Bennett v. Dart, No. 20-8005 (7th Cir. 2020)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

Bennett was assigned to Cook County Jail Division 10, which houses detainees who need canes, crutches, or walkers. He filed suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12131–34, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C.794, alleging that Division 10 lacks grab bars and other necessary fixtures. Bennett claims that he fell and was injured. He unsuccessfully sought to represent a class. The court reasoned that the appropriate accommodation of any detainee’s situation depends on personal characteristics, so common questions do not predominate under FRCP 23(b)(3). Bennett proposed an alternative class to avoid person-specific questions, contending that Division 10, which was constructed in 1992, violates 28 C.F.R. 42.522(b)'s requirement that as of “1988 … construction[] or alteration of buildings” must comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards. The Standards require accessible toilets to have grab bars nearby and accessible showers to have mounted seats. The district court rejected this proposal, reasoning that to determine whether the Structural Standards control, thereby mooting the reasonable accommodation inquiry, would require a ruling on the merits, which would “run[] afoul of the rule against one-way intervention.”

The Seventh Circuit vacated. The "view that a class cannot be certified unless the plaintiff has already prevailed on the central legal issue is a formula for one-way intervention rather than a means to avoid it." Bennett proposes a class that will win if the Standards apply and were violated, to detainees’ detriment and otherwise will lose.

Download PDF
In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ No. 20-8005 PRESTON BENNETT, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. THOMAS DART, Sheriff of Cook County, and COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, Defendants-Respondents. ____________________ Petition for Leave to Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. No. 18-cv-04268 — John Robert Blakey, Judge. ____________________ SUBMITTED MARCH 4, 2020 — DECIDED MARCH 16, 2020 ____________________ Before WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ROVNER, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. When Preston BenneU was locked up in the Cook County Jail, he was assigned to Division 10, which houses detainees who need canes, crutches, or walkers. He alleges in this suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131–34, and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794, that Division 10 lacks the grab bars and other xtures 2 No. 20-8005 needed for such persons to use showers and bathrooms safely. BenneU adds that he fell and was injured as a result of this de ciency. BenneU wants to represent a class of detainees who need canes, crutches, or walkers. The district court denied his initial application, ruling that the appropriate accommodation of any detainee’s situation depends on personal characteristics, so common questions do not predominate. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). BenneU proposed an alternative class that would avoid all person-speci c questions by contending that Division 10, which was constructed in 1992, violates a regulation providing that “as of March 7, 1988 … construction[] or alteration of buildings” must comply with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS or the Standards). 28 C.F.R. §42.522(b). The Standards require accessible toilets to have grab bars nearby, UFAS §4.17.6, and accessible showers to have mounted seats, UFAS §4.21.3. The district court rejected this proposal too, writing: for this Court to determine whether the ADA and Rehab Act’s Structural Standards control—thereby mooting the reasonable accommodation inquiry—it would need to rule on the merits of Plainti ’s case. The judge thought that such a decision would “run[] afoul of the rule against one-way intervention.” BenneU has asked for our leave to take an interlocutory appeal under Rule 23(f). That petition is granted, and we summarily reverse. (The papers proposing and opposing interlocutory review explore the legal questions in detail.) The judge was right to say that, to determine whether the Standards control, he would need to decide a big chunk of the merits. But that’s not necessary. No. 20-8005 3 Rule 23(a) and (b) provides a list of requirements for class certi cation, all of which must be met, see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), but surety of prevailing on the merits is not among them. Classes can lose as well as win. The district judge’s view that a class cannot be certi ed unless the plainti has already prevailed on the central legal issue is a formula for one-way intervention rather than a means to avoid it. BenneU, by contrast, proposes a class that will win if the Standards apply (and were violated, to detainees’ detriment) and otherwise will lose. That’s how class actions should proceed. The district court’s class-certi cation decision is vacated, and the case is remanded for the certi cation of an appropriate class if all applicable standards of Rule 23(a) and (b) have been met.
Primary Holding

Seventh Circuit vacates the denial of class certification in a case alleging that a facility housing disabled detainees did not comply with federal standards.


Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.