## Facts

- Lezlie Ann Button, a deaf or hard-of-hearing student, attended the Community College of Southern Nevada and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, both governed by the Board of Regents.
- She requested auxiliary aids to obtain equal access to course instruction and materials, including sign-language interpreters, effective note-taking, and real-time captioning (RTC).
- In a spelling course, Button repeatedly complained that interpreter services were delayed, unreliable, and involved interpreters she considered unqualified; her communications reflected months-long delay in securing acceptable services.
- In an environmental science course, Button received a notetaker but complained the notes were inadequate; internal communications from school personnel acknowledged deficiencies and suggested a substantial period without an effective notetaker.
- In an economics course, Button requested RTC instead of an interpreter due to the professor’s rapid speech; despite prior use of RTC for her in another course, the institution denied the RTC request without providing it.
- Button sued under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, seeking monetary damages and alleging both failure to provide reasonable accommodations and deliberate indifference.

## Issues

1. Whether the record created genuine disputes of material fact as to whether the institutions provided reasonable accommodations sufficient to afford Button meaningful access under Title II and § 504.
2. Whether the record created genuine disputes of material fact that the Board acted with deliberate indifference, as required to recover compensatory damages under Title II and § 504.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the grant of summary judgment for the Board of Regents and remanded.
- The court held that triable issues existed as to the reasonableness of accommodations in multiple courses, including interpreter adequacy and timeliness, note-taking adequacy, and the denial of RTC.
- The court held that a reasonable jury could also find deliberate indifference, particularly given repeated notice of access problems, delays, and the summary denial of the RTC request.

## Legal Principles

- Whether an accommodation is “reasonable” under Title II and § 504 is ordinarily a fact question requiring an individualized, context-specific assessment.
- Compensatory damages under Title II and § 504 require proof of deliberate indifference: knowledge that harm to a federally protected right is substantially likely, coupled with failure to act.
- A public entity’s denial of an accommodation request without adequate investigation, or provision of only perfunctory efforts despite notice of ongoing access barriers, can support a jury finding of deliberate indifference.
- Summary judgment is inappropriate where evidence would allow competing inferences about both the adequacy of aids/services and whether the entity’s response was deliberate and considered.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that disputed facts about the adequacy and timing of interpreter and note-taking services, and the denial of requested RTC, required a trial on whether the institutions provided reasonable accommodations and whether any failures were the product of deliberate indifference supporting damages.


Button v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. of Nev., 289 F. App’x 964 (9th Cir. 2008)