## Facts

- Plaintiffs were deaf or hard of hearing and relied on telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs) to communicate by telephone, including to reach 9-1-1 emergency services.
- Phoenix operated a 9-1-1 system that, at the time, depended on TDD callers pressing a key (commonly the space bar) that produced an audible signal at the receiving end to alert call takers that a TDD call was incoming.
- City operating procedures contemplated that call takers would recognize the signal as a TDD call and respond using TDD equipment or transfer the call to a TDD-equipped operator.
- Plaintiffs alleged that in practice Phoenix 9-1-1 operators often treated TDD calls as hang-ups, causing delays or failures in emergency response for deaf or hearing-impaired callers.
- Plaintiffs filed consolidated suits alleging disability-based discrimination in the provision of emergency services under Title II of the ADA, § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
- The parties entered a consent decree providing injunctive relief and operational changes to Phoenix’s handling of TDD calls; only money damages remained disputed.

## Issues

1. Whether compensatory damages are available under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act absent proof of intentional discrimination (including deliberate indifference).
2. Whether the evidence created a genuine dispute of material fact that Phoenix acted with intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference in operating its 9-1-1 system for TDD callers.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants on compensatory damages under Title II and § 504.
- The court held that compensatory damages under these statutes require intentional discrimination (commonly framed as deliberate indifference), not mere negligence or inadvertence.
- The court concluded the record showed, at most, negligent or inadvertent failures and system shortcomings, insufficient to support a finding of deliberate indifference.
- Injunctive relief obtained through the consent decree remained in place; the appeal concerned only damages.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA incorporates the remedial scheme of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; compensatory damages are available only upon a showing of intentional discrimination.
- Unintentional discrimination, inadvertence, or negligence does not support compensatory damages under Title II or § 504.
- A public entity’s deficient accommodation in providing emergency services may warrant forward-looking relief, but monetary recovery requires proof of deliberate indifference or comparable intent.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that, while the City’s 9-1-1 practices could be corrected through injunctive relief, plaintiffs could not obtain compensatory damages under ADA Title II or § 504 without evidence that the City acted with intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference rather than negligence.


Ferguson v. City of Phoenix, 157 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 1998)