Whether defendant-City could be held vicariously liable for its officer’s alleged “failure to accommodate” under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) & the Rehabilitation Act; Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; Gebser v Lago Vista Indep Sch Dist; Foster v Michigan

[This appeal was from the ED-MI.] The court for the first time held that Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act do not allow for vicarious liability. Plaintiff-Jones, who is in a wheelchair, was arrested during a protest in Detroit, and was taken to jail in a cargo van. He claimed that this method of transportation was unsafe for someone in a wheelchair, and that this resulted in an exacerbation of prior health problems. Jones sued defendant-City of Detroit, alleging, among other things, that the police officers’ transportation choice constituted a “failure to accommodate” under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The district court ruled that the City could not be held vicariously liable under the Acts. The court first noted that “[t]he remedies available for violations of Title II of the ADA and § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act are ‘coextensive’ with those for Title VI . . . . Whether Title II imposes vicarious liability rises and falls with whether Title VI does.” The court noted that it indicated in Foster “that the claimants ‘likely would not be able to establish Title VI liability . . . under a theory of respondeat superior.’” While the Circuits are conflicted on the issue, the court held that “[b]ecause Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act import Title VI’s remedial regime, that ends the inquiry. If Title VI does not allow vicarious liability, neither do these provisions of the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act.” Affirmed.