United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Roderick J. Macpherson, III, MN DISABILITY LAW CENTER, for
plaintiff.
Cheri
M. Sisk and Anthony G. Edwards, SAINT PAUL CITY
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, for defendant.
ORDER
Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge
Plaintiff
Catrina Hooper is a deaf woman who got into a fight with her
mother, Sandra Hooper. As a result of the fight, Catrina had
a series of interactions with the St. Paul Police Department
(“SPPD”), during which the SPPD communicated with
her in various ways, but did not use a certified American
Sign Language (“ASL”) interpreter. Catrina
brought this action against defendant the City of St. Paul
(“St. Paul” or “City”), alleging
that, by failing to effectively communicate with her, St.
Paul violated the Americans with Disabilities Act
(“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; the
Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), 29 U.S.C. § 794;
the Minnesota Human Rights Act (“MHRA”), Minn.
Stat. § 363A.12, subd. 1; and Minn. Stat. § 611.32,
subd. 2 (which requires an arresting officer to obtain a
“qualified interpreter” immediately after
arresting “a person disabled in communication”).
St.
Paul now moves for summary judgment on all claims. For the
reasons that follow, the Court grants St. Paul's motion
in (large) part and denies its motion in (small) part.
I.
BACKGROUND
On
September 14, 2014, Catrina and Sandra were involved in a
domestic dispute. Gov. Ex. A at 15; Pl. Ex. M at 80170-78.
Catrina and Sandra eventually gave conflicting accounts of
the fight, but it is clear that each woman used physical
violence against the other, and that both women sustained
injuries. The day after the fight, Catrina sought treatment
for her injuries at St. John's Hospital. Gov. Ex. A at
16; ECF No. 27 at ¶ 10. St. John's reported to the
SPPD that Catrina was a victim of domestic violence, and SPPD
Officer Tom Roth traveled to the hospital to interview
Catrina. ECF No. 27 at ¶ 12. Catrina, who is deaf and
considers ASL her primary language, used an interpreter to
communicate with Officer Roth. Id. at ¶¶
2, 12. Officer Roth advised Catrina that she could file a
domestic-violence complaint against her mother. Id.
at ¶ 12. At that time, Catrina was unsure whether she
wanted to do so because she “was concerned about
getting [her] mother in trouble with the police.”
Id. at ¶ 13. Officer Roth gave Catrina his card
and told her to contact him if she decided to file a
complaint. Id.
A day
later, Sandra sought treatment for her injuries at Regions
Hospital. Gov. Ex. D at 2. Sandra spoke to SPPD Officer Jason
Pierce. Sandra, who is also deaf and also uses ASL to
communicate, explained to Officer Pierce via hand gestures
and writing that she was assaulted by her daughter, Catrina.
Officer Pierce took photos of Sandra's injuries and
gathered as much information as he could. See Pl.
Ex. M at 80086-101. He then filed a report. Id. at
80096-97.
Sandra's
domestic-assault complaint was assigned to SPPD Sergeant Rob
Stanway to investigate. Pl. Ex. G at 14-15. Based on Officer
Pierce's initial report, Sergeant Stanway determined that
Sandra was the victim and Catrina was the perpetrator. Pl.
Ex. G at 21-22; Gov. Ex. B. Sergeant Stanway then took a
statement from Sandra with the assistance of SPPD
Officer[1] Chad Koch, who has some knowledge of
ASL, but who is not a certified interpreter. Gov. Ex. B.
Sandra
told Sergeant Stanway the following: Catrina and she got into
an argument while shopping at Wal-Mart. Gov. Ex. B at 1. The
two women left Wal-Mart and began to drive home. Id.
While in the car, Catrina hit Sandra, and the two
“push[ed] and shov[ed] each other.” Id.
The fight continued at home. Sandra grabbed her iPad to call
the police, but Catrina knocked the iPad out of Sandra's
hand and punched her in the face, causing her to fall to the
ground. Id. Catrina then “kicked and punched
[Sandra] in the chest, back, and face approximately 5-7
times.” Id. at 2. Based on Sandra's
allegations, Catrina was charged with interfering with a
911/emergency call and misdemeanor domestic assault. Gov. Ex.
D.
By
September 24, 2014, Catrina decided that she wanted to file a
domestic- violence complaint against Sandra. Catrina had not
yet been informed that she had been charged with two crimes
in connection with the incident. On September 24, Catrina and
Stephanie Ritenour[2] (a domestic-violence advocate at
Communication Services for the Deaf) called the SPPD to try
to schedule a meeting so that Catrina could file a complaint.
