Judicial Branch | Agencies | Commission on Access and Fairness in the Courts

A Meaningful Opportunity to Participate

A Handbook for Georgia Court Officials on Courtroom Accessibility
for Individuals with Disabilities

Appendix E:
Law Supplement

Georgia Statutes Affecting People with Disabilities in Courts

The State of Georgia has several statutes addressing court access for people with disabilities in a nondiscriminatory manner. This section summarizes the relevant Georgia statutes:

Sign Language Interpreters

An individual seeking a temporary protective order or responding to a temporary protective order hearing shall be provided with a sign language interpreter when necessary. The local victim assistance funds shall pay the reasonable costs of the interpreter. (O.C.G.A. §15-6-77(e)(4))

The policy of the State of Georgia is to provide qualified interpreters for governmental operations, including court sessions. (O.C.G.A. §24-9-100)

Witnesses with Disabilities

A witness cannot be deemed as incapacitated because of a physical disability involving the senses. An interpreter may translate or explain the testimony of such a witness. (O.C.G.A. §24-9-4)

The court shall determine the competency of a witness if a party alleges that the witness is incapacitated due to a mental disability. (O.C.G.A. §24-9-7)

Courtroom Accessibility

All government buildings receiving construction or renovation permits on or after July 1, 1995, shall comply with the minimum state standards for accessibility issued by the Georgia Safety Fire Commissioner, unless full compliance is impractical. (O.C.G.A. §30-3-3)

Jurors with Disabilities

A judge may excuse a potential juror who "shows other good cause why he or she should be exempt from jury duty," which can include a disability. A judge may defer the excuse until a later date unless the juror has a permanent mental or physical disability. (O.C.G.A. §15-12-1(a)(1))

In a criminal trial, either the State or the accused may object to the impaneling of a juror who is incompetent to serve because of mental illness or mental retardation. (O.C.G.A. §15-12-163(b)(3))

Juries are selected by jury commissioners from a list provided by the Department of Motor Vehicle Safety, which includes both people who have drivers' licenses and people who have personal identification cards. Personal identification cards are issued to people who are not eligible to operate a motor vehicle for any reason, including disability. (O.C.G.A. §15-12-40(a)(1))

The county board of registrars shall provide the board of jury commissioners with a list of individuals with mental disabilities who have been adjudged mentally incompetent and have had their voting rights removed. (O.C.G.A. §15-12-40.2)

Judges with Disabilities

A superior court judge or a chief judge of a county may make a "request for judicial assistance" from another court when a judge is unable to preside due to disability. (O.C.G.A. §15-1-9.1(b)(1)(B), 15-1-9.1(b)(2)(B))

If the chief judge of a county is unable to request judicial assistance because of a disability, a majority of the other judges in the county may make such a request for him. If a court is served by only one judge, the Governor may request that the administrative judge for that district assign another judge to serve. (O.C.G.A. § 15-1-9.1(d)(1))

Georgia Case Law Regarding People with Disabilities in Courts

Witnesses with Disabilities

A trial court acted properly in refusing to strike the testimony of a prosecution witness with disabilities in speech and hearing. The witness testified through a sign language interpreter that he had seen the defendant running from the scene of a shooting. Although there was "some difficulty" in communicating with the witness, the witness was able to answer all questions, leaving to the jury to determine his credibility. (Clark v. Georgia, 271 Ga. 6, 515 S.E.2d 155 (1999))

In a rape trial, a jury properly relied on the testimony of a witness who was blind. Although there were some inconsistencies in the witness's statement, and although she was under the influence of pain medication at trial, the jury could have reasonably relied on her testimony. (Wilson v. Georgia, 2004 Ga. App. Lexis 699 (2004))

Jurors with Disabilities

A trial court acted properly to exclude a juror with a mental disability when the juror acted in a "bizarre" manner before voir dire questioning and answered questions in a "disconnected and rambling" way. The appellant's evidence that a bailiff had never seen a person in a wheelchair in a Bacon County jury was not sufficient to establish that people with disabilities were specifically excluded from jury service. (Sallie v. Georgia, 276 Ga. 506, 578 S.E.2d 444 (2003))

A trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing defense counsel the opportunity to question the entire jury panel on voir dire regarding whether they had been treated for mental illness. Because mental illness is not a disqualification for jury service, the court could limit the questioning of the entire panel. However, the court could allow an attorney to ask questions about mental illness if concerns arose about the health of an individual juror. (Caldwell v. Georgia, 249 Ga. App. 885, 549 S.E.2d 449 (2001))

A prosecutor was allowed to use a peremptory challenge to exclude a person who was hard of hearing. During voir dire, the juror indicated that she had difficulty hearing the prosecutor even when he raised his voice. The court found that the stated reason for excluding the juror was not a pretext to exclude the juror on the basis of race. (Jones v. Georgia, 249 Ga. App. 327, 548 S.E.2d 75 (2001))

A trial court acted properly in denying a criminal defendant's motion to disqualify a juror who was deaf. The juror's inability to hear is not a disqualification in Georgia, and there was no other evidence to support the disqualification. (Carter v. Georgia, 228 Ga. App. 335, 491 S.E.2d 525 (1997))

Spectators with Disabilities

A trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing a crime victim with a disability to remain in the courtroom as a spectator during the trial. The victim in this case was comatose and used a wheelchair. The defendant argued that the presence of the victim would prejudice the jury against him. The court found that Georgia law allows victims access to the courtroom, and that her injuries were relevant to the proceeding. (Lewis v. Georgia, 215 Ga. App. 161, 450 S.E.2d 448 (1994))

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

Section 504 was one of the first federal civil rights laws passed by Congress. Section 504 provides that no individual with a disability shall, "solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." Because most, if not all, Georgia counties receive federal funding, courts in counties that receive such funding must comply with the nondiscrimination requirements of Section 504. In practice, however, federal courts have generally found that the Section 504 responsibilities of state and county courts are identical with their responsibilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Removing Barriers to Access in the Court Room: Selected ADA Case law

"Defining Disability" Cases:

Albertsons v. Kirkingburg, 527 U.S. 555 (1999).
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, on remand, 163 F.3d 87 (1st Cir. 1998).
Murphy v. United Parcel Service, 527 U.S. 516 (1999).
Sutton v. United Airlines, 527 U.S. 471 (1999).
Toyota Motors Manufacturing v. Williams, 122 S.Ct. 681 (2002).

Selected Title II Cases - Access to Courts:

Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509; 124 S. Ct. 1978 (2004).
Involved the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which prohibits "public entities" (state and local governments) from discriminating based on disability. Plaintiffs were wheelchair users who did not have access to courtrooms on the second floors of buildings lacking elevators, and they sued the state of Tennessee for failing to ensure that courthouses are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Tennessee did not dispute that the courthouses were not accessible or that it had a duty to make its services available to all. Instead, the state argued that the plaintiffs could not sue the state and require it to pay money damages for violations of ADA Title II. The state's argument was based on the doctrine of "sovereign immunity" which says that Congress can only pass a federal law making a state liable for money damages in limited circumstances. The Supreme Court ruled that, at least in cases involving fundamental access to the courts, Congress had acted properly, and Tennessee could be sued for damages under Title II for failing to provide access.

Popovich v. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, 276 F.3d 808 (6th Cir. 2002) (en banc).
An individual with a hearing impairment brought an action against a state court under Title II for failing to provide effective auxiliary aids /services in a child custody case. He obtained a compensatory damage verdict against the state in district court. The state asserted its immunity from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (en banc) held that the plaintiff's case was barred by the Eleventh Amendment to the extent that the action relied on congressional enforcement of the Equal Protection Clause, but is not barred in so far as it relies on congressional enforcement of the Due Process Clause.

Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir. 2001).
An individual with a hearing impairment requested real-time transcription as an accommodation in court proceeding. The county provided alternative accommodations, including a courtroom with better acoustics and permitting plaintiff to relocate to different parts of the courtroom during the proceedings. The Ninth Circuit denied defendants' motion for summary judgment, holding that the record indicated the county should have provided the requested accommodation because the alternative accommodations did not ensure effective communication.

