Courthouse News Service

Similar documents
Case 1:14-cv CKK Document 1 Filed 08/22/14 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Courthouse News Service

Case 0:10-cv KMM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/10/2010 Page 1 of 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

PLAINTIFF AVA SMITH- THOMPSON S COMPLAINT AGAINST DEFENDANT SARA LEE CORPORATION

Case 1:08-cv REB Document 1 Filed 12/16/2008 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 2:14-cv MPK Document 1 Filed 04/22/14 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES WITH JURY DEMAND

Case 8:11-cv PJM Document 1 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 03/02/18 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION

Case 3:33-av Document 4790 Filed 05/04/12 Page 1 of 10 PageID: 91151

Case 6:17-cv Document 1 Filed 10/24/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA LAFAYETTE DIVISION

Case 3:14-cv MLC-DEA Document 6 Filed 07/15/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID: 30

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA DAVENPORT DIVISION. Nature Of The Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF HAWAII CV

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Plaintiff Sharolynn L. Griffiths, by and through her undersigned counsel, by way of JURISDICTION

Case 1:18-cv Document 1 Filed 04/30/18 Page 1 of 16

Case 2:14-cv MRH Document 1 Filed 05/27/14 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Case No.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION, AKRON

Case 1:09-bk Doc 5 Filed 06/23/09 Entered 06/23/09 05:14:51 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

1/29/2019 8:49 AM 19CV04626

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 06/22/ :20 PM INDEX NO /2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/22/2018

This is an action under the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008

Case 4:14-cv RH-CAS Document 8-1 Filed 03/17/14 Page 1 of 21. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Tallahassee Division

FILED: BRONX COUNTY CLERK 01/26/ :43 AM INDEX NO /2018E NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/26/2018

Case: 4:15-cv BYP Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/11/15 1 of 18. PageID #: 1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT KANSAS CITY PETITION

Case: 3:17-cv TMR Doc #: 1 Filed: 05/24/17 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 1

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT FOURTH DIVISION CIVIL ACTION NO. 94-CI-2671

Case 1:15-cv KMW Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/13/2015 Page 1 of 9

Case 4:18-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2018 Page 1 of 17

Case: 5:17-cv DCR Doc #: 1 Filed: 01/06/17 Page: 1 of 5 - Page ID#: 1

Case 1:17-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (NORTHERN DIVISION)

Case 3:04-cv JSW Document 168 Filed 10/20/2005 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 9:16-cv RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/15/2016 Page 1 of 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Case 7:17-cv KMK Document 1 Filed 07/06/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION CASE NO. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT! WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN! SOUTHERN DIVISION!

Filing # E-Filed 06/09/ :22:25 PM

Plaintiff Privacy Pop, LLC ( Plaintiff ) complains and alleges as follows against Defendant Gimme Gimme, LLC ( Defendant ).

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FAYETTE CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL BRANCH DIVISION 8 CASE NO. 16-CI-3229 RESPONSE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL S MOTION TO INTERVENE

Case 3:17-cv SRU Document 1 Filed 08/21/17 Page 1 of 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. ADRIAN LOVELL, Civil Action No.

Case 1:18-cv RDB Document 1 Filed 07/30/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

2:10-cv SB-BM Date Filed 10/06/10 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 17

Case: 5:15-cv SL Doc #: 1 Filed: 07/20/15 2 of 9. PageID #: 2

Case 1:11-cv LG-JCG Document 2 Filed 11/17/11 Page 1 of 7

2. One of the defendant in the case is Parker & Gould (P&G). What is exactly P&G?

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, WESTERN DIVISION

Case 3:17-cv AVC Document 1 Filed 02/10/17 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT : : : : : : COMPLAINT

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/12/ :18 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 21 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/12/2018

Case 1:15-cv MEH Document 4 Filed 04/02/15 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT

Case 3:17-mc G Document 1 Filed 03/06/17 Page 1 of 5 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

CASE NO. C O M P L A I N T. Attorney, and sues the Defendants, JUSTIN BIEBER ( BIEBER } and HUGO HESNY

9:12-cv PMD-BHH Date Filed 09/17/12 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 8

Case 1:18-cv PGG Document 1 Filed 10/24/18 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/03/17 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Case 2:17-cv JEM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/01/2017 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Plaintiffs, Case No.: VERIFIED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION

Complaint - Walmart Substance on Floor in Frozen Food Dept.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT. Defendants. : : June 26, 2018 COMPLAINT

NATURE OF THE ACTION. This is an action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

DJAS FILED. eelveo PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES. Case 1:18-cv RP Document 1 Filed 02/20/18 Page 1 of 18. Case No.

