Three hearing-impaired fans, who successfully sued the Washington Redskins in 2006 for violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), have convinced a federal judge from the District of Maryland to require the Redskins to reimburse them for the attorneys fees associated with bringing the claim.
The ADA passage in question provides that “no individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any person who owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Further: “A public accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.03(c).
A federal judge ruled for the plaintiffs on December 2, 2008, declaring that Title III of the ADA requires that the defendants “provide deaf and hard of hearing fans equal access to the aural information broadcast over the stadium bowl public address system at FedEx Field.”
In the intervening years, the plaintiffs have sought reimbursement for their attorneys’ fees and costs.
The controversy over the fees centered on the fact that the defendants captioned most of the aural content that the plaintiffs sought access to shortly after the complaint was filed. The underlying claim, they argued, “was moot because they had already voluntarily provided accommodations to the plaintiffs, although the defendants maintained that they had no obligation under the ADA to do so. This court found that the case was not moot and granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs.
“This court’s holding rested in part on the fact that the defendants were not providing the plaintiffs with access to the lyrics to music played over the stadium’s public address system. The defendants appealed this court’s summary judgment ruling. The Fourth Circuit agreed with this Court and accordingly affirmed the declaratory judgment requiring the defendants to provide auxiliary access to the aural content broadcast over FedEx Field’s public address system.”
The plaintiffs first moved for attorney’s fees on December 15, 2008, prior to the defendants’ appeal to the Fourth Circuit. After the Fourth Circuit entered its judgment affirming this court’s decision, the plaintiffs again moved for attorney’s fees as authorized by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and in accordance with Local Rule 109.2. Doc. No. 73. In response, the defendants “acknowledged that the hourly rates requested were reasonable, and that the number of hours for which compensation was sought was appropriate.”
However, the defendants also argued that “it was unreasonable for the plaintiffs to pursue this litigation for so long and at such a cost after the defendants had already agreed to and in fact did provide auxiliary services for all of the aural content that was expressly requested in the plaintiffs’ complaint.”
They also “referenced communications made during settlement talks to show that the plaintiffs declined to settle on two occasions because of a failure to agree on attorneys’ fees, resulting in protracted litigation.”
The court noted that “a prevailing plaintiff in an ADA action is generally entitled to recover fees paid to an attorney unless special circumstances render such an award unjust.”Mammano v. Pittston Co., 792 F.2d 1242, 1244 (4th Cir.1986); see also 42 U.S.C. § 12205.
The defendants argued that the plaintiffs should only receive “at most 25 percent” of the requested fees. The plaintiffs countered that their “victory was significant and their case was an important one that will provide guidance to other courts developing the law of the ADA. The plaintiffs argue that the public purpose served by their case makes an award of attorneys’ fees reasonable.”
The court tipped its hand early in its analysis, noting that the defendants “merely restate the same mootness arguments that this court rejected in its summary judgment opinion. This court again rejects the defendants’ argument due to the fact that: (1) the defendants failed to provide most of the services sought by the plaintiffs until after suit was brought, and were free to stop at any time absent a declaratory judgment; and (2) the defendants maintained throughout the suit that they were not required by Title III of the ADA to provide deaf and hard of hearing fans any auxiliary services to ensure equal access to the aural information at FedEx Field other than the assistive listening devices that did not help the plaintiffs.”
Furthermore, it wrote that its 2008 opinion “in this matter was the first to declare that the ADA requires a sports venue to make aural information within the stadium bowl accessible to deaf and hard of hearing fans. The court agrees that this was an important rather than a de minimis victory for the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys’ fees is granted.
Shane Feldman, et al. v. Pro Football, INC., et al.; D. Md.; Civil Action No. 8:06-cv-2266-AW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97252; 8/30/11.
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Joseph B Espo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD; Marc P Charmatz, Rosaline Hayes Crawford, LEAD ATTORNEYS, National Association of the Deaf, Silver Spring, MD. (for Pro Football, Inc., defendant) Brigida Benitez, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; Danielle Yvette Conley, PRO HAC VICE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; Roger William Yoerges, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Washington, DC. (for WFI Stadium, Inc., defendant) Danielle Yvette Conley, PRO HAC VICE, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC; Roger William Yoerges, Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Washington, DC.
