Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 15

Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 1 of 15

1 TIMOTHY ELDER (CA BAR NO. 277152)


TRE Legal Practice
2 4226 Castanos Street
Fremont, CA 94536
3 Telephone: (410) 415-3493
Facsimile: (888) 718-0617
4 Email: telder@trelegal.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
10
11 TIMOTHY R. NONN, Case No. ___________________

12 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DISCRIMINATION


IN VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS
13 v. WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C.
12101, ET SEQ., SECTION 504 OF THE
14 COTATI ROHNERT PARK UNIFIED REHABILITATION ACT, 29 U.S.C.
SCHOOL DISTRICT, ROBERT HALEY (in 501, ET SEQ., AND THE UNRUH CIVIL
15 his individual capacity), TRACY FARRELL RIGHTS ACT, CAL. CIV CODE 51, ET
(in her individual capacity), MARC ORLOFF SEQ.
16 (in his individual capacity); and JENNIFER
WILTERMOOD (in her individual capacity), DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AGAINST
17 INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
Defendants.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 COMPLAINT
31
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 2 of 15

1 INTRODUCTION
2 1. Plaintiff Timothy Nonn, an elected member of the Board of Trustees for the
3 Cotati Rohnert Park Unified School District, brings this action against the Cotati Rohnert Park
4 Unified School District (CRPUSD), and against its Superintendent, Robert Haley, and
5 members of the Board of Trustees, Tracy Farrell, Marc Orloff and Jennifer Wiltermood.
6 Plaintiff, a blind elected official, brings this action for Defendants refusal to literally provide a
7 seat at the table for his reader/scribe during public board meetings. Defendant refuses to make
8 this reasonable modification in violation of federal and state disability discrimination laws.
9 2. Mr. Nonn is a legally blind member of the Defendant CRPUSDs five-member
10 Board of Trustees. Mr. Nonn was elected to the Board of Trustees in November 2016. He
11 campaigned on a platform that promised to reform the policies of Defendant Superintendent
12 Robert Haley and the three Defendant Trustees who uniformly supported Mr. Haleys initiatives
13 without question (Farrell, Orloff and Wiltermood).
14 3. During the campaign, Mr. Nonn experienced medical complications in September
15 2016 that drastically reduced his ability to see. Because of this sudden vision loss, Mr. Nonn
16 now relies on a human aide to help him read, write and organize text and other graphical
17 information. He began working with Janet Lowery, a retired special education teacher who was
18 volunteering to help Mr. Nonn as a reader/scribe.
19 4. During the election, Mr. Nonn received substantially more votes than any other
20 single candidate on the ballot.
21 5. After his landslide victory, Mr. Nonn requested that Defendants allow his
22 reader/scribe, Janet Lowery, to sit next to him at the board table during public school board
23 meetings and to accompany him on certain school activities at no cost to the District. Mr. Nonn
24 discussed Defendants concerns with letting Ms. Lowery attend closed session board meetings in
25 which confidential union negotiations or other sensitive material was up for discussion. Because
26 of these confidentiality concerns and the fact that closed proceedings are informal and flexible on
27 time, Mr. Nonn agreed that he would not insist on using Ms. Lowery in closed session meetings.
28 However, Defendants nonetheless refuse to let Ms. Lowery even join him at the table during
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 2
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 3 of 15

1 public board meetings or school activities of any kind, including meetings that are open to any
2 member of the public. Instead, Defendants require that Mr. Nonn forgo any reader/scribe at all
3 during public open meetings or rely on fellow board trustees or unqualified District employees
4 that intrude on his privacy and independence before an audience of constituents. Neither option
5 provides effective access to information comparable to Ms. Lowerys trained abilities.
6 6. Defendants refusal to allow a reasonable modification that permits Ms. Lowerys
7 assistance threatens Mr. Nonn with irreparable harm. His four-year elected term is impinged if
8 he cannot access information needed to cast competent, informed votes and otherwise govern
9 District business with the same efficiency, privacy and independence enjoyed by other board
10 trustees. Without injunctive relief from the Court, he will experience irreparable interference
11 from political opponents and be subjected to unlawful and publically humiliating discrimination
12 on account of his disability. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law to account for this loss of
13 political opportunity in his elected term.
14 7. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to compel Defendant CRPUSD to
15 make reasonable modifications that enable his reader/scribe to sit with him at public board
16 meetings and otherwise accompany him at school activities. This is needed to ensure Mr. Nonn
17 obtains equal access to information in a context that does not sacrifice his privacy or
18 independence. In addition, Mr. Nonn seeks monetary damages under state law for past incidents
19 where Defendants Haley, Farrell, Orloff and Wiltermood individually acted to exclude Mr.
20 Nonns reader/scribe at specific public board meetings in front of the community.
21 JURISDICTION
22 8. This is an action primarily for declaratory and injunctive relief against Defendant
23 CRPUSD brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.
24 12101, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 501 et seq. This Court
25 has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331.
26 9. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
27 Plaintiffs pendent claim for monetary damages against individual Defendants Haley, Farrell,
28
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 3
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 4 of 15