Case 2:16-cv GMN-VCF Document 1 Filed 04/26/16 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:08-cv DAK Document 31 Filed 02/25/2009 Page 1 of 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Case 2:02-cv WHA-SRW Document 27 Filed 04/08/2003 Page 1 of 6. NORTH:F,l~. DIVISION =r--zq SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION ) ) ) NATURE OF THE ACTION

Case 3:17-cv DJH Document 3 Filed 02/06/17 Page 1 of 10 PageID #: 13

Case 1:17-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 11/29/ :47 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 52 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 11/29/2017

Case 8:04-cv SCB-TBM Document 32 Filed 10/07/2005 Page 1 of 6

Case: 1:13-cv HJW Doc #: 1 Filed: 03/28/13 Page: 1 of 9 PAGEID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA SOUTHERN DIVISION. Plaintitl, Defendants. COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

The Civil Rights Act of 1991

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case 3:11-cv CRW-TJS Document 1 Filed 04/06/11 Page 1 of 7

Case 0:16-cv WPD Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/07/2017 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/06/ :22 PM INDEX NO /2015 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/06/2015

COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY FRANKLIN CIRCUIT COURT CIVIL ACTION NO. 16-CI-389 DIVISION II STATE REPRESENTATIVE MARY LOU MARZIAN

Jefferson Circuit Court Division Judge

Case 1:07-cv MRB Document 6 Filed 11/06/2007 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 5:18-CV-96 COMPLAINT

Courthouse News Service

Case3:05-cv WHA Document1 Filed02/14/05 Page1 of 5

Case 1:15-cv Document 1 Filed 02/27/15 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. COMPLAINT and Jury Demand

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN. COMPLAINT Plaintiffs, v.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA. Complaint

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 01/23/17 Page 1 of 11

) I ClV a S - BUN. 18 This is an action under Title VII ofthe Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Title I of the Civil

FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 05/25/ /09/ :37 12:27 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 10 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 05/25/2016

Transcription:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY CENTRAL DIVISION AT LEXINGTON TERI MOSIER 320 ELM TREE LANE, APT. #506 LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY 40508 v. Plaintiff, THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY C/O KENTUCKY ATTORNEY GENERAL JACK CONWAY 700 CAPITOL AVENUE, SUITE 118 and CHIEF JUSTICE JOSEPH LAMBERT in his official capacity, STATE CAPITOL, ROOM 321 700 CAPITOL AVENUE and ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS 100 MILLCREEK PARK and JASON NEMES in his official capacity, as Director of the Administrative Office of the Courts, 100 MILLCREEK PARK Defendants. Case No. J. Filed electronically COMPLAINT WITH JURY DEMAND ENDORSED HEREON Courthouse News Service

INTRODUCTION 1. Teri Mosier, a deaf attorney, brings this Complaint against the Commonwealth of Kentucky, Chief Justice Joseph Lambert in his official capacity, the Administrative Office of the Courts, and Jason Nemes in his official capacity (collectively, Defendants ). Defendants policy states that they must comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act by providing qualified interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing. Defendants policy further states that they will not provide interpreting services for attorneys. See Exhibit A. Defendants refusal to provide qualified sign language interpreters to ensure effective communication with Plaintiff, a deaf attorney, during her court appearances violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq., and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. PARTIES 2. Plaintiff, Teri Mosier, is deaf and resides at 320 Elm Tree Lane, Apt. 506, Lexington, Kentucky 40508. 3. The Commonwealth of Kentucky ( the Commonwealth ) has a judicial system called the Kentucky Court of Justice. The Commonwealth is a recipient of federal financial assistance. 4. Joseph Lambert is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kentucky and the executive head of the Kentucky Court of Justice. Ky. Const. 110(5)(b). He is being sued in his official capacity. His office is located at State Capitol, Room 231, 700 Capitol Avenue, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. 5. The Administrative Office of the Courts ( AOC ) serves as the staff for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Kentucky. AOC s duties include arranging 2

