Court's refusal to provide videotext display for person with hearing impairment violated ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement

Law Reporter, Dec 2001

Court's refusal to provide videotext display for person with hearing impairment violated ADA's reasonable accommodation requirement.

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001).

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a trial court's refusal to provide videotext display to an individual with a hearing impairment violated the reasonable accommodation requirement of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. (sec) 12101 et seq.

Here, Duvall, who has a severe hearing impairment, was a party in a divorce action. His request for videotext display during the proceedings was denied, and the trial court subsequently denied his motion for a mistrial based on the court's refusal to provide the display. Duvall sued the county, alleging, among other claims, that defendant violated the ADA by denying him the use of videotext display. The trial court granted defendant summary judgment.

Reversing, the Ninth Circuit noted that plaintiff, as an individual with a hearing impairment, is protected by the ADA. Thus, the primary issue is whether defendant was required to provide videotext display as a reasonable accommodation for plaintiff's disability. The implementing regulations of the ADA provide, in part, that a public entity must furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services to an individual with a disability. These regulations specifically mention videotext displays as a method of making materials available to individuals with hearing impairments, the court said.

The court rejected defendant's argument that videotext display was not a reasonable accommodation because it was not available to the county at the time of plaintiff's case. Plaintiff presented evidence that one of defendant's court reporters was familiar with videotext display, and that other court reporters outside the area were available to provide the service at the time of his trial. In addition, firms from the surrounding areas were able to provide videotext display. Mere speculation that a requested accommodation is not reasonable, the court said, is not sufficient to satisfy the ADA. Rather, the act creates a duty on the part of public entities to gather sufficient information from the individual requesting accommodation and qualified experts to determine what accommodations are necessary, the court noted.

The court also rejected defendant's argument that it provided reasonable accommodations to plaintiff-specifically, an assistive listening device and a specially equipped courtroom-sufficient to satisfy the ADA. Plaintiff presented evidence that the listening device was inappropriate for his needs because it would have required him to remove his hearing aids, which are precisely adjusted to his hearing needs. He also offered evidence that, despite the use of the specially equipped courtroom, he was unable to participate equally in the trial. Thus, there is a material issue of fact as to whether defendant's refusal to provide videotext display prevented plaintiff from participating equally in the trial, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Plaintiffs Counsel

Lonnie Davis, Seattle, Wash.

Christopher K. Steuart, Seattle, Wash.