1 Orloff and Wiltermood in their personal capacities arising under the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal.
2 Civ. Code 51, et seq.
3 VENUE
4 10. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b)(2) and 1391(c), venue is proper in the District
5 in which this Complaint is filed because Defendants discriminatory conduct occurred within this
6 District and continues to occur within this District.
7 PARTIES
8 11. Plaintiff Timothy Nonn is a duly elected member of Defendant CRPUSDs five-
9 member Board of Trustees. He currently lives in Rohnert Park, California. Mr. Nonns elected
10 term ends in 2020.
11 12. Mr. Nonn is legally blind as a result of open-angle glaucoma. This condition is
12 degenerative and causes significant vision loss over time. Mr. Nonns medical condition
13 substantially limits his major life activities of seeing, reading, and processing information. He
14 faces irreparable harm because of Defendants refusal to make reasonable modifications and
15 permit his reader/scribe to help him access information at public board meetings and at school
16 activities.
17 13. Defendant CRPUSD is the local government entity responsible for daily
18 operations of the public school system in the cities of Cotati, Rohnert Park and neighboring areas
19 of Sonoma County, California. The District serves approximately 6000 students at six
20 elementary schools, two middle schools, a K-8 school, one comprehensive high school, a magnet
21 school, and two charter schools. CRPUSDs offices are located at 7165 Burton Avenue, Rohnert
22 Park, CA 94928. Defendant CRPUSD is responsible for providing reasonable modifications for
23 disabled persons to participate in school board meetings and other school programs and
24 activities. Defendant CRPUSD receives federal financial assistance.
25 14. Defendant Robert Haley is the Superintendent of CRPUSD. He has authority to
26 instruct and control all CRPUSD employees. He manages and administers CRPUSD resources,
27 policies and practices with respect to making reasonable modifications for people with
28
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 4
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 5 of 15

1 disabilities to participate in school programs and activities. He has individually acted in his
2 personal capacity to prevent Mr. Nonn from accessing information during public board meetings.
3 15. Defendant Tracy Farrell is the elected President of the CRPUSD Board of
4 Trustees. She presides over public board meetings pursuant to approved governance bylaws.
5 She has authority to cast one of five votes on the policies, practices and meeting business of
6 CRPUSD. Her voting record is politically aligned with Superintendent Haley, and trustees Marc
7 Orloff and Jennifer Wiltermood. She has individually acted in her personal capacity to prevent
8 Mr. Nonn from accessing information during public board meetings.
9 16. Defendant Marc Orloff is an elected member of the CRPUSD Board of Trustees.
10 He has authority to cast one of five votes on the policies, practices and meeting business of
11 CRPUSD. His voting record is politically aligned with Superintendent Haley, and board trustees
12 Tracy Farrell and Jennifer Wiltermood. He has individually acted in his personal capacity to
13 prevent Mr. Nonn from accessing information during public board meetings.
14 17. Defendant Jennifer Wiltermood is an elected member of the CRPUSD Board of
15 Trustees. She has authority to cast one of five votes on the policies, practices and meeting
16 business of CRPUSD. Her voting record is politically aligned with Superintendent Haley, and
17 board trustees Tracy Farrell and Marc Orloff. She has individually acted in her personal capacity
18 to prevent Mr. Nonn from accessing information during public board meetings.
19 FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
20 18. Plaintiff Timothy Nonn was first diagnosed with Open Angle Glaucoma in 1995,
21 when he was 41 years old. His vision has both gradually and suddenly deteriorated since then.
22 He has endured several surgeries since then to preserve his vision and ocular health. In
23 approximately 2005, he suddenly lost 90% of all vision in his left eye. His vision in both eyes
24 continued to gradually deteriorate after that sudden change.
25 19. On September 13, 2016, in the midst of his election campaign for the CRPUSD
26 Board of Trustees, Mr. Nonn underwent an operation to relieve pressure on his right eye. As an
27 unintended consequence of the procedure, he lost more than 50% of the little residual vision that
28 he had in his right eye. Mr. Nonn is now unable to read print or meaningfully obtain visual
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 5
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 6 of 15