ECF No. 27 at ¶¶ 14-16. Catrina and Ritenour could
not reach Officer Roth (the officer who had spoken to Catrina
at St. John's Hospital), so they talked instead to
Sergeant Troy Greene. Id. at ¶ 17; Gov. Ex. F
at 18-20.
According
to Catrina, she informed Sergeant Greene that she wanted to
schedule a meeting to file a domestic-violence complaint
against her mother, and that she would need a certified ASL
interpreter for the meeting. ECF No. 27 at ¶ 19; Gov.
Ex. E. Catrina alleges that Sergeant Greene responded by
asking if the SPPD would “have to pay for an
interpreter.” ECF No. 27 at ¶ 20. Ritenour
informed Sergeant Greene that the SPPD would indeed have to
pay for an interpreter, and Sergeant Greene said that he
needed to check with someone about Catrina's request.
Id. When Sergeant Greene called back, he informed
Catrina and Ritenour that Officer Koch-who, Sergeant Greene
said, was “fluent” in ASL-would act as an
interpreter at the meeting, which was scheduled for the
following day at 8:00 am. Id. at ¶¶ 21,
24. Catrina had never before communicated with Officer Koch
(Gov Ex. A at 104), but Ritenour told Sergeant Greene that
they objected to using Officer Koch as an interpreter because
he was not a certified ASL interpreter. ECF No. 28 at
¶¶ 15-16; Gov. Ex. A at 41. Sergeant Greene
insisted on using Officer Koch as the interpreter. ECF No. 28
at ¶ 16.
Catrina
showed up at the police department the following day
(September 25) for her 8:00 am meeting. Catrina met with
Officer Koch (not Sergeant Greene). What happened at the
meeting is disputed. According to Catrina, she used ASL to
describe her version of the altercation with her mother. Gov.
Ex. A at 21-22. Catrina alleges that Officer Koch did not
write anything down, but “simply nodd[ed] and nodd[ed]
and nodd[ed]” as she spoke-and then, when Catrina
“got close to the end . . . he said, I apologize. I
only know finger spelling.”[3] Id. at 21-24.
Catrina says that she asked Officer Koch for an ASL
interpreter, but that none was provided. Id. at
23-24. Eventually, Officer Koch (allegedly through
fingerspelling) told Catrina that there was an outstanding
warrant for her arrest, and Officer Koch pointed to another
police officer (Officer Jon Sherwood) who was about to arrest
her. Id. at 24-26. According to Catrina, she
“did not know what ‘w-a-r-r-a-n-t' spelled or
what it meant, ” and she did not know why she was being
arrested until Officer Sherwood later wrote “interfere
with 911 emergency” on a piece of paper. ECF No. 27 at
¶¶ 33-34; Gov. Ex. A at 52-53, 129. According to
Catrina, other than that four-word note from Officer
Sherwood, she was given no information about why she was
arrested, and she did not even realize that her arrest was
connected to the fight with her mother. Gov. Ex. A at 52-54.
Officer
Koch offers a different account of his September 25 meeting
with Catrina. According to Officer Koch, he showed up for the
scheduled meeting and introduced himself to Catrina using
ASL. Gov. Ex. G at 165-66. After “she introduced
herself, a little light kind of went off, ” as Officer
Koch “remembered that name [from] before.”
Id. at 166. (Officer Koch apparently recognized
Catrina's name from his involvement in taking a statement
from Sandra. Id. at 167-68.) Officer Koch decided
“to see if maybe Catrina . . . had a warrant for her
arrest.” Id. at 167. Officer Koch checked and
found that Catrina had two outstanding arrest warrants-one
“for interfering with [a] 911 [emergency] and the other
. . . for domestic assault.” Id. at 168.
According
to Officer Koch, he then “explained to [Catrina] that
she had two warrants for her arrest and that she was being
placed under arrest and that she would be transferred down to
the Ramsey County Jail.” Id. at 171. Officer
Koch says that he asked Catrina if she understood, and
“[s]he said that she did understand, but [that] she
wanted to give a statement for a domestic assault that she
was involved in.” Id. Because Catrina was a
suspect in a criminal case, however, Officer Koch alleges
that he informed Catrina that he “wouldn't be
taking a statement from her right now, ” but
“[t]hat she would have an opportunity to give a
statement later.” Id. at 171-72. Officer Koch
“[did not] recall” Catrina trying to tell her
version of the altercation with her mother, and, he says, he
“did not have a conversation” with Catrina (aside
from advising her that she would be arrested on two
outstanding warrants). See Id. at 166-72, 175-77.
