Matthew Stanek, et al. v. St. Charles Community Unit School District No. 303 Board of Education, et al.

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits public accommodations from discriminating against individuals on the basis of disability. § 12182 (a). This appeal arose from the District Court’s grant of sanctions and dismissal of the entire suit with prejudice. However, the epicenter is concerning the due process right of the disabled to accessible depositions, their right to equal access to the court and equal protections of laws. Unlike the Tenth and Third Circuit, the Seventh and Fifth Circuits added a limitation to the plain meaning of “service establishment” that appears nowhere in ADA. On appeal, petitioners challenged the denial of a protective order that was essential to preserve asserted privileges under the First and Fifth Amendments, but the Seventh Circuit applied the collateral bar rule holding that a party who disobeys a judicial order may not challenge the validity of the original order. Here, however, there was no citation of contempt under either Federal Rule 37 or 42 and the due process concerns and safeguards associated with criminal contempt were not met. Petitioners are calling into question the jurisdiction of the courts below to issue such orders, and the constitutionality of Federal Rules and ADA as they came in direct conflict with the U.S. Constitution and with decisions of the Supreme Court. The Questions Presented Are: 1. Whether a law office is subject to the non-dis­ crimination requirements of the Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12181 et seq., (the “ADA”) when it conducts a deposition of “any” qualified individual with a disability under the statute;