1 information with his small amount of residual peripheral vision, which is also slowly
2 deteriorating over time.
3 20. Since September 2016, Mr. Nonn has relied on Janet Lowery to help him access
4 documents, complete paperwork and generally organize his affairs. Janet Lowery is a retired
5 special education teacher who worked for CRPUSD. Since Mr. Nonns most sudden loss of
6 vision in September 2016, Ms. Lowery has spent countless hours working with Mr. Nonn to
7 access information over a broad range of materials and activities.
8 21. Mr. Nonn and Ms. Lowery have developed a trusting working relationship and an
9 efficiency and synergy for completing tasks with minimal communication and cognitive
10 overhead. Because of their many hours of practice and refinement working together, the pair has
11 become a team that provides Mr. Nonn with the information he is looking for as quickly as
12 possible. Likewise, the pair has learned how to communicate subtle signals to skip over
13 information that Mr. Nonn wishes to ignore and drill down to the details that he is most
14 interested in at the time.
15 22. Effectively acting as a replacement for Mr. Nonns ability to read and visually
16 observe in the context of school board business is not as simple as just reading text aloud.
17 Rather, the process, in this context, requires an involved dance through steps of communication
18 around complex subject matter. For example, Mr. Nonn must first request information; Ms.
19 Lowery then interprets his request; Ms. Lowery translates requested visual information to
20 speech, including sub textual information like punctuation, paragraphs and page layout that
21 nonetheless communicates meaning to the visual reader; Mr. Nonn listens for comprehension
22 and simultaneously considers adjustments and changes to Ms. Lowerys performance; Mr. Nonn
23 infers meaning from partial information; Mr. Nonn articulates additional instructions to reflect
24 his intended changes in her performance; Ms. Lowery reads and speaks while listening to receive
25 the next set of instructions; Ms. Lowery interprets those instructions; Ms. Lowery translates
26 further visual information into speech in response to new instructions; Mr. Nonn listens for
27 comprehension; and the cycle repeats on and on with variations of speed and intensity.
28
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 6
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 7 of 15

1 23. While the activity above contains the basic elements of human communication,
2 any misstep at any point in the chain can result in misunderstandings that prevent the blind
3 person from quickly processing information. When done correctly, the exchange is as smooth as
4 a renowned classical soloist/accompanist duet or a champion sports team. When done
5 incorrectly, it functions more like unrehearsed chaos.
6 24. Further, the process of functioning as a reader/scribe for Mr. Nonn involves more
7 than accessing simple text documents. Ms. Lowery provides access to a wide range of materials,
8 including visual descriptions of pictures, discovering orientation on a geographic map and taking
9 notes and marking up these materials.
10 25. Further, the context of a CRPUSD public board meeting has a degree of time
11 pressure that requires greater efficiency of access to information. CRPUSD public board
12 meetings are very dynamic and time-sensitive. Unlike closed session meetings, which are less
13 formal, public meetings are required to be open for participation by any member of the public
14 and everything is recorded on an official record. Many speakers present charts and graphs via
15 PowerPoint. Many of these documents are amended and edited up to the very last moment and
16 cannot be provided or reviewed in advance. Members of the public may produce hand-outs for
17 board trustees and ask board trustees questions about any number of documents as part of the
18 public record.
19 26. During public board meetings, CRPUSD trustees must be prepared to quickly
20 review documents, process information and be prepared to vote on issues that require
21 interpretation of presented information. These proceedings are held before an audience of
22 constituents from the community who are entitled to observe and participate in accordance with
23 Californias open meeting laws. The political role of trustees also includes an obligation to
24 interview presenters and ask and answer appropriate questions on the record for the benefit of the
25 public. Public board meetings have a set agenda and time constraints with limited opportunity to
26 communicate with a reader/scribe in time to ask questions on the record. It is imperative that
27 Mr. Nonn function efficiently and discretely when reviewing documents and information during
28 public board meetings.
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 7
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 8 of 15

