121 F. Supp. 3d 354
S.D.N.Y.2015Background
- On Sept. 11, 2011 Diana Williams, who is profoundly deaf and communicates primarily in ASL, was arrested by NYPD after a neighborhood dispute; no ASL interpreter or auxiliary aid was provided from arrest through nearly 24-hour detention and release without charges.
- Witnesses and officers offered conflicting accounts whether a physical assault occurred; officers relied on interviews (some via hearing witnesses) and observed minor marks to conclude both women committed assault.
- Plaintiff alleges violations of Title II of the ADA, §504 of the Rehabilitation Act, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, §1983, and state common-law false arrest and assault/battery.
- The City moved for summary judgment on all claims except discrimination claims limited to detention at the precinct/booking; it argued on-the-street police interactions are not covered by Title II until scene-secured and/or accommodations would have been unreasonable due to exigency or probable cause.
- The Court denied summary judgment: (1) Title II and related statutes may apply to police investigative/custodial activity on-scene; reasonableness of accommodations is fact-specific and informed by exigency; (2) §1983 claims may be brought to vindicate ADA Title II rights; (3) factual disputes precluded summary judgment on municipal liability (failure-to-train/deliberate indifference); (4) denial of summary judgment on false arrest and assault/battery claims because probable cause and the occurrence of the alleged contact are disputed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Title II of the ADA (and §504/NYHRL/NYCHRL) apply to on‑scene police interactions leading to arrest? | Title II covers law‑enforcement services/activities; NYPD must provide reasonable accommodations on scene absent unreasonable safety concerns. | On‑the‑street encounters are not services/programs/activities covered by Title II until scene secured and arrestee booked; exigency excuses accommodations. | Title II applies to investigative/custodial police activity; accommodation reasonableness is case‑specific and may consider exigency. |
| Was failure to provide ASL interpreter reasonable as a matter of law? | Failure was unreasonable here given available potential interpreters/witnesses and no undisputed exigency. | Officers reasonably arrested without interpreter because scene/security concerns and probable cause made accommodations impracticable. | Triable issue exists; record does not show as a matter of law that providing accommodation would have posed unjustifiable safety risk. |
| Is a private §1983 remedy available to enforce Title II rights? | §1983 parallel remedy available; Title II’s remedial scheme does not preclude §1983 (analogous to Title IX analysis). | City argued ADA’s remedial scheme displaces §1983. | Court holds §1983 claim may be brought to enforce Title II rights. |
| Can City be liable under Monell for failure to train re: deaf persons? | City had notice (2009 U.S. settlement) and evidence suggests NYPD training/policies were not effectively implemented — deliberate indifference triable. | City has patrol‑guide policy and some training; no pattern of similar violations and no deliberate indifference as a matter of law. | Denied summary judgment: fact issues (notice, training adequacy, deliberate indifference) for jury. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II prohibits discrimination by public entities in services/programs/activities)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (Remedies for ADA Title II and §504 claims are coextensive with Title VI remedies)
- Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (Title II applies to arrests; exigency informs accommodation reasonableness)
- Seremeth v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Frederick Cnty., 673 F.3d 333 (4th Cir. 2012) (ADA applies to law‑enforcement investigations; reasonableness assessed case‑by‑case)
- Waller ex rel. Estate of Hunt v. Danville, 556 F.3d 171 (4th Cir. 2009) (exigency is relevant to reasonable‑modification inquiry)
- Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978) (municipal liability under §1983 requires an official policy, custom, or deliberate indifference)
- Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011) (failure‑to‑train liability requires demonstrating deliberate indifference by policymakers)