Gregory v. Administrative Office of the Courts, 168 F.Supp. 2d 319 (D.N.J. 2001).
Individual with hearing impairment brought Title II and section 504 action against court system when they refused to provide computer aided realtime translation ("CART") of proceedings, at same cost assesses for audio or videotapes. The court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar suit under the ADA and the litigant stated a claim under both the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.

Soto v. City of Newark, 72 F. Supp. 2d 489 (D.N.J. 1999).
Deaf individuals married in a civil courtroom asked for but were not provided with a sign-language interpreter for their wedding. The court granted summary judgment for plaintiffs, finding that the wedding was a "service" under Title II and that plaintiffs, as qualified individuals with disabilities, were entitled to the provision of a sign language interpreter and the city was required to provide one.

Memmer v. Marin County Courts, 169 F.3d 630 (9th Cir. 1999).
Individual with vision impairment filed Title II action against municipal court, alleging its failure to accommodate her disability. Specifically, plaintiff alleged the municipal court failed to provide a "qualified reader" for pre-trial and trial proceedings. The presiding judge had first assigned a Spanish-language interpreter as reader and then agreed to provide an individual of her choice (with restrictions because the judge had observed this reader, in previous cases, to be disruptive). Plaintiff argued that the court failed to adopt adequate accommodation procedures for addressing accommodation requests and that the offer of a Spanish-language interpreter to assist was not a proper accommodation. The Ninth Circuit held that the services of a court-appointed "reader" would have been sufficient for this case because no special training was necessary. The court also held that a court system's decision to adopt an accommodation procedure different from its self-evaluation plan did not, in itself, violate the ADA.

Galloway v. Superior Court of District of Columbia, 816 F. Supp. 12 (D.C. 1993).
An individual who is blind brought suit challenging the court's categorical exclusion of blind persons from jury service. The District Court held that the exclusion violated Title II of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and § 1983.

McCauley v. Winegarden, 60 F.3d 766 (11th Cir. 1995).
Individual with severe chemical sensitivities brought Title II action against judge, court system and state for failure to provide her with a "filtered environment." including "life support systems," "life-support bubble," "required medical aids," and "additional medical aids" during court proceedings. The 11th Circuit held that this accommodation request was for personal devices and Title II does not require a public entity to provide personal services or devices as accommodations.

Shotz v. Cates 256 F.3d 1077 (8th Cir. 2001).
Individuals with mobility impairments brought ADA Title II action against judge and court system for failure to remove physical barriers to access in the courthouse. The 11th Circuit held that although both plaintiffs may have alleged facts that, if true, would constitute violations of Title II, neither plaintiff had standing to seek injunctive relief because they had not attempted to return to the courthouse, nor had they alleged to do so in the future.

Matthews v. Jefferson, 29 F. Supp. 2d 525 (W.D. Ark. 1998).
A paraplegic claimed the county failed to make the courthouse wheelchair accessible, violating the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and Arkansas Civil Rights Act. (The courthouse was listed on the National Registry of Historic Buildings.) The District Court held that: the county violated Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to make the courthouse readily accessible to a wheelchair user; discrimination can occur because of intentional acts as well as thoughtlessness or inaction when accommodations are needed; the recovery of compensatory damages under Title II of the ADA is conditioned on showing intentional discrimination; genuine issue of material fact existed on whether the county had intent; jury trial is conditionally available in Title II, ADA cases and Rehabilitation Act cases.

Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1998).
Disabled veterans filed discrimination suit against county under Title II of the ADA and Section 504, alleging that programs and services offered at the county courthouse were inaccessible to individuals with mobility impairments. The Court of Appeals held that the inaccessibility of programs offered on the second floor of the courthouse was a violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and was not rendered moot when the county voluntarily complied. Injunctive relief was appropriate because the plaintiffs might suffer future irreparable harm and the steps taken by the county to comply with the ADA mandate had not been completed.

Livingston v. Guice, 68 F.3d 460 (4th Cir. 1995).
A wheelchair user with multiple sclerosis brought action against the trial judge for refusing to allow her to enter the courtroom through the door by the judge's bench. Neither the plaintiff nor the judge was aware of any other possible entrances. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case finding that the judge was not entitled to judicial immunity.

