Robert Furgess v. PA Dept of Corrections
933 F.3d 285
| 3rd Cir. | 2019Background
- Robert Furgess, a Pennsylvania inmate with myasthenia gravis, was previously provided accessible accommodations (accessible shower, cell relocation, leg braces) while in general population.
- In December 2015 he was moved to the Restrictive Housing Unit (RHU), which lacked handicapped-accessible showers; he repeatedly requested accommodation but went ~3 months without showering.
- When escorted to a shower in March 2016, staff provided a non‑accessible shower and an armless plastic chair; Furgess fell, was injured, and now uses a wheelchair.
- Furgess filed grievances that were denied and then sued the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for failing to provide an accessible shower.
- The District Court dismissed with prejudice, holding that provision of showers is not a "service, program, or activity" under the ADA/RA; Furgess appealed.
- The Third Circuit vacated the dismissal and remanded, holding that showers are covered and that Furgess adequately alleged causation and deliberate indifference.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether provision of showers is a "service, program, or activity" under Title II/Section 504 | Showers are part of a prison's operations and thus fall within the statutes' broad coverage | Showers are not programs/activities; such claims are medical/treatment disputes (relying on Bryant) | Provision of showers constitutes a service/program/activity under ADA and RA |
| Whether Furgess was denied a shower "by reason of" his disability (causation) | The lack of an accessible shower in RHU directly caused deprivation; disability was sole/but‑for cause | Deprivation resulted from being housed in RHU (due to misconduct), not from disability | Housing placement does not defeat causation; Furgess pleaded causation under both RA and ADA standards |
| Whether PDOC acted with requisite intent (deliberate indifference) | PDOC knew of need (prior accommodation, repeated requests, staff awareness) and failed to act for months | PDOC contends absence of discriminatory animus; cites cases distinguishing mere dissatisfaction with accommodations | Allegations satisfy deliberate indifference: knowledge of likely violation and failure to act |
| Whether dismissal on 12(b)(6) was appropriate | Complaint plausibly alleged covered harm and deliberate indifference | District Court relied on precedent excluding showers from coverage and dismissed with prejudice | Dismissal vacated; complaint survives 12(b)(6) and case remanded for further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Jaros v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 684 F.3d 667 (7th Cir. 2012) (meals and showers made available to inmates are programs/activities under Section 504)
- Armstrong v. Schwarzenegger, 622 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2010) (examples of prison programs include toilet and bathing facilities)
- Kiman v. New Hampshire Dept. of Corrections, 451 F.3d 274 (1st Cir. 2006) (indicates Title II covers access to showering aids; factual disputes can preclude summary judgment)
- United States v. Georgia, 546 U.S. 151 (2006) (prison refusal to accommodate disabilities in mobility, hygiene, medical care can deny benefits of services/programs under Title II)
- Bryant v. Madigan, 84 F.3d 246 (7th Cir. 1996) (holds ADA does not create remedy for medical malpractice; characterized sleeping/ incarceration as not a program/activity)