Deborah Laubscher v. Gwinnett County – Do It For The Caselaw

Holding: The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's dismissal of the complaint because the plaintiffs failed to allege deliberate indifference required to prove intentional discrimination under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
Standard: Deliberate indifference
Practical effect: The ruling clarifies that public entities cannot be held liable for compensatory damages under the ADA for failure-to-train policies unless plaintiffs can demonstrate a pattern of similar prior violations that put officials on notice of the discrimination.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit alleging that Gwinnett County discriminated against a man with a mental health disability by failing to train police officers. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to allege deliberate indifference because they did not identify prior similar incidents of disability discrimination.

Background

Deborah and Robert Laubscher sued Gwinnett County on behalf of their son Dani, who died after a police officer shot him during a mental health crisis. The Laubschers alleged that the County discriminated against Dani under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section five hundred four of the Rehabilitation Act by failing to train police officers in crisis intervention and by dispatching untrained officers to mental health calls. The district court dismissed the complaint, and the Laubschers appealed only the dismissal of their policy claims.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed the dismissal because the Laubschers failed to plausibly allege that Gwinnett County acted with deliberate indifference. To prove intentional discrimination for compensatory damages, plaintiffs must show that officials had actual knowledge of discrimination and failed to respond. Because the claims were based on upstream policies rather than specific actions directed at Dani, the court required a pattern of similar prior incidents to establish that officials knew the policies were discriminatory. The complaint alleged no prior incidents similar to the shooting, and the mere receipt of hundreds of suicide calls did not suffice to show a pattern of ADA violations.

What it means going forward

The ruling clarifies that public entities cannot be held liable for compensatory damages under the ADA for failure-to-train policies unless plaintiffs can demonstrate a pattern of similar prior violations that put officials on notice of the discrimination.