Department of Justice ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements

Ben Hill County, Georgia - agreement to construct accessible bathrooms and to install an accessible ramp and elevator to allow access to the courthouse for people with disabilities. While these modifications were taking place, the county agreed to relocate court activities when necessary to provide program access for people with disabilities.

City of Savannah, Georgia - In 2002, the Department of Justice reached a settlement agreement with the City of Savannah. This agreement was part of the Department's "Project Civic Access" efforts, and covered a variety of municipal programs and services. The city agreed to make modifications to two accessible bathrooms adjacent to the city Recorder's Court, which is housed in the Chatham County Courthouse Judicial Center. The city agreed to install new signage and make other modifications to the bathrooms to meet ADA standards. The settlement agreement is available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/savannah.htm.

Chatham County, Georgia - In 2004, the Department of Justice reached a second "Project Civic Access" settlement with Chatham County. The agreement covered various services provided by the county, including court services. The county agreed to adopt a grievance procedure for ADA complaints and adopt procedures for providing effective communication for citizens with disabilities. The county also agreed to adopt a policy for county websites, which include information about the county courts (http://www.chathamcounty.org/chatcourts.html). The settlement agreement is available at: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/ChathamSA.htm.

The Chatham County settlement agreement also contained several attachments regarding architectural barriers at county court facilities. The county agreed to fully update its main courthouse facility for accessibility, and agreed to make a planned annex to the courthouse fully accessible. The county also agreed to provide accessible parking at its juvenile court building. Finally, the county agreed to make substantial alterations to the historic Legislative Courthouse. Details about these efforts are available at the Department of Justice website at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/ChathamAttD.htm and http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/ChathamAttF.htm.

U.S. v. City of Houston - http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2000/March/158cr.htm

Hancock County, Mississippi - re: persons who are deaf or hard of hearing having an equal opportunity to participate as jurors, parties, witnesses, and spectators of the Courts as required under Title II of the ADA, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/hancocks.htm

Harrison County, Mississippi - re: persons who are deaf or hard of hearing having an equal opportunity to participate as jurors, parties, witnesses, and spectators of the Courts as required under Title II of the ADA, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/harriss.htm

North Kingstown Police Department, North Kingstown, RI - re: auxiliary aids and services and effective communication of a deaf witness as required under Title II of the ADA. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/harriss.htm

Santa Clara County Superior Court, Santa Clara, CA - re: auxiliary aids and services and effective communication to ensure the hard of hearing access to Court's programs, services, and activities as required under Title II of the ADA http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/santacl.htm.

McDowell County, West Virginia - re: program and physical accessibility at County offices and the County Courthouse, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/mcdowell.htm

Outagamie County, Wisconsin - re: accessibility to the Outagamie County Justice Center as required under Title II of the ADA, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/outagam.htm

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, Pennsylvania - re reasonable accommodation of potential jurors with disabilities as required under Title II of the ADA, http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/philcour.htm

ADA Settlements and Consent Agreements - http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/ada/settlemt.htm

Department of Justice Letters of Finding

Snohomish County Superior Court - Everett, Washington, November 21, 1994. Compliance. County Court found in compliance with the Title II requirements for effective communication after it established a policy requiring consultation with individuals with hearing impairments to identify needed auxiliary aids. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lof039.txt

Kings County Superior Court - Hanford, California, March 14, 1994. Compliance. Court purchased sufficient assistive listening systems to provide effective communications for individuals who are hard-of-hearing. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lof032.txt

Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas - Cleveland, Ohio December 23, 1994. Compliance. County Court found in compliance with the Title II requirements for effective communication after it corrected violation and purchased computerized real-time transcription, as had been requested by individual who is hard of hearing. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lof042.txt

Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas - July 16, 1996. Providing sign language interpreter and TDD. The Pennsylvania courts established a written policy for providing interpreters in all civil proceedings in which a participant is deaf. The Court has ordered nine TDDs to be installed at the Family Court Building. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc57.txt

Oakland Municipal Court - Municipal Court of Oakland-Piedmont-Emeryville Judicial District, August 6, 1996. Compliance. Policy clarifies the role of the ADA Coordinator, and the availability of interpreters and other auxiliary aids and services for persons with hearing disabilities. Other features include clear descriptions of how one requests an accommodation, publicizing the procedures in written documents issued by the Court, and new signage in the court building, to help ensure that interested persons with disabilities are able to acquire appropriate auxiliary aids and services. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc58.txt