Officer Koch also swears that he would have made the same
decision-to arrest a suspect on an outstanding warrant and
not take a statement from her until later (presumably after
she spoke with an attorney)-regardless of whether the suspect
was deaf or not. ECF No. 22 at ¶ 6.
After
Catrina was arrested, Officer Sherwood transported her to the
Ramsey County Jail. Gov. Ex. P at 22-23; Gov. Ex. J. Sometime
before being booked, Catrina sent an email to Ritenour
stating: “I'm on way jail got warranty.” Gov.
Ex. H at 10192 (sic). Ritenour responded “A warrant for
you? You're going to jail?” Id.
Catrina-now seemingly at the jail[4]-responded:
Yes warrant for me, yes for Interfere with 911 emergency. Im
on way jail until Sargent come today or to court . . . . I
try ask [Officer Koch] to charge I can't til Sargent come
first. I hope interpreter here ASAP.
Id. at 10191 (sic throughout).
Catrina
was not able to give a statement or file a domestic-violence
complaint on September 25. Accordingly, sometime after being
released from jail, Catrina was again in contact with the
SPPD trying to set up a time to give a statement. Once again,
there is some dispute as to exactly what happened, but it is
undisputed that Catrina was never able to file a
domestic-violence complaint. According to Catrina's
deposition testimony, after she was released from jail,
Officer Koch and Sergeant Stanway called her house
“like five or six days in a row . . . leaving messages
saying that [she] should call [them] . . . and one of
them[5] said they wanted [to meet with
Catrina] again back at the office and wanted to extend their
apologies to [her] . . . .” Gov. Ex. A at 72-73.
However, Catrina “had lost trust” and
“didn't want to be arrested again.”
Id. at 73.
Catrina
filed a formal complaint against Sergeant Stanway, Officer
Koch, and Officer Roth with the SPPD's Internal Affairs
Unit (“IA”). Gov. Ex. S. In that complaint,
Catrina alleges that between October 1 and October 9, 2014,
Sergeant Stanway and Officer Koch “left multiple
messages at [her] home videophone stating ‘Please come
[to] our office so we may interview you and make a report on
Sandra Hooper and others.'” Gov. Ex. S at 2.
Catrina further alleges in the IA complaint that during one
call[6] with Officer Koch she told him
“sorry I will not come to see you until you get an ASL
interpreter.” Id. She says that she
“reminded him that at [their] first meeting his sign
language[7] was not fluent enough for [her] to
understand him or be understood.” Id. In an
October 8, 2014 email, Catrina informed Ritenour that the
SPPD had denied her request for an interpreter:
I will cancel with officer [Koch] I feel lost trust him and
don't want jail again. I will ask lawyer in court about
it and should go ahead without interpreter as they
refused. I still want file charge and Let see what he
advice before reschedule appt.
Gov. Ex. M at 2 (sic throughout) (emphasis added).
As
Officer Koch and Sergeant Stanway were attempting to schedule
another meeting with Catrina, the charges against her were
being amended. Specifically, on September 26, 2014, Sergeant
Stanway visited Regions Hospital to get Sandra's medical
records. Gov. Ex. K. Based on those records, he contacted an
assistant county attorney to discuss the fact that Sandra
sustained “possible fractures, ” “which
would enhance [the] crime.” Id. Given this new
information, on October 1, 2014, the assistant county
attorney amended the charges against Catrina from misdemeanor
assault to felony third-degree assault, and a felony arrest
warrant was issued. Gov. Ex. E at 1.
On
October 10, 2014, SPPD Officer Colleen Rooney made a
“warrant attempt” on the felony warrant at
Catrina's home. Gov. Ex. O at 3. Officer Rooney was
accompanied by Officer Sherwood. Id. The record
contains conflicting evidence about what happened when
Officers Rooney and Sherwood attempted to arrest Catrina
pursuant to the felony warrant.
According
to Catrina, “[Officer] Sherwood didn't really know
what was going on and the other officer told [Catrina's]
son that there was a warrant.” Gov. Ex. A. at 93.
