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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways:

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.