Greene Superior Court - Bloomfield, IN, November 14, 1996. Provisions for auxiliary aids and services in the courts. The ADA does not require a public entity to provide auxiliary aids or other accommodations absent any notice that an accommodation is needed. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc81.txt

Seventeenth Court - Broward County, Fl, September 4, 1996. Participation in the courts via telephone. The Court did not violate the ADA with respect to the allegations of the complaint. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc64.txt

Superior Court for the State of Alaska - Anchorage, Alaska, February 3, 1994. Compliance. Court did not violate Title II when it denied complainant's motion to file audiocassette in place of written briefs because complainant failed to establish nexus between his impairment and the requested modification to the court's rules. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc029.txt

Circuit Court of Berkeley County and Supreme Court of Appeals - West Virginia December 19, 1994. Compliance. Circuit Court did not violate Title II when it relieved the bondsman of his responsibility for the bail of an individual with a mental disability because the action was based on a nondiscriminatory reason (the length of time that the charges had been pending) rather than on the individual's disability. Supreme Court of Appeals did not violate Title II when it denied the individual's appeal. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lof041.txt

Bernalillo County Courthouse - Bernalillo, NM August 8, 1996. Access to programs and activities at courthouse and creation of alternative entrance. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc59.txt

Hardinsburg County Courthouse - Hardinsburg County, KY July 10, 1996. County courthouse inaccessible. An elevator was installed which provides mobility impaired individuals access from the entrance to the Circuit Court on the third floor. The doors to the restrooms were widened to accommodate wheelchairs and a ramp was installed from the walkway to the building. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc55.txt

Osceola County Courthouse - MI, November 4, 1996. Accessibility to courthouse for wheelchairs. The Friend of the Court office was moved to the accessible first floor of the Courthouse. The Circuit Court proceedings are moved to the accessible District or Probate Court rooms when individuals with disabilities request such an accommodation. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/lofc74.txt

Department of Justice ADA Technical Assistance Letters

The ADA authorizes the Department of Justice to provide technical assistance to entities that are subject to the Act. Letters assist parties in understanding how the ADA may apply to their particular case. The technical assistance, however, does not constitute a determination by the Department of Justice regarding the parties' rights or responsibilities under the ADA and does not constitute a binding determination by the Department of Justice.

ADA Technical Assistance Letters Index: http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/talindex.htm

Doc #: 73 - date: 05/21/92 ; DOJ File #: 202-PL-00094:
Technical assistance letter regarding payment for certain court costs and provision of auxiliary aids and services necessary to understand court proceedings. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal073.txt

Doc #: 659: date: 12/13/95
Technical assistance letter regarding auxiliary aids/interpreter in the courtroom. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal659.txt

Doc #: 730; date:08/06/97
Technical assistance letter regarding use of fine print in legal documents and concern about the elderly with visual impairments inability to read the documents. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal730.txt

Doc #: 558; date:09/26/94
Technical assistance letter regarding ADA applicability to state judicial proceedings. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal558.txt

Doc #: 406; date: 11/01/93; DOJ File #: 204-012-00049
Technical assistance letter concerning compliance with the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS) and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal406.txt

Doc #: 414; date: 11/23/93
Letter of findings was sent to a judge regarding the inaccessibility of the Van Buren County Arkansas courtroom. The Civil Rights Division concluded that the county was not in compliance with Title II and that informal attempts to resolve the matter were unsuccessful. Negotiations would be attempted before referring the case to litigation. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal414.txt

Doc #: 552; date:09/07/94; DOJ File #:202-PL-842
Technical assistance letter addressing questions regarding renovations of a municipal court. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal552.txt

Doc #: 688; date: 04/29/96
Technical assistance letter regarding courtroom alterations and the potential increase of costs of the planned alterations and the functionality of courtroom design. http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal688.txt

---

© Georgia Commission on Access and Fairness in the Courts, December 2004

Home | Courts | Forms | Agencies | Councils | AOC Services | Links | Contact | Disclaimer

This website best viewed in Internet Explorer 5 or later.