Promoting, Dignity, Equality and Self-Determination
Washington Protection & Advocacy System
Home ׀
About WPAS ׀
News ׀
Self-Advocacy
׀ Public Policy
׀ Publications
׀ Contact
WPAS
E-Mail Updates
׀ Support WPAS
׀ Search
Hear Ye, Hear Ye . . .
The ADA is Now in Session
by Michael Smith
December 17, 2001
Every court of law must ensure that any person directly involved in a court proceeding is provided full access to the judicial process and reasonable accommodation. It also is the duty of any judge to maintain the highest principles of fairness throughout any judicial proceedings. Any county government must ensure that people with disabilities are provided access and accommodation in all county facilities and activities, including in court.
If you need to go to court, will you get the accommodation for your disability that you need in order to participate? In some places, barriers to courthouses and court programs can prevent individuals from fully participating in the judicial process. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) says that people with disabilities must be allowed to file grievances against county courts, and those courts must have a process in place for that purpose. The story that follows is unique, but is also representative of the hurdles people with disabilities often face in trying to access justice in our court systems. ADA accommodation issues extend to many people with disabilities, including jurors, court observers as well as people directly involved in litigation. Courts throughout the state sometimes have difficulty in meeting their legal requirements to accommodate individuals with disabilities. When that happens, individuals need to stand up for their rights.
Access to Court
Chris Duvall first contacted WPAS back in 1995. He has a severe hearing impairment, uses a hearing aid, and has great difficulty distinguishing individual voices, especially in a large or crowded room. His primary mode of receiving communication is through the written word.
Chris told his lawyer in 1994 before his divorce trial about his need for real-time video-text display, similar to what was used in the O.J. Simpson trial. With this display, the court reporter types what is spoken in the courtroom, and it is immediately displayed on a television monitor. Because of the specific nature of Chris’ disability and the way he processes information, he needs the visual input of seeing the written transcript in order to understand and assist his attorney.
Chris told the court about his disability, and submitted a declaration, a doctor’s statement and other medical evidence supporting his request for accommodation. The opposing attorney told the judge that Chris only "claims" to be handicapped, and that his wearing hearing aids is just like wearing glasses, so he would not need accommodation. The judge agreed, and denied Chris’ accommodation request.
But Chris didn’t give up. He then asked the staff at the court about accommodation, and was directed to the county Risk Manager, who also served as the ADA contact person.
The county Risk Manager sent Chris to other court staff who, after consulting with the judge, told Chris that the video-text display was not available or not accurate, and that he didn’t need it. Staff also told Chris that video-text was not available in that county, but that there was one courtroom that had some headsets to amplify the proceedings, which could be used. Chris was also offered an oral interpreter and sign interpreter, which would not help him. He was told he would have to file a motion in court for accommodation. He was not advised of any county ADA grievance procedures.
Again, right before trial, Chris asked the court for video-text display. The judge said no, and stated that "the way humans happen to communicate, I guess up until a very recent time, with one another is orally." Chris was deeply offended and upset by the judge’s statements, which seemed to him to describe him as less than human.
The Trial
At the second day of trial, the court reporter, noticing the obvious difficulty Chris was having with understanding the proceedings, told Chris during a break that she was trained in video-text display, and could have provided it at the trial if a portable computer had been available. In fact, even back in 1995, court reporters were available from other counties to provide video-text transcription at all stages of Chris’s court proceedings.
His lawyer renewed Chris’ motion for accommodation at the time the final orders were entered in August, 1995. The trial judge conceded that there was no dispute that Chris has "a severe hearing impairment," but stated that, based on his courtroom observations of Chris, "at no time have I perceived that [Chris] did not hear or understand what was proceeding in the courtroom." The request for accommodation was again denied, as well as a request for new trial. The judge simply would not recognize Chris’ need for, or preference for, accommodation.
ADA Grievance
Once again, Chris refused to give up. He filed an ADA grievance with the county and appealed his case in state court. The judge continued to deny Chris’ requests for reasonable accommodation as Chris represented himself in post-trial hearings in August and September of 1995.
Despite the grievances, the county had still not agreed to provide the requested accommodation when Chris was in court. Finally in September of 1995, WPAS Staff Attorney Michael Smith, as part of a WPAS investigation into Chris’ complaint, discussed the request for reasonable accommodation with a county prosecutor. After this meeting, the county provided real time video-text for all of Chris’ court appearances.
Subsequently, Chris submitted a complaint letter to the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting that it investigate these issues. He also continued to pursue an ADA grievance against the county, and in so doing, Chris discovered that the county was non-compliant with the requirements of the ADA. Although the county did designate a contact person to coordinate ADA complaints and grievances, that individual had no authority to take action prior to receiving a grievance, or to ensure that grievance procedures were working properly. Not only had the county failed to provide needed courtroom accommodations, they had not designated an ADA coordinator. Furthermore, they failed to train staff on how to process accommodation requests or grievance procedures.
The System CAN Work
In contrast to his experience in his county’s Superior Court, Chris visited the U. S. Western District Federal Court in Seattle to discuss accommodation. Court personnel immediately (and appropriately) asked him to describe his needs for accommodation, and discussed that court’s on-going effort to comply fully with the ADA and provide full access to people with disabilities.
Chris, represented by Lonnie Davis, Director and attorney with the Disabilities Law Project in Seattle, Washington, filed a lawsuit against the county where he had failed to receive an accommodation. Lawsuits are rarely quick or straightforward, and Chris had to go through months of legal wrangling.
However, at long last, the court sided with Chris. The decision, Duvall v. County of Kitsap (No. 99-35934, found at 21 NDLR P 154), is a strong affirmation of the right to accommodation in court proceedings, and outlines clearly the responsibilities of county officials to ensure that all courtroom participants have access to justice, regardless of their disabilities.
Chris’ experience is not unique. Many counties in Washington are slow in opening the courthouse doors to persons with disabilities.
If you experience discrimination at the county courthouse, or in any government facility or service, demand to contact the county ADA coordinator and request the necessary accommodation. If the problem is not resolved you can file a grievance. You can also refer your county officials to these resources, published by the American Bar Association:
 | Opening the Courthouse Door – ADA Access Guide for State Courts (1992) |
| Into the Jury Box: A Disability Accommodation Guide for State Courts (1994) |
● Back to Envoy Archives ● Back to Envoy Online ● Back to Home Page ●