Catrina's son explained to the officers “that
[Catrina] had already been in jail and [had] just got out so
that shouldn't be right.” Id. Officer
Sherwood made a phone call, “and then handcuffed
[Catrina] and that was it.” Id. Catrina
alleges that at no point did Officer Sherwood communicate to
her in writing, but instead he relied on Catrina's son to
interpret the entire time. Id. Catrina further
alleges that she “did not understand much of what the
[SPPD] officers were trying to” communicate to her
through her son, including “why [she] was being
arrested.” ECF No. 27 at ¶¶ 41-42. Rather,
she only knew that she was being arrested on a warrant
“for mom medical reason.” Gov. Ex. A at 94.
Officer
Sherwood paints a somewhat different picture. Officer
Sherwood testified in his deposition that, while he
“had to use [his] notepad, ” he “advised
[Catrina that] she had a warrant for her arrest.” Gov.
Ex. P at 45. Officer Sherwood said Catrina “seemed
confused about . . . the new warrant, ” so he
“led her to [his] squad car and showed her on [his]
laptop the actual hit or the notification of the
warrant.” Id. at 46. Officer Sherwood noted
that “[e]ventually [Catrina's] son came out,
” and he “explained the situation to him.”
Id. Catrina's son “signed with Ms. Hooper,
and explained . . . that she had a warrant for her arrest and
she was under arrest.” Id. Still, Catrina
“seemed genuinely confused about the charge.”
Id.
Given
Catrina's confusion, Officer Sherwood called Sergeant
Stanway for clarification. Id. Officer Sherwood
found out “that the charges [against Catrina] were
amended and moved to a felony level assault based on new
information.” Id. at 52. Officer Sherwood
believed that Sergeant Stanway informed him that “a
medical report from the victim elevated the charge.”
Id. Officer Sherwood was “sure” that he
communicated this information to Catrina through her son, and
stated that he “assumed” that her son was an
interpreter “based on the communication between the two
of them that [he] observed.” Id. Catrina was
then transported to jail by Officer Rooney. Id. at
54; Gov. Ex. Q.
Later
that day, Catrina emailed Ritenour “I got warranty
again arrest.” Gov. Ex. R at 10215 (sic). About 50
minutes later, Catrina emailed Ritenour the following:
I was arrest by my home they say I have warrant! I already
had it before and they say someone report October 2 for
medical record for mom after my OFP served October 1. I
already talk Sargent Santway and [Officer Koch] yesterday
confirmed I will not be arrest of meet today 9 am. I'm
confused seem set me up
I use phone in jail pls call jail lobby get me interperer
Gov. Ex. R at 10217 (sic throughout).
Catrina
now brings suit against St. Paul based on these interactions
with the SPPD. Catrina alleges that the SPPD violated the
ADA, RA, and MHRA (as well as Minn. Stat. § 611.32) by
failing to effectively communicate with her regarding her two
arrests and by failing to take a domestic-violence complaint
from her. St. Paul has moved for summary judgment on all
claims.
II.
ANALYSIS
A.
Standard of Review
Summary
judgment is warranted “if the movant shows that there
is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant
is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A dispute over a fact is
“material” only if its resolution might affect
the outcome of the suit under the governing substantive law.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248
(1986). A dispute over a fact is “genuine” only
if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id.
“The evidence of the non-movant is to be believed, and
all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in [her]
favor.” Id. at 255.
B.
ADA, RA, and MHRA Claims
Catrina
contends that the SPPD violated the ADA, RA, and MHRA when it
failed to communicate the circumstances of her arrests to her
and when it failed to take a domestic-violence complaint from
her. The ADA, RA, and MHRA prohibit a public entity from
denying its services to a qualified individual with a
disability by reason of that disability. See 42
U.S.C. § 12132 (ADA); 29 U.S.C. § 794 (RA); Minn.
Stat. § 363A.12, subd. 1 (MHRA).[8] To state a claim,
Catrina must demonstrate (1) that she is a qualified
individual with a disability, (2) that St. Paul is a
“public entity” (for ADA purposes) or receives
federal funding (for RA purposes), (3) that she was denied
the benefit of a service provided by St. Paul, and (4) that
the denial was because of her disability. Randolph v.
Rodgers, 170 F.3d 850, 858 (8th Cir. 1999). Moreover,
because Catrina is seeking compensatory damages from St. Paul
under the ADA and RA, she also needs to establish that St.
