Amy Howe

Aug 3 2018

Looking ahead to the long conference: Discriminatory intent and the Americans with Disabilities Act

When the justices meet for their “long” conference on September 24, one of the cases before them will be Multnomah County, Oregon v. Updike, in which they have been asked to weigh in on the level of discriminatory intent required to award compensatory damages under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The case arose after David Updike – whom Multnomah County describes as a “frequent visitor to county jails in Oregon” – spent two nights in a county jail after his arrest in January 2013. Updike, who is deaf, says that he asked for an American Sign Language interpreter but never received one, prompting him to file a lawsuit in federal district court alleging that the county had violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act.

The district court ruled for the county, concluding that the county did not intentionally discriminate against Updike – a requirement for Updike to receive damages – because it had made other efforts to accommodate Updike’s disability. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, finding that courts can infer that a public entity intended to discriminate when it failed to honor an individual’s preference, and therefore was deliberately indifferent to the individual’s request.

Multnomah County filed a petition for review, arguing (among other things) that the federal courts of appeals are divided on the kind of intent that must be shown for a plaintiff to recover damages under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Some other courts of appeals, the county contended, would have required Updike to show that the county acted with animus or ill will, while it would be enough for five other courts of appeals (including the 9th Circuit) that the county was deliberately indifferent to Updike’s request to have an ASL interpreter. Moreover, the county adds, if the 9th Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, “cash-strapped local governments will automatically be required to proceed to a jury trial” “to defend a successful accommodation simply because it was not the plaintiff’s first-choice.”

Updike urged the court to deny review, telling the justices that there is actually no real division among the courts of appeals on the kind of discriminatory intent required to obtain damages. In particular, he contended, none of the courts of appeals would have required him to show animus; moreover, the Supreme Court has long made clear that, for cases arising under statutes (like the Rehabilitation Act) that rely on Congress’s Spending Clause authority, “a showing of deliberate indifference is sufficient for compensatory damages.”

The justices are scheduled to consider the case at their private conference on September 24, 2018. For the past few years, the justices have released grants from their “long” conference on the following Thursday; assuming that they continue to follow that practice, we could hear whether they will take up this case as soon as Thursday, September 27.

 

 

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies