Seremeth v. BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS FREDERICK COUNTY
673 F.3d 333
| 4th Cir. | 2012Background
- Seremeth, deaf, and his family familiarly interact with deputies when a 9-1-1 call about alleged abuse leads to a welfare check at his home.
- Deputies arrive with weapons drawn, handcuff Seremeth behind his back, and interview his children without a qualified interpreter.
- Seremeth and his father attempt to communicate via notes or lip-reading; an ASL interpreter is requested but an on-scene interpreter is not promptly provided.
- The sheriff's department has a contract with WeInterpret for interpreter services, including emergency interpreters within an hour, but the on-scene process continues for about an hour.
- Seremeth sues under the Rehabilitation Act and Title II of the ADA, alleging discrimination due to lack of reasonable accommodations during the investigation.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding the ADA/Rehabilitation Act do not require such accommodations in police investigations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA Title II applies to a police investigation. | Seremeth argues ADA applies to investigations and requires accommodations. | Appellees contend investigations fall outside ADA scope or require no accommodations. | ADA applies to investigations; accommodations analyzed under reasonableness. |
| Whether the deputies provided reasonable accommodations under the ADA. | Seremeth asserts failure to provide front-of-body handcuffing or a qualified interpreter violated accommodations. | Appellees contend exigent circumstances justified the accommodations made. | Under exigent circumstances, accommodations were reasonable; additional requests would be unreasonable. |
| Whether the use of handcuffs behind the back impeded communication constituting a discrimination injury. | Seremeth claims injury from lack of effective communication due to handcuffing and limited note-writing. | Handcuffing was standard safety measure given the domestic disturbance context and did not discriminate. | Injury from denial of effective communication recognized; accommodations deemed reasonable under circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rosen v. Montgomery County, 121 F.3d 154 (4th Cir. 1997) (injury-grounded ADA analysis; limited reasoning on pre-arrest discrimination)
- Pennsylvania Dept. of Corrections v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (U.S. (1998)) (ADA scope includes disability discrimination in state programs; broad interpretation supports coverage)
- Waller v. Danville, 556 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2009) (ADA reasonable accommodation during police interrogation or arrest recognized)
- Pandazides v. Va. Bd. of Educ., 13 F.3d 823 (4th Cir. 1994) (reasonableness of accommodations fact-specific in investigations)
- Constantine v. Rectors and Visitors of George Mason Univ., 411 F.3d 474 (4th Cir. 2005) (disjunctive 'services, programs, or activities' context in ADA analysis)