200 F. Supp. 3d 237
D.D.C.2016Background
- Plaintiff Darcy White, who is deaf, had her wallet stolen in Sept. 2011 and, after fraudulent charges, was directed by Bank of America to its Fraud Department to transfer funds and close an account.
- White called the Fraud Department on Sept. 30, 2011 using a video relay service; the Fraud Department initially screened her successfully but then refused to accept third‑party relay calls under a then‑existing guideline and required TTY or an in‑branch visit.
- White’s TTY was not working, so she visited a branch in person and ultimately completed the transaction; she alleges emotional harms and lost time but no monetary loss.
- Discovery showed Bank of America had (1) a Fraud Department guideline then prohibiting third‑party relay calls (later rescinded in Feb. 2012), (2) a policy transferring third‑party relay calls from branches to call centers, and (3) a now‑defunct overnight delivery restriction for customers using third‑party relay services (also rescinded).
- Procedurally, parties cross‑moved for summary judgment. The court denied White’s motion and granted Bank of America’s motion in part, disposing of federal claims and injunctive claims, but retained supplemental jurisdiction over White’s remaining DCHRA compensatory‑damages claim and ordered further briefing limited to that claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge call center and overnight delivery policies | White contends knowledge of discriminatory policies suffices to show deterrence and injury under Title III ADA | Bank argues White never alleged or showed she was deterred by these specific policies and so lacks the modified ADA injury‑in‑fact | Bank: White lacks standing as she did not plead or show deterrence by those two policies; summary judgment for Bank on those claims |
| Mootness of injunctive relief for Fraud Department guideline | White seeks injunctive relief to prohibit the guideline | Bank argues it rescinded the guideline and there is no reasonable expectation it will be reenacted, so claims are moot | Court finds claims for injunctive relief moot under Larsen and related precedent; summary judgment for Bank on injunctive ADA, §504, and DCHRA claims |
| Whether Bank is subject to suit under §504 (receipt of Federal financial assistance) | White argues Bank receives federal financial assistance via participation in SBA, FHA, and VA guaranteed/insured loan programs | Bank argues such guaranty/insurance contracts are excluded from §504’s definition of federal financial assistance; intended recipients are borrowers, not banks | Court adopts regulations and precedent excluding guaranty/insurance contracts; grants summary judgment to Bank on §504 compensatory damages claim |
| DCHRA compensatory damages claim (pendent state claim) | White seeks compensatory damages under D.C. law for discrimination | Bank moves for summary judgment on remaining DCHRA claim | Court denies both summary judgment motions on DCHRA damages, retains supplemental jurisdiction, and orders limited further briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Larsen v. U.S. Navy, 525 F.3d 1 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (voluntary cessation/mootness framework for discontinued policies)
- Gallagher v. Croghan Colonial Bank, 89 F.3d 275 (6th Cir. 1996) (loan guaranty/insurance does not make bank a §504 recipient)
- Moore v. Sun Bank of N. Fla., N.A., 923 F.2d 1423 (11th Cir. 1991) (contrasting view on guaranty programs and §504 applicability)
- U.S. Dep’t of Transp. v. Paralyzed Veterans of Am., 477 U.S. 597 (1986) (focus on intended recipient in determining federal financial assistance)
- County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625 (1979) (mootness: case is moot when issues are no longer live)