Paul was “deliberately indifferent” to her
rights. Meagley v. City of Little Rock, 639 F.3d
384, 389 (8th Cir. 2011). There is no deliberate-indifference
requirement under the MHRA, but if Catrina cannot establish
“malice, ” St. Paul may be entitled to vicarious
official immunity. Olson v. Ramsey Cty., 509 N.W.2d
368, 371-72 (Minn. 1993).
The
parties agree that Catrina is a qualified individual with a
disability, that St. Paul is a public entity (for purposes of
the ADA) and receives federal funding (for purposes of the
RA), and that communicating with individuals about their
arrests and receiving reports from victims of crimes are
services that St. Paul provides. The parties disagree about
three issues: First, was Catrina actually denied the benefit
of effective communication with respect to her arrests?
Second, did St. Paul fail to take a domestic- violence
complaint from Catrina because of her disability? And third,
did St. Paul exhibit deliberate indifference (for purposes of
the ADA or RA) or malice (for purposes of the MHRA)?
1.
Denial of a Benefit
The
ADA, RA, and MHRA “requir[e] that qualified persons
with disabilities receive effective communication that
results in ‘meaningful access' to a public
entity's services.” Bahl, 695 F.3d at
783-84 (citing Loye, 625 F.3d at 496-97). Whether
there was “effective communication”-and thus
“meaningful access” to a service-is “a
fact-intensive inquiry and is largely
context-dependent.” Durand v. Fairview Health
Servs., 902 F.3d 836, 842 (8th Cir. 2018) (citations
omitted). Given the “inherently fact-intensive”
nature of the inquiry, “an effective-communication
claim often presents questions of fact precluding summary
judgment.” Crane v. Lifemark Hosp., Inc., 898
F.3d 1130, 1135 (11th Cir. 2018) (citation omitted); see
also Chisolm v. McManimon, 275 F.3d 315, 327 (3d Cir.
2001) (“Generally, the effectiveness of auxiliary aids
and/or services is a question of fact precluding summary
judgment.” (citations omitted)).
a.
Communication Regarding Catrina's Arrests
Catrina
first contends that she did not receive effective
communication about her arrests on both September 25 and
October 10, 2014. In order for there to be “effective
communication, ” an individual must-at a minimum-know
why she is being arrested and with what crime she is being
charged. Bahl, 695 F.3d at 786-87. The Court cannot
find as a matter of law that Catrina had such knowledge on
either September 25 or October 10.
On
September 25, Officer Koch fingerspelled
“w-a-r-r-a-n-t” to Catrina, and Officer Sherwood
wrote “interfere with 911 emergency” on a piece
of paper for her. There is no undisputed evidence that
Catrina received more information than that. There is, for
example, no evidence that Catrina was ever told about the
second charge against her (misdemeanor assault). Moreover,
Catrina plausibly alleges that she did not understand the two
pieces of information that she did receive
(“w-a-r-r-a-n-t” and “interfere with 911
emergency”). Catrina says that she did not know what a
“warrant” was when Officer Koch fingerspelled the
word, and Catrina's first email to Ritenour on September
25 referred to a “warranty” (rather than a
“warrant”). This email may (as St. Paul suggests)
simply reflect a typographical error, but the Court must
construe the facts in the light most favorable to Catrina.
Catrina
also alleges that she did not know that her arrest was
related to the fight with her mother. Again, there is nothing
in the record that contradicts Catrina's assertion. As
noted, there is no evidence that Catrina was ever told that
she was charged with misdemeanor assault. Moreover, there is
no evidence that Catrina understood “interfere with 911
emergency” to relate to the altercation with her
mother.[9]Contrast with Bahl, 695 F.3d
at 786-87 (finding that there was effective communication
about an arrest when all of the charges were written on a
piece of paper for the arrestee and the arrestee knew that he
was arrested “[f]or fighting police”). Given all
this, the Court cannot find as a matter of law that Catrina
received effective communication about her September 25
arrest.
The
same is true with respect to Catrina's October 10 arrest.
There is no evidence that Catrina knew that she was being
arrested because the misdemeanor assault charge had been
enhanced to felony third-degree assault. All parties
acknowledge that there was a lot of confusion surrounding
Catrina's arrest on October 10, because Catrina had
already (and just recently) been arrested. See,
e.g., Gov. Ex. P at 52 (Officer Sherwood testifying that
at Catrina's October 10 arrest “she seemed confused
because she thought she'd already been charged in the
case . . .”). Officer Sherwood apparently tried to
clarify matters, but Catrina alleges that she “did not
understand much of what the [SPPD] officers were trying to
tell [her], ” including “why [she] was being
arrested.” ECF No. 27 at ¶¶ 41-42. Catrina
asserts that she knew only that she was being arrested on a
warrant “for mom medical reason.” Gov. Ex. A at
94. Once again, nothing in the record contradicts
Catrina's claim. Catrina's emails establish that, at
most, Catrina had some knowledge of a medical reason being
the source of the arrest warrant. Gov. Ex. R at 10217.
