Fishman v. City of New Rochelle

Background

Marc Fishman brought the case in 2019. The opinion states that his original claims included claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, the First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and state-law claims. Only his ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against the City of New Rochelle remained for decision.

In December 2018, Fishman went to the New Rochelle Police Department to complain about an alleged violation of supervised visitation arrangements involving his children. He was accompanied by Ann Elliot, the visitation supervisor, and Isabel Bolivar, whom Fishman described as his court-appointed disability aide; the City disputed that description. Fishman said he told personnel that he had difficulty hearing and understanding them, disclosed his disability, showed Officer Lane Schlesinger a traumatic-brain-injury card, and asked that Bolivar assist him. The City disputed those accounts and maintained that Fishman did not request a specific accommodation and appeared able to communicate clearly.

After reviewing relevant family-court orders and speaking with supervisors, Schlesinger concluded that there was probable cause to believe Fishman had violated the orders. Fishman disputed that the underlying events occurred and argued that Bolivar’s assistance would have prevented his arrest and the resulting criminal case and financial consequences.

Summary judgment standards

Both sides moved for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court must view reasonable inferences in favor of the party opposing the motion, but that party must identify evidence supporting the claim rather than relying on conclusory allegations or speculation.

ADA claim

To prove the ADA claim, Fishman had to show that he was a qualified person with a disability, that the City was covered by the ADA, and that the City denied him access to its services or otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability. The court concluded that Fishman was a qualified person with a disability because the record described a head injury, post-concussion syndrome, cognitive deficits, hearing difficulty, and problems processing and retaining information. The court also concluded that the City, as a local government, was covered by the ADA.

The court treated Fishman’s claim as a failure-to-accommodate claim connected to the investigation and arrest. It explained that such a claim requires proof that the failure to accommodate caused the person greater injury or indignity than other people who were arrested. The court found a factual dispute about whether Fishman sufficiently notified the City of his disability and requested an accommodation. It also concluded that statements Officer Schlesinger allegedly made during the investigation could be considered statements of the City because Schlesinger was acting as the City’s police officer.

The factual dispute did not prevent summary judgment. The court reasoned that even if Fishman proved that the City failed to accommodate him, he had not identified evidence that the failure caused greater injury or indignity than other arrestees. The court held that his alleged conviction, defense expenses, disability-advocate expenses, and lost income were consequences of a separate criminal proceeding and did not constitute the type of harm covered by the ADA’s accommodation protections in this case. The court therefore held that Fishman’s ADA claim failed as a matter of law.

Rehabilitation Act claim

The court stated that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act impose identical requirements for the claims at issue. Because the City was entitled to summary judgment on the ADA claim and Fishman had not shown the required injury from an alleged failure to accommodate, the court also granted summary judgment for the City on the Rehabilitation Act claim.

Disposition

The court denied Marc Fishman’s motion for summary judgment and granted the City of New Rochelle’s motion for summary judgment. It directed the clerk to enter judgment in favor of the City and close the case.