Ovens v. Danberg
149 A.3d 1021
Del.2016Background
- Robert Ovens, a deaf inmate at Sussex Correctional Institution (SCI), complained that DOC and Warden Johnson denied or restricted access to text telephone service and failed to provide interpreters for classes and meetings.
- Ovens filed an Equal Accommodations Law (6 Del. C. § 4504(a)) complaint with the Delaware Human Relations Commission alleging disability discrimination.
- The Commission initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, then—after remand and briefing—found DOC violated § 4504(a) and awarded damages, penalties, fees, and costs.
- The Superior Court reversed, holding a prison is not a "place of public accommodation" under 6 Del. C. § 4502(14), and relied on its Short v. State of Delaware decision.
- The Delaware Supreme Court reviewed whether a prison qualifies as a "place of public accommodation" under the statute and limited its analysis to that threshold issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a prison is a "place of public accommodation" under 6 Del. C. § 4502(14) | Ovens: DOC is a state agency and the statute expressly "includes state agencies," so SCI is a public accommodation. | DOC/Warden: The statutory definition requires an establishment that "caters to or offers goods or services or facilities to, or solicits patronage from, the general public," which prisons do not do. | Court: A prison is not a public accommodation; the inclusion of state agencies applies only if the agency performs functions that meet the core definition (serving/soliciting the general public). |
| Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to decide Ovens' complaint | Ovens: Commission has jurisdiction because SCI is a covered public accommodation. | DOC/Warden: Commission lacks jurisdiction because SCI is not covered. | Court: Commission lacked jurisdiction because SCI is not a place of public accommodation under the statute. |
| Whether statutory text is ambiguous and requires more than plain-language reading | Ovens: Relied on second-sentence inclusion of state agencies to expand coverage. | DOC/Warden: Statute's plain language limits coverage to entities that cater to/offer services to the general public. | Court: Applied plain-language interpretation; second sentence is clarifying, not expansive on its own. |
| Whether alternative remedies under federal law were implicated | Ovens: Cited ADA authority to suggest state institutions can be covered. | DOC/Warden: Delaware statute differs from ADA; ADA covers public entities differently. | Court: Not reached on merits; noted Ovens might have had relief under ADA § 12132 or § 1983 but did not pursue them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rapposelli v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 988 A.2d 425 (Del. 2010) (de novo review applies to questions of law, including statutory interpretation)
- Hazout v. Tsang Mun Ting, 134 A.3d 274 (Del. 2016) (statutory interpretation requires giving effect to plain language of unambiguous statutes)
- Pa. Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (the ADA includes State prisons and prisoners within its coverage)
- Boggerty v. Stewart, 14 A.3d 542 (Del. 2011) (elements required to prove denial of access to a public accommodation under Delaware law)