Herships v. State of California Superior Court

Background

The court had previously dismissed all defendants from Howard Herships’s fourth amended complaint except the County of Santa Clara and the Santa Clara Superior Court. It dismissed all claims against those defendants except claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Herships later dismissed his claims against the County with prejudice, leaving the Superior Court as the only remaining defendant.

The remaining claims concerned a January 17, 2020, Superior Court hearing to revoke Herships’s probation on a prior conviction. Herships alleged that he had a hearing impairment and that the Superior Court did not adequately accommodate it, impairing his ability to participate. He was sentenced to six months in custody at that hearing.

Evidence and legal standards

The court considered the ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims together because their rights and obligations are analyzed in substantially the same way. For the ADA claim, Herships had to show that he was a qualified person with a disability, that the Superior Court excluded him from or denied him the benefits of a public service or otherwise discriminated against him, and that the conduct was because of his disability. For the Rehabilitation Act claim, he had to show that he had a disability, was otherwise qualified for the benefit, was denied the benefit solely because of the disability, and that the program received federal financial assistance.

Because Herships sought compensatory damages, he also had to show discriminatory intent. The court described this requirement as deliberate indifference: knowledge that harm to a federally protected right was substantially likely, combined with a failure to act, involving more than negligence.

The undisputed evidence showed that Herships told a bailiff at the start of the hearing that he lacked his hearing aids and needed an assistive listening device. The bailiff gave him earphones connected to the court’s amplification system. Herships testified that he could hear everything the judge said, although he intermittently missed some words from the district attorney and his public defender. He did not tell anyone during the hearing that some words were inaudible, did not tell anyone in the courtroom other than the bailiff that he had a hearing disability, and did not make a written accommodation request before the hearing.

The official transcript showed that Herships could hear most of the discussion. The court noted that the transcript’s references to unintelligible statements suggested that only a word or two was missing at times, not substantial portions of the hearing. The record also did not show that the Superior Court prevented Herships from speaking up, communicating with his lawyer, or participating in his defense.

Ruling

The court held that Herships could not establish that, during the January 17, 2020, proceeding, the Superior Court excluded him from participating in or denied him the benefits of a program’s services, or otherwise discriminated against him because of his disability. The court also found that Herships presented no evidence creating a genuine dispute requiring a trial.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56, summary judgment is appropriate when a party lacks enough evidence of an essential element for which that party bears the ultimate burden of persuasion at trial. The court granted the Superior Court’s motion for summary judgment. It denied Herships’s cross-motion for summary judgment, which the court said essentially repeated his opposition to the Superior Court’s motion.

The court entered its conclusion that a judgment in favor of the Superior Court would be entered separately. It vacated all pending motions and remaining pretrial and trial dates.