1 27. Board trustees are often required to visit school sites or attend social settings.
2 This activity involves some degree of obtaining visual information about ones surroundings and
3 the social interactions between groups of students, teachers, parents and members of the public.
4 28. Much of the visual information at these school activities is subject to a wide range
5 of nonvisual descriptions; it is similar to the way three different people might verbally describe a
6 piece of art. Having some established rapport between the blind observer and the sighted
7 describer helps the blind observer control for individuality and personal bias and gradually train
8 the describer to intuit the blind persons preference for certain details or sequences of
9 information.
10 29. Using a trained, practiced aide that is familiar to Mr. Nonn, such as Ms. Lowery,
11 enables Mr. Nonn to access information with a greater degree of automaticity and confidence.
12 This enables Mr. Nonn to focus on processing information without expending cognitive energy
13 on how to obtain the information to be processed and overcoming communication breakdowns.
14 It also provides him with more reliable and predictable results.
15 30. On November 29, 2016, Mr. Nonn met with Trustee Wiltermood and CRPUSD
16 Human Resources Director Karen Tedesco to discuss what reasonable modifications, auxiliary
17 aids and assistance he would need to function as a trustee. Mr. Nonn requested that he be
18 allowed to have his personal reader/scribe join him at the board table during public meetings to
19 help him follow along with documents, PowerPoint presentations and other visual information.
20 Ms. Lowery would impose no cost on the school district. CRPUSD refused this request and
21 instead offered to allow Mr. Nonn to rely on Superintendent Haleys administrative assistant,
22 Mindy McKeon and other trustees for whatever help he needed during public board meetings.
23 Mr. Nonn agreed to try this arrangement at the closed portion of December 13, 2016 board
24 meeting and sit next to trustee Leff Brown, whose voting record is politically aligned with Mr.
25 Nonns agenda.
26 31. On December 12, 2016, Mr. Nonn visited the CRPUSD offices and learned that
27 Mindy McKeon was not going to be able to sit next to Mr. Nonn as his dedicated reader/scribe
28 during any part of the meeting (closed or open). He learned that CRPUSD was going to instead
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 8
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 9 of 15

1 arrange seats so that Mr. Nonn could sit between Trustee Leff Brown and CRPUSD Assistant
2 Superintendent Julie Synyard.
3 32. On December 13, 2016, Mr. Nonn went to his first board meeting and was sworn
4 in as a trustee. The trustees then conducted a closed session. During that closed session, Mr.
5 Nonn discovered that Mr. Brown and Ms. Synyards chairs were too far from his own to
6 meaningfully help him during the meeting. Further, he observed that each of them had their own
7 role and work during the board meeting and were not going to be available when he needed them
8 to help him access information in a document or presentation without distraction.
9 33. Once the closed session adjourned, the board took a break and then reconvened
10 for the public board meeting in which members of the community were invited to attend. Mr.
11 Nonn again requested that his personal reader/scribe, Janet Lowery, be allowed to sit next to him
12 in an available empty space at the board table. Defendants jointly refused this request and
13 decided to adjourn the meeting to avoid a discussion of the dispute on the record before an
14 audience of community members.
15 34. The next reconvened board meeting was held on December 20, 2016. Prior to
16 that meeting, CRPUSD had reiterated that it would not permit a dedicated reader/scribe to sit
17 next to Mr. Nonn at the public board meeting and that he should instead rely on Julie Synyard or
18 Trustee Leff Brown to assist him during public meetings.
19 35. During the December 20 reconvened public board meeting, Mr. Nonn again tried
20 CRPUSDs proposal that he rely on Trustee Brown and Ms. Synyard and found that this
21 arrangement was ineffective. The agenda at the meeting included discussion of fiscal budgeting,
22 which was an issue that occupied most of Trustee Browns attention during the meeting. As
23 before, Ms. Synyard also seemed unavailable due to her own duties at the meeting. Because Mr.
24 Nonn did not have access to budget information that was presented in a PowerPoint presentation
25 during the meeting, he felt that he was unprepared to cast a competent vote on the interim
26 budget. Mr. Nonn was forced to abstain from voting because he was not given effective access
27 to the information in the December 20 meeting.
28
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 9
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 10 of 15

