Martinez v. County Of Alameda, Et Al

Case Background

On September 18, 2020, Plaintiff Lisa Maria Martinez filed an ADA Violation lawsuit in the California State District Court of San Francisco Division (Case number: 3:20cv6570). Judge Thomas S. Hixson presided over the case.

Cause

Lisamaria Martinez, a blind entrepreneur, visited the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder’s Office on March 29, 2019, to file a fictitious business name statement for her new small business. Before her visit, Martinez downloaded the required form from the county website. She completed most of the fillable fields electronically using screen reader software. However, the form lacked an accessible way to sign it electronically. Martinez obtained assistance at home to manually sign the printed document.

At the Clerk-Recorder’s office, Martinez waited for her number to be called and spoke with an agent named Angelina. Angelina informed Martinez that she had incorrectly filled out the form for an individual rather than a limited liability company (LLC). Martinez requested Angelina’s assistance in correcting the form, explaining that as a blind person, she was unable to independently fill out the paper form and required assistance as an accommodation for her disability.

Angelina refused to assist. She stated that staff could not help with legal documents that must be completed by the business owner. Martinez explained that she was the business owner. She was simply requesting assistance as an auxiliary aid due to her visual impairment. After waiting nearly an hour to speak with a supervisor, Maria Laura Briones, Martinez was again denied assistance. Briones suggested Martinez should have brought someone with her to help fill out the form.

After approximately two hours at the office, Martinez spoke with multiple staff members. This included Assistant Clerk-Recorder Eva He. Ultimately, Martinez was denied service. She was forced to leave without filing her business paperwork. The county had a policy of denying assistance to blind individuals who needed help completing forms. This policy persisted even when such assistance was necessary as a reasonable accommodation for their disability.

Injuries

Martinez suffered significant emotional distress, including feelings of humiliation, indignity, and frustration due to the discriminatory treatment she received. She experienced over two hours of wasted time and was unable to file important business paperwork, potentially impacting her entrepreneurial pursuits and causing economic harm. The denial of service effectively excluded her from accessing government programs and services that were readily available to non-disabled individuals. This disparate treatment reinforced feelings of isolation and second-class citizenship often experienced by individuals with disabilities.

Damages

The plaintiff seeks several forms of relief, including:

  1. Compensatory damages for emotional distress, humiliation, and dignitary harm.
  2. Statutory damages under California state law (minimum of $4,000 per violation under the Unruh Act or $1,000 per violation under the Disabled Persons Act).
  3. Injunctive relief requiring the county to change its discriminatory policies and provide proper accommodations for blind individuals.
  4. Declaratory relief stating that the county’s practices violate disability rights laws.
  5. Attorneys’ fees and costs associated with bringing the lawsuit.

Key Arguments and Proceedings

Legal representation

  • Plaintiff(s): LisaMaria Martinez
  • Defendant(s):County of Alameda
    • Counsel for Defendants: Kevin E. Gilbert| Nicholas Daniel Fine
    • Experts for Defendant(s): Cris Vaughan

Claims

The complaint alleges multiple violations of federal and state disability rights laws:

  1. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA): The county failed to provide reasonable accommodations and auxiliary aids/services necessary for effective communication with a person with a disability. They also failed to modify policies and practices to avoid discrimination.
  2. Title V of the ADA: County officials interfered with Martinez’s exercise and enjoyment of her rights protected under the ADA by maintaining and enforcing discriminatory policies.
  3. California Unruh Civil Rights Act: The county engaged in disability-based discrimination in the provision of business services, violating state civil rights protections.
  4. California Disabled Persons Act: The county denied Martinez equal access to public facilities and services based on her disability.
  5. Declaratory Relief: A judicial declaration is sought to clarify the rights and responsibilities of the parties under disability law.

Defense

The defendants denied most of the plaintiff’s allegations, citing lack of information or belief to admit or deny many of the claims. The defendants asserted that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. They argued that their programs, activities, and services were accessible to persons with disabilities when viewed in their entirety and that they had provided reasonable access.

The defendants claimed that the plaintiff’s requested modifications were unreasonable and unnecessary to avoid discrimination. They stated that they had substantially complied with all applicable requirements. The defense argued that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the causes of action. They also claimed that granting the requested relief would result in an undue financial burden. They asserted various immunities under California law and argued that the plaintiff’s claims were barred by statutes of limitations, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and other legal doctrines. The defendants demanded a jury trial and asked that the plaintiff take nothing by the proceeding.

Expert Testimony

The plaintiff designated Steven Clark and Karen McCall as experts on PDF and software accessibility and adaptive technology as part of her initial expert disclosures. On November 1, 2023, the plaintiff disclosed Eve Hill as an additional expert in response to the defendant’s designation of Cris Vaughan. Vaughan’s expert report indicated he would testify on a range of legal and interpretative opinions that went beyond what the plaintiff typically anticipated would be subject to trial testimony.

Jury Verdict

The jury found that the defendant violated Martinez’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act on March 20, 2019, due to deliberate indifference. They awarded Martinez $30,500 under the ADA and an additional $30,500 under the California Disabled Persons Act, totaling $61,000 in damages in ADA violation lawsuit.

Court Documents:

Available Upon Request