Based
on this record, the Court cannot hold as a matter of law that
Catrina received the benefit of knowing that she was being
arrested because a medical report showing the severity of her
mother's injuries led the prosecutor to elevate the
charges from misdemeanor assault to felony third-degree
assault. Accordingly, the Court cannot find as a matter of
law that the SPPD effectively communicated to Catrina about
either of her arrests.
b.
Catrina's Inability to Report a Crime
The
parties agree (at least for the purposes of St. Paul's
summary-judgment motion) that Catrina was denied the ability
to report a domestic assault to the SPPD from September 25 to
October 10.[10] St. Paul argues, however, that
Catrina was not denied the ability to report a crime
because of her disability. Pointing to the morning
of September 25, St. Paul argues that Officer Koch would have
arrested anyone who had an outstanding warrant-and refused to
take a statement from that person at the time of her
arrest-whether or not that person was disabled. But even if
St. Paul is correct that Officer Koch's refusal to take a
statement from Catrina on the morning of September 25 was not
on account of her disability, the fact remains that St. Paul
never took a statement from Catrina.
St.
Paul argues that this is entirely Catrina's fault,
because after Catrina was released from jail on September 25,
she refused to meet with SPPD officers, citing reasons that
were unrelated to her disability (such as fear of being
arrested again and the desire to consult with an attorney).
St. Paul may be correct. But Catrina argues that she refused
to meet with SPPD because it would not provide a certified
ASL interpreter. Without such an interpreter, Catrina argues,
she could not effectively communicate about the domestic
assault that she had experienced.
The
Court finds that there is sufficient evidence in the record
to make this a jury issue. Catrina testified at her
deposition that, after she was released from jail on
September 25, Officer Koch and Sergeant Stanway were both in
contact with her trying to set up a time for her to give a
statement. Gov. Ex. A at 72-73. Catrina alleges that during
one conversation with Officer Koch she told him “sorry
I will not come to see you until you get an ASL
interpreter.” Gov. Ex. S at 2. She says that she
“reminded him that at [their] first meeting his sign
language was not fluent enough for [her] to understand him or
be understood.” Id. An email sent by Catrina
to Ritenour on October 8, 2014, appears to corroborate
Catrina's claim that she did not meet with the SPPD
because it refused to provide a certified ASL interpreter:
I will cancel with officer [Koch] I feel lost trust him and
don't want jail again. I will ask lawyer in court about
it and should go ahead without interpreter as they
refused. I still want file charge and Let see what he
advice before reschedule appt.
Gov. Ex. M at 2 (sic throughout) (emphasis added).
Catrina's
allegation that the SPPD refused her requests for a certified
ASL interpreter is consistent with Sergeant Stanway's and
Officer Koch's statements. See Gov. Ex. G at
190-91 (Officer Koch testifying that he would be the
interpreter at a second meeting with Catrina); Pl. Ex. G at
47 (Sergeant Stanway testifying that Officer Koch would be
the interpreter at a second meeting with
Catrina).[11]
Considering
all of the evidence in the record-and drawing all reasonable
inferences in Catrina's favor-the Court holds that a jury
could find that Catrina was denied meaningful access to the
service of reporting a crime because of her disability.
2.
Deliberate Indifference
Thus
far, the Court has held that a reasonable jury could find
that St. Paul denied two services to Catrina on account of
her disability: effective communication regarding her arrests
and the ability to report that she was a victim of a crime.
But to recover compensatory damages under the ADA or RA,
Catrina must prove that St. Paul was “deliberately
indifferent to the rights secured to her [under those
Acts].” Meagley, 639 F.3d at 389.
Catrina
argues that there are two ways that she can recover from St.
Paul:[12]
First,
Catrina argues, St. Paul can be held vicariously liable under
the ADA or RA for acts taken by its employees within the
scope of their employment. Thus, to hold St. Paul liable, she
need only establish that one of the SPPD officers was
deliberately indifferent, because there is no dispute that
all of ...