Crochet v. California College of the Arts

Background

Jillian Crochet, a graduate student at the California College of the Arts (CCA), has a condition that causes ataxia, loss of sensation, and vision problems. She uses a motorized wheelchair or walker. Her complaint asserted disability-discrimination claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Housing Act against CCA and other defendants involved in student housing and transportation.

Crochet lived in a wheelchair-accessible “super” single unit at CCA’s student housing. She sought to pay the lower rate charged for a double-occupancy unit, either by being placed in accessible housing at that rate or by receiving the requested accommodation. CCA instead charged her the intermediate single-unit rate and later offered a credit covering the difference between that rate and the double-unit rate.

CCA also used Storer Transportation Services to provide student shuttles between its campuses. Crochet alleged that not all buses had wheelchair ramps or lifts and that she had to provide her schedule in advance to obtain an accessible bus. After she filed her motion, CCA suspended the shuttle service during the COVID-19 pandemic and offered to reimburse her for Uber rides for the rest of the semester.

Legal standard

The court applied the preliminary-injunction standard, which requires a showing that the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits, likely to suffer irreparable harm without relief, has equities favoring an injunction, and would serve the public interest. The court also noted the appellate court’s “sliding scale” approach, under which a stronger showing on one factor can offset a weaker showing on another.

Housing request

The court denied the housing request because Crochet sought a change in the amount she paid, and the alleged financial injury could be compensated through damages. The court stated that CCA’s credit offer addressed the difference in rates during her remaining student tenure. It also rejected the argument that irreparable harm should automatically be presumed merely because the Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act authorize injunctive relief. The court did not decide whether CCA had violated either statute.

Transportation request

The court denied the transportation request as moot. A claim is moot when there is no present controversy for which effective relief can be granted. Because CCA had suspended shuttle service, no student had access to the shuttles, and the record indicated that in-person classes would likely remain suspended through the end of the term, an order requiring wheelchair access on all buses would not protect Crochet from further transportation discrimination during her remaining time as a student. The court stated that the alleged discrimination remained actionable.

Disposition

The court denied Crochet’s motion for a preliminary injunction. It denied the housing-related request because the claimed injury could be addressed through damages, and denied the transportation-related request as moot. The opinion did not resolve the underlying discrimination claims.