Seventh Circuit Affirms Denial of ADA Claims Against Police for Failure to Provide ASL Interpreter: Use of Minor Children and Cost Imposition Upheld

Introduction

In the case of Renee Lange v. City of Oconto and City of Oconto Falls, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed claims brought forward by Renee Lange, a deaf plaintiff, alleging violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Lange contended that the cities' police departments failed to provide qualified American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters during four interactions in 2016 and 2017, instead relying on her minor children for interpretation. The district court ruled in favor of the cities, a decision that Lange appealed. This commentary delves into the appellate court's reasoning, the legal principles applied, and the broader implications of the judgment.

Summary of the Judgment

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's verdict, which found in favor of the Cities of Oconto and Oconto Falls. The jury concluded that the cities did not violate the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act by not providing ASL interpreters, as the police officers had effectively communicated with Lange through alternative means like pen and paper, lip reading, and minor child interpretation in the absence of emergencies. Additionally, the court upheld the decision to impose costs of $1,000 on Lange, considering her indigent status. The appellate court found no reversible error in the jury instructions, admissibility of certain testimonies, or the cost imposition, thereby maintaining the district court's rulings.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The decision heavily relied on existing precedents and regulations related to the ADA. Notably, the court referenced:

28 C.F.R. § 35.160: The Department of Justice's regulations on effective communication, specifically prohibiting reliance on minor children as interpreters except in emergencies.
Chelmsburg v. City of Chicago: Highlighting the necessity of effective communication methods under Title II of the ADA.
CHRISTIANSBURG GARMENT CO. v. EEOC: Discussing the standards for awarding attorney's fees, though distinguishing between fees and costs.
Lacy v. Cook County: Defining intentional discrimination as deliberate indifference.

These precedents underscored the legal framework within which the court evaluated the adequacy of communication provided to Lange and the appropriateness of imposing costs.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning can be distilled into several key points:

Jury Instructions: The appellate court reviewed the jury instructions concerning the use of minor children as interpreters. It found that even if the instructions misrepresented the law, the error was not prejudicial enough to warrant a new trial.
Effective Communication: The court acknowledged that the ADA mandates effective communication methods. However, it concluded that the police had sufficient alternative means to communicate with Lange, negating the necessity for a qualified ASL interpreter.
Use of Minor Children: Relying on minor children as interpreters is generally prohibited under ADA regulations unless in emergency situations. The court upheld the district court's stance that the cities did not violate these provisions during non-emergency interactions.
Imposition of Costs: Considering Lange's indigency, the court upheld the imposition of reduced costs, finding that the district court appropriately balanced factors such as good faith, the non-frivolous nature of the lawsuit, and the outcome of the trial.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the standards for effective communication under the ADA, particularly in law enforcement contexts. By affirming that police departments must provide qualified interpreters and not rely on minor children except in emergencies, the court upholds the integrity of communication required by disabled individuals. Additionally, the decision on cost imposition underscores the judiciary's role in balancing legal outcomes with the financial capacities of indigent litigants, potentially influencing future cases involving civil rights claims and associated costs.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Title II of the ADA

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by public entities. It requires these entities to provide effective communication, ensuring that individuals with disabilities can fully participate in programs and services.

Effective Communication

In the context of the ADA, effective communication means that public entities must employ appropriate auxiliary aids and services (like qualified interpreters) to facilitate clear and complete interaction with individuals with disabilities.

CHAIR vs. MINOR CHILD INTERPRETATION

The regulations specify that public entities should not use minor children as interpreters except in urgent emergencies. This is to prevent placing children in inappropriate roles and to ensure objective and accurate interpretation.

Intentionally Discriminatory Conduct

For a discrimination claim to be valid, the plaintiff must show that the defendant acted with deliberate indifference to their rights. This means proving that the defendant knew that a violation was likely and failed to take appropriate action.

Imposition of Costs

After a court case, the losing party may be required to pay court costs incurred by the winning party. However, courts can adjust these costs based on the losing party's financial situation, especially if they are indigent.

Conclusion

The Seventh Circuit's affirmation in Lange v. City of Oconto and City of Oconto Falls underscores the rigorous standards required for claims under the ADA regarding effective communication. By upholding the prohibition on using minor children as interpreters in non-emergency situations, the court reinforces the necessity for qualified auxiliary aids in ensuring nondiscriminatory interactions. Additionally, the decision to impose costs on an indigent plaintiff, albeit in a reduced amount, highlights the court's balanced approach to judicial outcomes and financial considerations. This judgment serves as a pivotal reference for future cases involving disability rights, effective communication obligations of public entities, and the assessment of legal costs in civil rights litigation.