A federal judge denied an attempt by the University of Maryland (UMD) to have the dismissal of its motion for summary judgment reconsidered in a case involving the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the deaf or hard of hearing patrons that attend the school’s sporting events.
The underlying litigation centered on the claims of Dr. Joseph Innes, Daniel Rinas and Sean Markel, who are deaf. The men sued UMD, the Board of Regents, and an athletics administrator for alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 504. The plaintiffs regularly attend sporting events at the Comcast Center and Byrd Stadium, located on the main campus in College Park, and attempt to watch videos on the university’s athletic website. They alleged that the defendants failed to provide effective accommodation for deaf fans both at the games at Byrd Stadium and the Comcast Center and on the University’s athletic website.
Since the summary judgment decision, the University has installed “fully functional ribbon boards in both stadiums,” said Joshua Kaplan, an Associate Athletic Director for Facilities, Operations, and Events at the University of Maryland College Park, who submitted an affidavit, which states in relevant part:
“The ribbon boards have provided captioning of the aural content broadcasted for football games at Byrd Stadium and men’s and women’s basketball games at the Xfinity Center since the beginning of the 2014-15 academic year. In addition, post-game press conferences for both football and men’s and women’s basketball games were captioned beginning with the final home football game on November 29, 2014. Captioning for lacrosse, wrestling, and gymnastics events held in these athletic venues is available if requested on-line two weeks in advance of the event.
“Beginning with the first home football game in August 2014, the ribbon board captioning has been provided by Home Team Captions, a vendor that uses a ‘caption writer.’ The caption writer is an individual who types the captions in real time as the aural content is broadcasted, rather than relying on speech-to-text software to generate captions. The cost to the University for Home Team Captions’ services is $325.00 per basketball game and $565 per football game. Captioning for post-game press conferences is an additional cost.”
In light of those developments, the defendants raised the following arguments in their motion for reconsideration: (1) Plaintiffs now lack standing to pursue equitable and declaratory relief regarding the stadiums; (2) the claims for equitable and declaratory relief as to the stadiums now are moot; (3) the demanded accommodation by Plaintiffs as to the stadiums poses an undue burden as a matter of law; (4) all of Plaintiffs’ claims concerning the stadiums are barred by the statute of limitations; and (5) Plaintiffs waived all claims for monetary damages as to the website.
Regarding the standing argument, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue equitable relief because, by installing the ribbon boards at both stadiums, the university has “remedied the alleged discriminatory conditions of which the plaintiffs complained.” The court disagreed noting that the plaintiffs still have standing “to litigate the issues regarding music captioning and line of sight issues.”
As for the mootness argument, the court noted that “a case may remain live even if the events giving rise to the lawsuit cease.” The court quoted from a similar case, where similar arguments were made — Feldman v. Pro Football, Inc., 579 F. Supp. 2d 697 (D.Md. 2008): “While we commend the defendants for providing most of the relief that plaintiffs requested and for engaging with the plaintiffs on the benefits and burdens of particular auxiliary aids, we agree with the district court that the defendants have not discharged their heavy burden of showing no reasonable expectation that they will repeat their alleged wrongs. Although the defendants were investigating possible auxiliary aids years before the plaintiffs’ lawsuit, they did not actually provide captioning until after the plaintiffs filed their complaint.”
The aforementioned undue burden argument centered on the defendants’ belief that “new evidence confirms the demanded accommodation posed an undue burden.” Specifically, they claimed that the $3.75 million “incurred in connection with the purchase and installation of the captioning boards constitutes an undue hardship.” The court was not interested in “rehashing previous arguments. Evidence presented by both parties concerning ‘undue hardship’ was discussed in the March 16 opinion.”
The statute of limitations claim similarly failed as the court concluded that “the allegedly discriminatory acts fell outside the limitations period, and it is (the defendants’) burden to prove statute of limitations by a preponderance of the evidence. In any event, the plaintiffs do not appear to be seeking damages beyond the three-year time frame.”
Finally the defendants argued again that the plaintiffs “have expressly waived all claims for monetary damages in connection with their failure to accommodate claims as to the university’s Website. It has already been acknowledged in two separate opinions that the plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages for alleged violations of the disability laws with respect to the athletic Website.”
Joseph Innes, et al. v. The Board of Regents of the University System of Maryland, et al.; D. Md.; Civil Action No. DKC 13-2800, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103607; 8/6/15
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Caroline Jackson, LEAD ATTORNEY, National Association of the Deaf, Silver Spring, MD; Joseph B Espo, LEAD ATTORNEY, Brown Goldstein and Levy LLP, Baltimore, MD; Brooke E Lierman, Brown Goldstein Levy, Baltimore, MD. (for defendants) Paul D Raschke, LEAD ATTORNEY, Stephanie Wright Shea, Office of the Attorney General, Educational Affairs Division, Baltimore, MD.
