Paulone v. City of Frederick
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47589
| D. Maryland | 2011Background
- Plaintiff Joette Paulone, deaf, was arrested for DWI on July 31, 2008 and detained at the Frederick County Adult Detention Center (FCADC) from about 2:30 a.m. to 7:00–8:00 a.m. on August 1, 2008, with no ASL interpreter and communication mainly by written notes.
- An American Sign Language interpreter could not be procured for Paulone’s initial appearance before District Court Commissioner Maryanne Riggin, and communication occurred through handwritten notes; Paulone was released on her own recognizance around 7:23 a.m.
- Paulone later pleaded guilty to DWI in October 2008 with probation before judgment, and was required to attend MADD Victim Impact Panel meetings and alcohol/drug evaluation and education through the Drinking Driving Monitor Program (DDMP).
- DDMP monitors initially declined to fund interpreters for the MADD panel and for the alcohol-education evaluation/class, telling Paulone she must arrange for interpreters; Paulone ultimately attended with an ASL interpreter for the evaluation but not for the MADD panel.
- Paulone’s alcohol-education class was eventually completed with a deaf-accessible provider (DASAM) via videophone, after delays and communications among DDMP monitors, her attorney, and service providers.
- Disputes arose over which defendant is proper for the detention-center claims (State vs. County) and whether the State or County bears liability for ADA/ Rehabilitation Act violations and related tort claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper defendant for detention-center ADA claims | County liable for detention-center ADA violations. | State bears liability; County not liable for detention-center actions. | State proper defendant; County summary judgment granted for detention-center claims. |
| Detention-center ADA violation and damages availability | Detention center failed to provide effective communication (interpreter/TTY) amounting to deliberate indifference; damages available. | No deliberate discrimination; no recoverable injury beyond humiliation; disputes on effectiveness of accommodations. | Issues of fact remain; summary judgment denied on some detention-center ADA aspects; state evidence insufficient to bar all liability at this stage. |
| Initial appearance communication before Riggin | No effective communication; interpreter needed; written notes inadequate for full understanding; potential deliberate indifference. | Written notes sufficed; interpreter not obtained due to unavailability; no deliberate indifference. | No damages for initial appearance; State granted summary judgment on monetary damages related to this aspect; other liability unresolved. |
| MADD Victim Impact Panel accommodation | ASL interpreter required; DDMP and State failed to provide one, violating ADA; caused injury and expense. | Panel itself not a public accommodation; responsibility lay with other entities; no injury shown. | Summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the MADD panel due to failure to provide interpreters; State liable for damages to the extent shown. |
| Alcohol education class accommodation | Delay in enrollment due to interpreter issues violated ADA obligations; extension of deadline or alternative accommodations warranted. | Defendant provided an accessible program via videophone with DASAM; delays may have been avoidable but not dispositive. | Summary judgment denied for both sides; jury may resolve reasonable modification/ delay questions; no outright entitlement to relief at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dotson v. Chester, 937 F.2d 920 (4th Cir. 1991) (Monell-like analysis for county liability in state-detention context; final policymaking authority matters in §1983 claims)
- Rosen v. Montgomery County, 121 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 1997) (ADA/§504 applicability to arrests; lack of injury supports no damages)
- Yeskey v. Pa. Dept. of Corrections, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (ADA Title II extends to state prison inmates; voluntariness interpretation rejected)
- Bircoll v. Miami-Dade County, 480 F.3d 1072 (11th Cir. 2007) (Interpreters may be required; framework for determining effective communication; fact-specific)
- Pandazides v. Virginia Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823 (4th Cir. 1994) (Reasonable accommodations framework under ADA/§504; case-specific inquiries)
- Proctor v. Prince George's Hospital Center, 32 F. Supp. 2d 820 (D. Md. 1998) (Damages for failure to provide reasonable accommodations in ADA/§504 context; deliberate indifference standard)
- Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (Reasonable modification inquiry is highly fact-specific; not a bright-line rule)
- Ryan v. Vermont State Police, 667 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Vt. 2009) (Arrestee’s booking process analyzed for effective communication; depends on context)
- Kim an v. New Hampshire Department of Corrections, 451 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 2006) (Reasonable accommodation often triggered by explicit request; notice suffices in obvious needs)