Federal Court Upholds ADA Verdict and Mandates Transcriber Services for County Forms

On June 2, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and an alternative motion for a new trial filed by Alameda County. The decision upholds a jury verdict awarding $30,500 in damages under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Disabled Persons Act (DPA), while also refining a permanent injunction requiring the county to assist blind individuals with government filings.

Background of the Dispute

The case stems from an incident on March 29, 2019, when a blind business owner visited the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder’s Office (CRO) to file a fictitious business name statement (FBNS). A clerk identified errors on the form that needed correction before filing. Because the plaintiff cannot read or write print, she requested in-person assistance to make the corrections. Staff and a supervisor refused, citing an internal office policy prohibiting employees from filling out or altering forms.

While sighted patrons routinely make corrections on the spot to complete filings the same day, the plaintiff was given a printed rejection notice ("Go Back Letter"), a return envelope, and an offer of expedited mail filing. Consequently, the plaintiff had to hire a sighted reader-transcriber to prepare a corrected form before returning to file it.

The lawsuit was originally filed on September 18, 2020. Following a six-day jury trial in March and April 2024, the jury found that Alameda County violated the plaintiff's ADA rights with deliberate indifference and awarded $30,500 in damages. On January 17, 2025, the court issued a permanent injunction, which Alameda County subsequently challenged through post-trial motions filed on February 14, 2025.

Court Analysis and Rejection of Post-Trial Challenges

In its order denying the motions, the court addressed several core legal challenges raised by the county:

• Effective Communication: The county argued that because clerks spoke fluently with the plaintiff, communication was effective. The court rejected this, finding that the interactive process of reviewing, correcting, and filing forms constitutes communication under Title II. Verbal instructions relying on spatial terms like "here" and "there" were ineffective for a blind individual who could not read the print document.
• Auxiliary Aids and Alternatives: The court found that providing printed letters and mail-in options did not ensure effective communication or protect the filer's independence, as these alternatives still required sighted help. Moreover, the county's subsequent provision of public computer kiosks—even with JAWS screen reader software or manual clerk navigation—did not eliminate the need for injunctive relief due to usability barriers and layout variations.
• Deliberate Indifference: The court upheld the finding of deliberate indifference necessary for ADA monetary damages, noting that county staff were clearly alerted to the plaintiff's disability and obvious accommodation needs but refused to provide auxiliary aids.
• State-Level Claims: The court affirmed liability under California Government Code § 11135, rejecting arguments that the specific form filing service did not receive qualifying state financial assistance, and sustained the damages under the DPA without allowing double recovery.

Refined Permanent Injunction

To prevent confusion regarding the primary consideration requirement under 28 C.F.R. § 35.160(b)(2) and avoid requiring patrons to use rigid "magic words," the court amended its permanent injunction. The revised order directs the Alameda County Clerk-Recorder’s Office:

"...to offer and, if accepted, to provide transcriber services to any blind or visually impaired individual who requests assistance with a CRO form, unless Defendant can document a fundamental alteration or undue burden with respect to a particular form. This injunction does not require the CRO to make alterations or corrections to an already-signed form."