ILNews

US, ACLU join deaf litigant in ADA suit against Indiana court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A deaf litigant who was denied a sign language interpreter for court-ordered mediation in his child-custody case has the support of the U.S. Department of Justice and the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana in his federal disability-discrimination lawsuit against Marion Circuit Court.

The Department of Justice on Friday filed an amicus brief on behalf of Dustin King, who last year won a federal district court ruling in his favor on his discrimination claim.

“Marion Circuit Court has failed to show that intentional discrimination requires prejudice or ill will. The district court appropriately determined that Marion Circuit Court was deliberately indifferent to King’s rights and was subject to damages,” the DOJ concludes in its brief.

Chief Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson awarded King $10,380 in damages in September, ruling that Marion Superior Court violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Magnus-Stinson found King was entitled to damages. His attorneys likely will be entitled to legal fees paid by Marion Circuit Court, the policy arm governing Marion Superior Court.

King was ordered to participate in Marion Superior Court’s federally funded modest-means mediation program in his child-custody case, but the court refused to provide an American Sign Language interpreter when he requested one. The court offered to waive the requirement that King participate, but Magnus-Stinson ruled this wasn’t an accommodation under the ADA, because King wanted to participate in the mediation.

King ultimately did participate with the assistance of a family member who could translate in ASL, but Magnus-Stinson noted he was deprived a certified court interpreter who should have been provided. She granted his summary judgment motion in May.

The state appealed judgment in favor of King to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, prompting the DOJ’s intervention as amicus in Dustin King v. Marion Circuit Court, 16-3726. The state, represented by the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, argues in its appellate brief that the court is entitled to sovereign immunity, there is no constitutional dimension to King’s case, and that he didn’t establish a claim under the ADA.

Along with the Department of Justice, attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana have entered appearance and filed briefs in King’s case.

The Indiana Attorney General’s office did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment Monday.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. The Department of Education still has over $100 million of ITT Education Services money in the form of $100+ million Letters of Credit. That money was supposed to be used by The DOE to help students. The DOE did nothing to help students. The DOE essentially stole the money from ITT Tech and still has the money. The trustee should be going after the DOE to get the money back for people who are owed that money, including shareholders.

  2. Do you know who the sponsor of the last-minute amendment was?

  3. Law firms of over 50 don't deliver good value, thats what this survey really tells you. Anybody that has seen what they bill for compared to what they deliver knows that already, however.

  4. My husband left me and the kids for 2 years, i did everything humanly possible to get him back i prayed i even fasted nothing worked out. i was so diver-stated, i was left with nothing no money to pay for kids up keep. my life was tearing apart. i head that he was trying to get married to another lady in Italy, i look for urgent help then i found Dr.Mack in the internet by accident, i was skeptical because i don’t really believe he can bring husband back because its too long we have contacted each other, we only comment on each other status on Facebook and when ever he come online he has never talks anything about coming back to me, i really had to give Dr.Mack a chance to help me out, luckily for me he was God sent and has made everything like a dream to me, Dr.Mack told me that everything will be fine, i called him and he assured me that my Husband will return, i was having so many doubt but now i am happy,i can’t believe it my husband broke up with his Italian lady and he is now back to me and he can’t even stay a minute without me, all he said to me was that he want me back, i am really happy and i cried so much because it was unbelievable, i am really happy and my entire family are happy for me but they never know whats the secret behind this…i want you all divorce lady or single mother, unhappy relationship to please contact this man for help and everything will be fine i really guarantee you….if you want to contact him you can reach him through dr.mac@yahoo. com..,

  5. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

ADVERTISEMENT