Martinez v. County of Alameda

Background

This order addresses proposed jury instructions and a verdict form during the jury trial in Lisamaria Martinez’s case against the County of Alameda. The claims going to the jury included a Title II Americans with Disabilities Act claim, a California Disabled Persons Act claim, and a claim under California Government Code section 11135.

Nominal damages under the ADA

The court held that Martinez must prove deliberate indifference to recover nominal damages on her Title II ADA claim. The court relied on Ninth Circuit decisions stating that monetary damages under Title II require intentional discrimination, measured by deliberate indifference. The court also concluded that, even assuming a Ninth Circuit decision about nominal damages as equitable relief applied, nominal damages were not necessary for complete justice because the ADA claim was not moot and the trial was underway.

Department of Justice guidance and effective communication

The court rejected the County’s argument that all Department of Justice guidance should be excluded because guidance is not binding law. The court stated that such guidance may correctly interpret the Department’s own ADA regulations when the interpretation reasonably fits the regulation’s wording and purpose.

Of the proposed edits discussed in the order, the court:

- included the first edit because it came from an ADA regulation; - included the sixth edit because it came from an ADA regulation; - rejected the fifth edit because it duplicated language about “other similar services and actions”; - rejected the second edit because it would substantially change the plaintiff’s burden of proof by shifting the burden to the County after rejection of the requested aid or service; - rejected the third and fourth edits because they described the reasons for or purposes of the rules rather than legal obligations; and - accepted the seventh edit, which described qualified readers, reading devices, and examples of government services in a way the court found consistent with the regulations and understandable to the jury.

California Disabled Persons Act damages

The court found persuasive a federal district court decision concluding that public entities can be liable for damages under the California Disabled Persons Act. It therefore decided that the jury would receive an instruction on Disabled Persons Act damages and that the verdict form would include those damages.

California Government Code section 27203(d)

The court declined to instruct the jury on the meaning of California Government Code section 27203(d) because that provision was not an element of any claim or an affirmative defense in the case. The court stated that the provision could not change the ADA’s liability standards or provide a defense to the state-law claims that were derivative of the ADA claim.

The court nevertheless declined to instruct the jury to disregard testimony about section 27203(d). It held that an employee’s sincere belief—even if mistaken—that the requested assistance would violate state law could be relevant evidence in deciding whether the County acted with deliberate indifference. The court emphasized that state law could not eliminate ADA damages liability. The supplied opinion text ends during the court’s discussion of an additional instruction, so the remainder of that ruling is not available here.

Disposition

The order ruled on the parties’ proposed trial instructions and verdict form as described above. It did not enter judgment on the ADA or state-law claims.