- Court: 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Archives
- Area(s) of Law: Disability Law
- Date Filed: 09-12-2022
- Case #: 21-16532
- Judge(s)/Court Below: Thomas, J.; for the Court; Thomas, J.; Bea, J.; & Thomas, J.
- Full Text Opinion
Plaintiffs appealed a judgment in favor of Defendants on their disability discrimination claims pursuant to § 504 of Title III of the ADA, §1557 of the ACA, the Unruh Act, and the California Disabled Person Act (CDPA). Plaintiffs assigned error to the trial court’s judgment that Defendants satisfied their duty to provide interpreter services. Plaintiffs argued that they presented sufficient evidence to support their discriminations claims and that the trial court erred in finding in favor of Defendants. “Assessing whether an entity provided auxiliary aids where necessary to afford effective communications is a fact-intensive exercise. The tier of fact must weigh [several] factors, including the method of communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the communication is taking place. Updike v. Multnomah County, 870 F.3d 939, 958 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court explained there was no error in the district court’s findings on Plaintiff’s disability discrimination claims. Affirmed.