Martinez v. Cuomo

Background

Dennis Martinez, Douglas Nguyen, James Hallenbeck, and Jill Wildberger, all described in the opinion as deaf individuals, sued Andrew Cuomo in his official capacity as Governor of New York State. Disability Rights New York also sued. The plaintiffs alleged that Cuomo’s daily televised COVID-19 press briefings lacked an in-frame American Sign Language interpreter, preventing them from receiving the same benefit from the briefings as other viewers.

The opinion states that the briefings contained changing information about COVID-19 cases, government restrictions, testing, masks, social distancing, and plans for reopening. Cuomo’s office provided online live and recorded videos with an American Sign Language interpreter, and some television channels provided English closed captioning. The plaintiffs said those alternatives did not work for them because some lacked internet access, could not read or understand English well enough, or could not access the online videos. They also alleged that closed captions were not available on every channel and sometimes omitted or inaccurately transcribed information.

The plaintiffs brought claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. They sought a mandatory preliminary injunction requiring an in-frame American Sign Language interpreter during the televised briefings. The court stated that it had granted the motion on May 11, 2020, and that this opinion explained the reasons for that decision.

Legal standard

A preliminary injunction is an emergency court order issued before the case is finally resolved. The plaintiffs had to show a likelihood of success on the merits, likely irreparable harm without immediate relief, a favorable balance of hardships, and that the injunction would serve the public interest. Because the requested injunction would change the existing situation rather than preserve it, the court required a clear or substantial likelihood of success.

Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, covered public entities must provide people with disabilities meaningful access to their services, programs, and activities. They must take appropriate steps to make communications with people with disabilities as effective as communications with others, including by providing appropriate auxiliary aids and services when necessary. The court explained that accommodations need not be perfect, but they must be reasonable and cannot fundamentally change the service or impose an undue financial or administrative burden.

Court’s analysis

The parties did not dispute that the plaintiffs were qualified individuals with disabilities or that the defendant was subject to the relevant laws. The central issue was whether the plaintiffs had been denied equal access to the Governor’s press briefings because of their deafness.

The court rejected the argument that the multiple existing methods of communication were sufficient for these plaintiffs. It found that the online American Sign Language videos were not readily accessible to people without internet access, and that English closed captioning did not accommodate people who could not read English well enough to understand the briefings. The court emphasized that the reasonableness of an accommodation depends on the individual circumstances of the people seeking access.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs had shown a clear and substantial likelihood of success because they could not access the briefings without in-frame American Sign Language interpretation. It also noted that the defendant did not argue that providing an in-frame interpreter would be burdensome, and the court found no evidence that the accommodation would fundamentally alter the briefings or impose an undue financial or administrative burden.

The court found likely irreparable harm because the plaintiffs were being denied timely access to changing information about health, safety, government orders, testing, transportation, and reopening plans. Money damages would not adequately remedy the loss of that time-sensitive information. The court further found that the balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs and that providing an interpreter would not harm the public interest.

Disposition

Judge Valerie Caproni granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on May 11, 2020. The defendant was ordered to immediately implement in-frame American Sign Language interpretation during the daily press briefings. If that could not be done by May 13, 2020, the defendant had to submit a detailed affidavit by that date explaining why and giving a date for implementation. The opinion also referred to a scheduled settlement conference and set case-management dates if the case did not settle.