Tauscher v. Phoenix Board of Realtors, Inc., No. 17-17218 (9th Cir. 2019)
Annotate this Case
The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment for PAR in an action brought by plaintiff, a profoundly deaf individual who is a licensed real estate salesperson, under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act (AzADA). Plaintiff alleged that PAR failed to comply with federal and state laws when it denied plaintiff's requests for an American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter at continuing education courses.
The panel held that PAR was not entitled to summary judgment because engaging in dialogue with plaintiff did not satisfy its obligations under the ADA, and there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether PAR offered an auxiliary aid or service that would provide effective communication to plaintiff. The panel remanded for the district court to consider in the first instance whether providing an ASL interpreter would result in an undue burden.
Court Description: Americans with Disabilities Act. The panel reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant in an action brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, a profoundly deaf individual who is a licensed real estate salesperson, alleged that the Phoenix Association of Realtors failed to comply with the ADA and AzDA when it denied plaintiff’s requests for an American Sign Language interpreter at continuing education courses. A public accommodation must furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities. The panel held that PAR was not required to provide the specific aid or service requested by plaintiff, but there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether PAR offered plaintiff a means of communication that was effective. The panel held that the ADA’s requirement that an employer engage in an interactive process regarding possible accommodations does not apply in the context of public accommodations and services. Accordingly, PAR was not discharged of its obligation to ensure effective communication merely because plaintiff did not engage in TAUSCHER V. PHOENIX BD. OF REALTORS 3 further discussion with PAR regarding measures other than an ASL interpreter. The panel concluded that the question whether providing an ASL interpreter would result in an undue burden on PAR raised complex issues that the district court was better able to address in the first instance. The panel vacated the district court’s summary judgment and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
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.