Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hooper v. City of St. Paul

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

August 26, 2019

CATRINA HOOPER, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF ST. PAUL, Defendant.

          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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.