United States Sixth Circuit

In civil rights suit alleging that city police discriminated against plaintiffs in violation of the American Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide a qualified sign language interpreter or other such reasonable accommodations during their arrest following a domestic disturbance call, grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant-government entities is affirmed where: 1) claim against county failed because plaintiff voluntarily served as an interpreter at the dispositional hearing on other plaintiffs' criminal charges; 2) the city police, in arresting plaintiffs, did not perform "service, program, or activity" to which ADA applied; 3) brief detention during post-arrest detention at jail was not a "service, activity, or program" under ADA; 4) plaintiffs failed to show any injury resulting from the use of the relay operator; 5) at arraignment, plaintiffs received the same benefits of an initial appearance under state law as those afforded to non-disabled persons despite unavailability of a sign language interpreter; and 6) plaintiff did not have standing to assert ADA claims related to dispositional hearing given that the charges were dropped against him and he did not participate in it.

Appellate Information

• Decided 08/29/2008
• Published 08/29/2008

Judges

• Before:  KEITH and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges;  VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

Court

• United States Sixth Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• ARGUED:  William J. Brown, William J. Brown & Associates, Cleveland, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Jon A. York, Pentecost & Glenn, Jackson, Tennessee, Dale Conder, Jr., Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellees.   ON BRIEF:  William J. Brown, William J. Brown & Associates, Cleveland, Tennessee, for Appellants.  Jon A. York, Brandon O. Gibson, Pentecost & Glenn, Jackson, Tennessee, Dale Conder, Jr., Rainey, Kizer, Reviere & Bell, Jackson, Tennessee, for Appellees.