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. Should be beat this rap, I would not recommend lion hunting in Zimbabwe to celebrate.

  2. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  3. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  4. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  5. 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)

ADVERTISEMENT