Martinez v. County of Alameda

Background

Lisamaria Martinez alleged that she is blind and went to the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder’s Office to file a fictitious business name statement for a new small business. She had downloaded and partly completed the form using screen-access software. At the office, an employee told her that she needed to check the box for “LLC,” cross out her name, and write the name of her limited liability company in another part of the form.

Martinez asked the employee to assist by entering the information because she could not independently complete the paper form. The employee refused, stating that the document was legal paperwork that had to be completed by the business owner. After Martinez waited to speak with a supervisor, supervisor Maria Laura Briones also refused to assist. Briones later told Martinez that Assistant Clerk-Recorder Eva He had confirmed that no one from the office would help. Martinez left without filing the form.

Martinez later sought a change to the policy denying assistance to blind people at the office. The defendants responded through counsel that assistance with filling out forms would constitute legal advice and would not be provided. Martinez filed this case against Alameda County and individual Clerk-Recorder’s Office personnel. Her claims included Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title V of that Act, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, California’s Disabled Persons Act, and a request for declaratory relief.

Motion and legal standard

The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. At this stage, the court generally accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true and views them favorably to the person who filed the complaint. The complaint must allege enough facts to make the claim plausible, rather than merely possible.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

Title II prohibits a public entity from excluding a qualified person with a disability from its services, programs, or activities, denying that person their benefits, or discriminating against the person because of the disability. The court identified four elements for Martinez’s claim: she had a disability; she was otherwise qualified to receive the County’s services; she was excluded from, denied the benefits of, or discriminated against concerning those services; and the exclusion or discrimination was because of her disability.

The defendants did not dispute, for purposes of the motion, that Martinez adequately alleged blindness, eligibility to seek the County’s services, and exclusion from or denial of those services. They argued instead that the County’s policy against employees filling out or altering legal documents was neutral because it applied to disabled and nondisabled people alike.

The court rejected that argument at the pleading stage. It explained that a policy can violate the Americans with Disabilities Act even if it is facially neutral and consistently enforced when it places an excessive burden on people with disabilities. Accepting Martinez’s allegations as true, the court found that refusing to assist anyone with paperwork disproportionately burdened her as a blind person and denied her meaningful access to County services.

The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that the requested assistance was not a reasonable accommodation because it would amount to unauthorized practice of law or would violate California law concerning changes to records. The court noted that the form had not yet been deposited with the Recorder when Martinez sought assistance. It also cited California decisions stating that clerical work filling in blanks on a form using information supplied by another person is not the unlicensed practice of law.

Whether an accommodation is reasonable, or would fundamentally change the nature of a service or create an excessive burden, is generally a fact-intensive question. The court stated that the public entity bears the burden of proving a fundamental change or excessive burden. At this early stage, the defendants had offered only arguments rather than facts showing that assisting Martinez would have that effect or that they had taken another action to provide her equal access.

The court further held that Martinez adequately alleged deliberate indifference, which the Ninth Circuit requires for damages based on intentional discrimination under Title II. Deliberate indifference requires knowledge that harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely and failure to act on that likelihood. The court found that Martinez alleged she requested an auxiliary aid or service, explained why she needed it, and was refused without a fact-specific investigation into what assistance was appropriate. The court also noted that reliance on another person accompanying her to facilitate communication is prohibited by the cited regulation.

Other claims and declaratory relief

The defendants’ arguments for dismissing the Title V and state-law claims depended on dismissal of the Title II claim. Because the court found that Martinez adequately alleged a Title II violation, it also denied dismissal of those remaining claims.

The opinion separately noted that declaratory relief is a remedy, not an independent cause of action. It found dismissal unnecessary because Martinez’s request could be understood as part of her request for relief rather than as a separate claim.

Disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and decided the motion without oral argument.