ILNews

Right to equal access at center of federal lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A courtroom spectator’s persistent requests to two trial courts for an interpreter raises questions of how accessible Indiana courts should be for people who have disabilities as well as how much control the state judiciary has over local judges.

The questions escalated into a lawsuit filed in April 2012 in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division, naming two county judges, the Indiana Supreme Court and Chief Justice Brent Dickson among the defendants.

Vargas Vargas

Dueling motions for judgment – one for partial, the other for summary – have been filed and the U.S. Department of Justice weighed in Jan. 7 with a statement of interest.

Plaintiffs Steven Prakel and his mother, Carolyn Prakel, claim the defendants violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by denying the family equal access to the courts.

They want the state to reimburse them for the money they spent to hire a sign language interpreter and to have a trial to consider compensatory damages for the discrimination. They also want the District Court to declare that the defendants were required to provide auxiliary aids and services to ensure Steven Prakel had access to court proceedings.

The central issue in this case, said the Prakels’ attorney Mary Vargas, is access to open public proceedings for all members of the public, regardless of whether the individual is a party to the case, a family member or someone who is interested in the proceeding.

“This is not rocket science,” Vargas said. “The law, certainly according to the Department of Justice, is very clear that courts need to provide equal access.”

Along with asserting they have immunity, the defendants argue the plaintiffs have no standing because they have failed to show they suffered injury from the defendants’ actions.

“The judges are faced with challenges in providing full access to the courts within the limited resources that are appropriated,” Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller said in a statement about the case. “My office will represent the decisions of our court officials in the judiciary as we do the actions in the other two branches of state government.”

Requests and denials

In 2010 and 2011, Steven Prakel, who is deaf and uses American Sign Language to communicate, wanted to attend his mother’s court hearings that stemmed from a previous plea to driving while intoxicated causing serious bodily injury.

Prior to a number of hearings, Steven Prakel repeatedly contacted Dearborn Superior Court No. 1 and Dearborn Circuit Court, requesting a sign language interpreter be provided for him. The courts denied his requests, maintaining since he was not a party or witness in the case, they were not obligated to provide an interpreter.

Steven Prakel was unable to access the hearings until his mother paid $264 to have a sign language interpreter attend.

In Steven Prakel and Carolyn Prakel v. the State of Indiana, Chief Justice Brent E. Dickson, Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration and Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Schmaltz, Judge James D. Humphrey, and Judge Jonathan N. Cleary, 4:12-CV-045, the plaintiffs claim the defendants intentionally discriminated against Steven Prakel.

The defendants argue, in part, Title II of the ADA requires the defendants to only make “reasonable accommodations” for the Prakels. Just as the ADA does not require public entities to provide disabled individuals with wheelchairs, prescription eyeglasses and assistance with eating and dressing, the courts should not be required to provide sign language interpreters for a spectator.

The Department of Justice scoffed at that argument. It asserted the provision the defendants cite is not applicable. Instead, according to the DOJ, the request for an interpreter is governed by the communication provisions of Title II which states that public entities “shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services” to give qualified disabled individuals access.

“Mr. Prakel repeatedly sought, but was denied, his rights under Title II and Section 504,” the DOJ stated. “The Defendants refused to even engage in the process of determining what auxiliary aids and services were necessary for effective communication as required by Title II. Consequently, the record is clear that the Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Mr. Prakel’s federally protected rights.”

On June 23, 2010, Dearborn Superior Judge Jonathan Cleary convened a hearing specifically to determine whether the court had to provide an interpreter. During the proceeding, Cleary asked Carolyn Prakel’s defense attorney, Timothy Day, if there was any need for the court to provide an interpreter.

Day replied that it was a gray area and that he could not answer if the court was required to provide an interpreter when Steven Prakel was not a witness or party to the case.

Vargas, attorney at Stein & Vargas LLP in Maryland, said that asking whether an interpreter was needed to conduct the hearing is different from what this case is about. The main issue, she said, is his right to be present during his mother’s hearings.

In November 2010, the National Association of the Deaf wrote a letter to Circuit Judge James Humphrey, requesting the Dearborn Circuit Court reimburse Carolyn Prakel for the cost of the interpreter. When the association received no response, it sent a letter to then-Chief Justice Randall Shepard but again did not get a reply.

Who is responsible?

The defendants in the Prakel matter took issue with the request for a declaration on providing auxiliary aids and services. Arguing the case should be limited to what happened in Dearborn County, the defendants contend the plaintiffs sprung this request only in the motion for partial summary judgment.

Asserting that requiring interpreters for all spectators at all court proceeding throughout the state would involve different proof and considerations, the defendants asked the District Court to not expand the scope of the lawsuit and focus only on the Prakels’ request for reimbursement for the interpreter they had to hire.

The plaintiffs point out they do not have legal standing to ask that all Indiana courts be made to supply sign language interpreters going forward, but rather they want a declaration from the District Court that the trial courts were required to provide an interpreter for Prakel.

However, who in the Indiana judicial system is accountable for assuring compliance with accessibility requirements is a central question in the Prakel case, said New Albany attorney Matthew Lorch, who also is representing the Prakels. He feels like the Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration and the county courts are all pointing to each other when asked who has responsibility.

The attorney general argued the state courts should not be named defendants because Indiana does not have a unified court system. The Supreme Court and State Court Administration do not have any role in the day-to-day operations or governance of the local and county courts.

Humphrey did contact the State Court Administration on the Prakel matter, but the state has not released the content of those conversations, saying the discussions were privileged.

Lorch noted the effort by Shepard to make Indiana courthouses more accessible. This effort, he said, was not enough to help Prakel and his mother.

“Here was someone so passionately trying to understand and follow (the court proceedings) and he got shut out,” Lorch said. “That is not in line with the whole notion of making courts accessible that we’ve been pushing.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Handicapped
    Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)
  • More collectivization and more expense to the taxpayer
    I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT