Yolanda Gevarzes v. City of Port Orange, Florida, No. 14-10082 (11th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 14-10082 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 1 of 2 [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT ________________________ No. 14-10082 Non-Argument Calendar ________________________ D.C. Docket No. 6:12-cv-01126-RBD-DAB YOLANDA GEVARZES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus CITY OF PORT ORANGE, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation, Defendant Appellee. ________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ________________________ (September 18, 2014) Before WILLIAM PRYOR, MARTIN, and COX, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: Case: 14-10082 Date Filed: 09/18/2014 Page: 2 of 2 Yolando Geverzes, a deaf woman, sued the City of Port Orange, Florida, for violating Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City of Port Orange, concluding that it did not violate either Title II or Section 504 because of the arrest of Geverzes. Geverzes now appeals, framing her sole issue on appeal as [w]hether the District Court erred by failing to find a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the City refused to give Gevarzes an equal opportunity to participate in the investigation leading to her arrest by failing to take her full statement and to provide qualified sign language interpreters, in violation of Title II and section 504. (Appellant s Initial Br. at 2). There is arguably more than one ground for affirming the grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. The district court held that the City has demonstrated that failure to provide an interpreter was not unreasonable given Geverzes s effective written communication and the totality of the circumstances . . . . (District Court s Opinion, Doc. 74 at 9). We conclude that the district court did not err in reaching this conclusion in its well-reasoned opinion. We need not consider the other grounds for affirmance discussed in footnote 9 of the district court s opinion. (Doc. 74 at 9). AFFIRMED. 2