1 36. On January 17, Mr. Nonn attended the next public board meeting. A PowerPoint
2 presentation with charts and color graphs was discussed during the meeting that was not
3 available ahead of time. Mr. Nonn was unable to meaningfully discuss this presentation with the
4 presenter on the public record because he could not access the information displayed without a
5 reader/scribe.
6 37. Defendants cannot articulate any legitimate concern about Ms. Lowerys sitting at
7 the board table during public meetings and have offered only unqualified readers and CRPUSD
8 employees who impinge on his political independence and unnecessarily waste CRPUSD
9 resources.
10 38. Mr. Nonns role as a CRPUSD trustee requires that he keep CRPUSD
11 accountable. This role requires him to maintain his privacy and independence from CRPUSD
12 employees. Mr. Nonns political independence is hindered by relying on CRPUSD employees to
13 control what information he is able to review, and his privacy is violated by permitting CRPUSD
14 employees to learn what information he is focusing on during presentations. No other elected
15 trustee is required to compromise their political privacy and independence in this manner.
16 39. Mr. Nonn is and will continue to be significantly harmed by Defendants refusal
17 to let him bring his trained, independent, qualified reader/scribe to sit next to him at public board
18 meetings.
19 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
20 Title II of the ADA
21 40. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of
22 the complaint.
23 41. Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. 12132, states that no qualified individual with
24 a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the
25 benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to
26 discrimination by any such entity.
27 42. Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability under 42 U.S.C. 12131(2)
28 with respect to his being duly elected to the CRPUSD Board of Trustees.
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 10
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 11 of 15

1 43. Defendant CRPUSD is a local government entity subject to the public entity
2 requirements of Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. 12131.
3 44. Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA state that Defendant CRPUSD
4 shall not discriminate by doing the following:
5 a) Provide a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that
6 is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain
7 the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to
8 others. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(iii).
9 b) Otherwise limit a qualified individual with a disability in the enjoyment of any
10 right, privilege, advantage, or opportunity enjoyed by others receiving the aid,
11 benefit, or service. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(1)(vii).
12 45. To avoid the discrimination defined above, Defendant CRPUSD must make
13 reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are
14 necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can
15 demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service,
16 program, or activity. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).
17 46. Regulations implementing Title II of the ADA further anticipate that Defendant
18 CRPUSD shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary" and that:
19 The type of auxiliary aid or service necessary to ensure effective
communication will vary in accordance with the method of
20 communication used by the individual; the nature, length, and
complexity of the communication involved; and the context in
21 which the communication is taking place. In determining what
types of auxiliary aids and services are necessary, a public entity
22 shall give primary consideration to the requests of individuals with
disabilities. In order to be effective, auxiliary aids and services
23 must be provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in
such a way as to protect the privacy and independence of the
24 individual with a disability. 28 C.F.R. 36.160(b).
25 47. Finally, the regulations clarify that [n]othing in this part shall be construed to
26 require an individual with a disability to accept an accommodation, aid, service, opportunity, or
27 benefit provided under the ADA or this part which such individual chooses not to accept. 28
28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(7).
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 11
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 12 of 15

1 48. Defendant CRPUSD must allow Plaintiffs trained, independent, qualified


2 reader/scribe to sit next to Plaintiff in public board meetings to assist him in accessing
3 information presented at those meetings. Doing so is a reasonable modification to avoid
4 discrimination that does not fundamentally alter the meeting.
5 49. Defendant CRPUSD has failed to give primary consideration to Plaintiffs request
6 in deciding what auxiliary aids and services are necessary for him.
7 50. Plaintiff will be required to sacrifice his privacy and independence if forced to
8 rely on Defendant CRPUSDs employees to function as his reader/scribe in the context of the
9 political role he holds as trustee on a partisan board.
10 51. The method of communication used by Plaintiff, and the nature, length, and
11 complexity of the communication involved during public board meetings requires a trained,
12 independent, qualified reader/scribe who has developed rapport and efficiency when working
13 with Plaintiff.
14 52. Defendant CRPUSDs conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of
15 the ADA and its supporting regulations. Unless restrained from doing so, Defendant CRPUSD
16 will continue to violate the ADA. Unless enjoined, Defendants conduct will continue to inflict
17 injuries for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
18 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
19 Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
20 53. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of
21 the Complaint.
22 54. Plaintiff is an individual with a disability under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
23 Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794, and its implementing regulations.
24 55. Plaintiff is otherwise qualified under 29 U.S.C. 794 to participate as an elected
25 trustee of Defendant CRPUSDs school board.
26 56. Defendant CRPUSD discriminated solely on account of Plaintiffs disability when
27 it refused to allow Plaintiffs trained, independent, qualified reader/scribe to sit next to him at
28 public board meetings. This violates 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq.
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 12
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 13 of 15

