Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Multnomah County, Oregon v. David Updike, et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 15-35254 · judgment August 31, 2017


Certiorari denied · October 1, 2018
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

Under this Court’s jurisprudence, the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (“§ 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, require a showing of discriminatory intent prior to an award of compensatory damages. Petitioner operates a county jail in Portland, Oregon. Respondent, a frequent visitor to Oregon jails, is hearing-impaired. In January 2013, he spent two nights at the jail, achieving the routine booking and pretrial release matters through writing. No mistakes were made on his admission, housing, or release. Because respondent claimed he requested an ASL interpreter, however, the Ninth Circuit determined that a genuine dispute of fact existed as to whether petitioner committed intentional discrimination, requiring it to compensate respondent for the emotional distress associated with not receiving his first-choice accommodation. THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS: Is the level of discriminatory intent required to award compensatory damages under the ADA and § 504 “discriminatory animus,” as three circuits have held, or “deliberate indifference,” as five circuits have held, and can the provision of an effective accommodation amount to discriminatory intent?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Jacqueline Sadker Kamins
Multnomah County Attorney

For respondent
Carl Lee Post
Law Offices of Daniel Snyder

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Oct 01 2018
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Jun 20 2018
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
  3. Jun 15 2018
    Reply of petitioner Multnomah County filed.
  4. Jun 01 2018
    Brief of respondent David Updike in opposition filed.
  5. Apr 19 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is further extended to and including June 1, 2018.
  6. Apr 16 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 2, 2018 to June 1, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
  7. Mar 26 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including May 2, 2018.
  8. Mar 19 2018
    Motion to extend the time to file a response from April 2, 2018 to May 2, 2018, submitted to The Clerk.
  9. Feb 26 2018
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due April 2, 2018)