiles contend interpreters were required. | SOT communicated effectively under emergency conditions; interpreters not necessary | No; meaningful access found under emergency conditions |
| Whether large-group meetings afforded effective communication for deaf evacuees | Interpreters were not consistently present at all meetings. | Overall series provided effective communication; not every meeting required an interpreter. | Yes; overall meetings provided meaningful access |
| Whether individual meetings with Nurse Greeley provided effective communication | Greeley often lacked interpreters for complex questions. | Greeley used interpreters at times and relied on lipreading/writing; services sufficient. | Yes; individual communications constituted meaningful access |
| Whether Dakota County can be held liable for interpreters at SOT decontamination due to joint liability with other responders | County liable for lack of interpreters. | County not responsible for actions of multi-agency SOT; liability not proven. | Not reached/not necessary to decide governing liability for SOT |
| Whether 28 C.F.R. § 35.160 requires literal equivalence of communication with deaf and non-deaf individuals | Regulation requires equally effective communications for plaintiffs. | Title II tolerates not identical results but equal opportunity to benefit. | Not required to produce identical results; deemed Dakota County effective |
Key Cases Cited
- Randolph v. Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850 (8th Cir. 1999) (meaningful access under ADA/RA; deference to public entity discretion)
- Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2009) (auxiliary aids and services; appropriate communication methods)
- Gorman v. Bartch, 152 F.3d 907 (8th Cir. 1998) (ADA/RA equality of access standards)
- Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287 (1985) (meaningful access, not identical health outcomes)
- Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007) (emergency communications; feasibility of interpreters under urgency)
- Robertson v. Las Animas County Sheriff's Dep't, 500 F.3d 1185 (10th Cir. 2007) (summary judgment denial for detainee's communication access issues)
- Aikins v. St. Helena Hosp., 843 F. Supp. 1329 (N.D. Cal. 1994) (communication with hearing-impaired family members; access standards)