1 57. Defendant CRPUSD received and continues to receive federal financial assistance
2 and is therefore a recipient of federal financial assistance within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. 794.
3 58. Defendant CRPUSDs conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of
4 Section 504. Unless restrained from doing so, Defendant CRPUSD will continue to violate the
5 ADA. Unless enjoined, Defendants conduct will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiff
6 has no adequate remedy at law.
7 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
8 California Civil Code 51
9 59. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of
10 the complaint.
11 60. The Unruh Civil Rights Act, California Civil Code 51, et seq., guarantees
12 equal access for people with disabilities to the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges
13 and services of all business establishments of any kind whatsoever, including local governments
14 and school boards as defined by the statutory definition of business establishment.
15 61. Plaintiff is legally blind and as such is recognized as a person with a disability
16 under California Government Code 12926 and California Civil Code 51.
17 62. Defendant CRPUSD is a business establishment as that term is used in California
18 Civil Code 51(b), and the administration of communications to trustees during public board
19 meetings is an accommodation, advantage, facility, privilege, and service of Defendant CRPUSD
20 in California.
21 63. A violation of the right of any individual under the ADA also constitutes a
22 violation of the Unruh Act. Cal. Civ. Code 51(f).
23 64. Whoever denies, aids or incites a denial, or makes any discrimination or
24 distinction contrary to Section 51, 51.5, Or 51.6, is liable for each and every offense for the
25 actual damages, and any amount that may be determined by a jury, or a court sitting without a
26 jury, up to a maximum of three times the amount of actual damage but in no case less than four
27 thousand dollars ($4,000), and any attorney's fees that may be determined by the court in
28 addition thereto, suffered by any person denied the rights provided in Section 51, 51.5, or 51.6.
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 13
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 14 of 15

1 65. Defendants Robert Haley, Tracy Farrell, Marc Orloff and Jennifer Wiltermood
2 have acted in their personal capacities to aid and incite denials contrary to section 51 of the
3 Unruh Act.
4 66. As a result of Defendants Haley, Farrell, Orloff and Wiltermoods violation of the
5 Unruh Act in their personal capacities, Plaintiff is entitled to damages, attorneys fees and costs
6 for past harm. Cal. Civ. Code 52(a).
7 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
8 (Declaratory Relief)
9 67. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of
10 the complaint.
11 68. Plaintiff contends that he is entitled to a reasonable modification that enables his
12 trained, independent, qualified reader/scribe to sit next to him during public board meetings
13 under the regulations implementing Title II of the ADA.
14 69. Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs contention.
15 70. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each
16 of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.
17 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests relief as set forth below.
18 RELIEF REQUESTED
19 Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows:
20 71. A declaration that Plaintiff is entitled to work with his trained, independent,
21 qualified reader/scribe at public board meetings and school activities and that Defendants
22 refusal to make this reasonable modification to policies and practices discriminates against
23 Plaintiff on the basis of his disability in violation of federal law;
24 72. A preliminary and permanent order enjoining Defendant CRPUSD from violating
25 federal disability discrimination laws in its refusal to allow Plaintiffs reader/scribe to assist him
26 at public board meetings and school activities;
27 73. Damages against Defendants Haley, Farrell, Orloff and Wiltermood in their
28 personal capacities;
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 14
Case 3:17-cv-00761-JCS Document 1 Filed 02/15/17 Page 15 of 15

1 74. An award of Plaintiffs reasonable attorneys fees and costs jointly and severally
2 against all Defendants; and
3 75. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
4 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS
5 Pursuant to Rule 38(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 3-6,
6 Plaintiff respectfully requests a jury trial against individual defendants on all issues triable
7 thereby.
8
9
10 DATED: February 15, 2017 Respectfully submitted,
11
12 TRE LEGAL PRACTICE
13
14
15 Timothy Elder
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 COMPLAINT
31 15