court interpreting services to ensure effective communication with individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing. AOC is a recipient of federal financial assistance. AOC is located at 110 Millcreek Park, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. 6. Jason Nemes is the director of the Administrative Office of the Courts. He is being sued in his official capacity. His office is located at 110 Millcreek Park, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 7. Plaintiff is deaf. She is substantially limited in the major life activities of hearing and speaking. 8. Plaintiff is an attorney admitted to practice in Kentucky since 1999. 9. Plaintiff cannot hear or understand court proceedings without appropriate auxiliary aids or services. 10. Plaintiff is able to participate fully in court proceedings when qualified sign language interpreter services are provided. 11. Defendants have a policy stating that the Kentucky Court of Justice must comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act by providing qualified interpreters for the deaf and hard of hearing. See Exhibit A. Defendants policy nonetheless further states that the Kentucky Court of Justice does not provide interpreting services for attorneys, public defenders, law enforcement officers, jail officials, other state agency employees, social workers or mental health workers. See Exhibit A. 12. Plaintiff has a solo private practice. 13. Plaintiff has requested that Defendants provide qualified sign language interpreters when she appears in court. 3

14. Defendants refuse to provide qualified sign language interpreters for Plaintiff s court appearances. 15. As a result of Defendants policy, Plaintiff is unable to appear in or represent clients in Defendants courts. 16. As a result of Defendants policy, Plaintiff is unable to accept new cases that require court appearances and must refer clients to other lawyers when the clients cases require appearances in Defendants courts. 17. As a result of Defendants policy, Plaintiff s practice is confined to providing limited legal representation that does not require appearances in Defendants courts. 18. Plaintiff loses fees when she must turn down or refer clients who require appearances in Defendants courts. 19. But for Defendants failure to provide auxiliary aids and services for Plaintiff s appearances in Defendants courts, Plaintiff would be able to represent clients in Defendants court on a regular basis. 20. Plaintiff has experienced and continues to experience significant financial loss, mental anguish, and emotional stress as a direct result of Defendants refusal to provide auxiliary aids and services for her court appearances. COUNT I (AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT) 21. Paragraphs 1 to 20 are realleged and reasserted as if fully set forth here. 22. Plaintiff is a deaf attorney admitted to practice in Kentucky; accordingly, she is a qualified individual with disability as defined in 42 U.S.C. 12131(2). 4

23. Defendants are a State government and a department, agency, or other instrumentality of a State or State government; accordingly, Defendants are public entities as defined in 42 U.S.C. 12131(1). 24. Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132, provides that no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 25. Defendants have and continue to discriminate intentionally against Plaintiff in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132, by refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure an equal opportunity for Plaintiff to participate in Defendants programs and activities and to ensure effective communication with Plaintiff. 26. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has been injured and suffered pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. COUNT II (REHABILITATION ACT) 27. Paragraphs 1 to 26 are realleged and reasserted as if fully set forth here. 28. Plaintiff is a deaf attorney admitted to practice in Kentucky; accordingly, she is a qualified individual with a disability. assistance. 29. The Commonwealth and AOC are recipients of federal financial 30. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, provides that no qualified individual with a disability, solely by the reason of his or her disability, may be 5

excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance. 31. Defendants have and continue to discriminate intentionally against Plaintiff by refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure an equal opportunity for Plaintiff to participate in Defendants programs and activities and to ensure effective communication with Plaintiff, in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794. 32. As a result of Defendants actions, Plaintiff has been injured and suffered pecuniary losses, emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and other nonpecuniary losses. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for the following: 33. To cease discrimination against Plaintiff and other individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing; 34. To promulgate written policies and procedures to ensure that Defendants provide auxiliary aids and services for all individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, including attorneys who are deaf or hard of hearing, who appear in its courts; 35. To award compensatory damages to Plaintiff; 36. To award Plaintiff attorneys fees and costs; 37. To award Plaintiff any and all other relief as may be necessary and appropriate. 6

Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kelly Mulloy Myers Randolph H. Freking, Esq. (23509) Kelly Mulloy Myers, Esq. (86727) Freking & Betz, LLC 525 Vine Street, Sixth Floor Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 721-1975/FAX: (513) 651-2570 randy@frekingandbetz.com kmyers@frekingandbetz.com Michael S. Stein, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) Marc P. Charmatz, Esq. (pro hac vice pending) National Association of the Deaf Law and Advocacy Center 8630 Fenton Street, Suite 820 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301) 587-7732/ FAX: (301) 587-1791 Michael.stein@nad.org Marc.charmatz@nad.org JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable. _/s/ Kelly Mulloy Myers 7