Wortham v. Benton Police Department
4:19-cv-00069
E.D. Ark.Jan 6, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Brandi Wortham, a profoundly deaf individual, sued the City of Benton alleging violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act for failing to provide effective communication (refusing ASL interpreters) during multiple interactions with the Benton Police Department.
- Wortham and the City both moved for summary judgment; the court denied both motions in a September 13, 2021 Order, finding the issues to be context-dependent and fact-intensive.
- The City moved for reconsideration under Rule 60(b), arguing the court misapplied the law, conflated its arguments, and that the record does not support deliberate indifference or lack of meaningful access.
- The Court reviewed governing standards for reconsideration and Rule 60(b) relief and emphasized that such relief requires exceptional circumstances and is not a vehicle to relitigate the merits.
- The Court denied the City’s motion for reconsideration on January 6, 2022, holding that the City failed to show extraordinary circumstances and that genuine disputes of material fact remain on outcome-determinative issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BPD denied Wortham the benefit of a public service by failing to provide effective communication/meaningful access | Wortham: BPD’s refusal to provide ASL interpreters deprived her of effective communication and meaningful access | City: BPD provided effective communication and meaningful access; no legal violation occurred | Court: Denied summary judgment; left issue for factfinder—context-dependent, fact-intensive inquiry; genuine disputes remain |
| Whether Wortham can, as a matter of law, show denial of services | Wortham: Facts show denial across multiple interactions | City: Wortham cannot as a matter of law prove denial of benefit | Court: Rejected City’s as‑a‑matter‑of‑law argument; citation to Eighth Circuit; issue remains for trial |
| Whether the City manifested deliberate indifference in communications | Wortham: Repeated failures to provide interpreters show deliberate indifference and support damages | City: Record does not show deliberate indifference in any interaction | Court: Fact issue for jury; genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary resolution |
| Whether the City established grounds for reconsideration under Rule 60(b) | City: Court misinterpreted arguments and law; asks correction of interlocutory order | Wortham: No exceptional circumstances; motion relitigates merits | Court: Denied motion—no extraordinary or exceptional circumstances; Rule 60(b) relief inappropriate to relitigate facts/law |
Key Cases Cited
- Lovett v. Gen. Motors Corp., 975 F.2d 518 (8th Cir. 1992) (district courts have inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders)
- In re Zimmerman, 869 F.2d 1126 (8th Cir. 1989) (Rule 60(b)(6) relief requires exceptional circumstances)
- Durand v. Fairview Health Servs., 902 F.3d 836 (8th Cir. 2018) (effective-communication and meaningful-access determinations are context-dependent and fact-intensive)
- Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407 (8th Cir. 1988) (motions for reconsideration are not a vehicle to raise arguments that could have been made earlier)
- Jones v. Swanson, 512 F.3d 1045 (8th Cir. 2008) (Rule 60(b) provides extraordinary relief only upon adequate showing of exceptional circumstances)
- Crane v. Lifemark Hosp., Inc., 898 F.3d 1130 (11th Cir. 2018) (effectiveness of auxiliary aids/services is inherently fact-intensive)