$750K settlement over city's failure to provide deaf woman interpreter at arrest

rockin'robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
24,433
Reaction score
544
STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. -- A former Grasmere resident, who is deaf, has settled her lawsuit for $750,000 against the city in which she alleged cops falsely arrested her, demeaned her and refused her requests for a sign-language interpreter, according to court papers.

Diana Williams sued the city three years ago in Manhattan federal court over her Sept. 11, 2011, arrest at a residential building she and her husband owned on Hillbrook Drive, her civil complaint said.

Williams, 48, alleged a tenant, whom she had evicted for non-payment of rent, falsely had her arrested in retaliation, said her civil complaint.

Williams, who primarily communicates through sign language, contends she repeatedly asked for a sign-language interpreter to speak with cops, but was rebuffed.

She then tried to communicate by wiping dirt off a police car to form a message as officers handcuffed her, but was mocked, alleges her civil complaint.

Distraught, Williams contends she suffered two panic attacks, which resulted in hospital visits, while being held in custody overnight.

The next day, police released her and dropped all charges with no explanation, said her complaint. She never appeared before a judge and was never provided a sign-language interpreter, the complaint said.

In her lawsuit, Williams, who now lives in Maryland, alleged false arrest, denial of constitutional rights and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

She maintained she was traumatized by the events, and her life was "drastically and forever changed for the worse" due to the incident.

While the city agreed to pay Williams three-quarters of a million dollars, the settlement does not constitute an admission of violating her rights, according to the terms of the pact.

In a statement, Williams' lawyers Eric Baum, Andrew Rozynski and Sheryl Eisenberg-Michalowski of the Manhattan-based Eisenberg and Baum Law Center for Deaf and Hard of Hearing said: "Deaf individuals have rights, and they do not have to tolerate discrimination and injustices of any kind. It is a sad reality that deaf individuals continue to experience blatant discrimination on a routine basis.

"Ms. Williams hopes that the settlement will send a message to all law enforcement agencies across the country that they should adopt proper policies and procedures to ensure full communication access for deaf individuals."

Said a City Law Department spokesman: "It was in the city's best interest to resolve this litigation."

http://www.silive.com/eastshore/index.ssf/2015/10/city_settles_lawsuit_for_750k.html
 
Of course it was in the city's best interest to settle by smearing money all over the issue. Will anything be learned from this? Doubtful but meanwhile this person has tax-free money to soothe her wounds.....
 
She deserved it since she has rights to request for an interpreter. The city failed to follow ADA law.

Tousi, it's true that it's ongoing unfortunately. That's what lawyers are for. Those sh*theads think they can get away with it but one day they will get caught for violating the law. I can't stand the SOBs who show no respect for deaf people.
 
She deserved it since she has rights to request for an interpreter. The city failed to follow ADA law.

Tousi, it's true that it's ongoing unfortunately. That's what lawyers are for. Those sh*theads think they can get away with it but one day they will get caught for violating the law. I can't stand the SOBs who show no respect for deaf people.
\
But still.....when the City said..." that the settlement of 3/4 of a million dollars does not constitute an admission of violating her rights, according to the TERMS of the settlement"...what are we supposed to think of that?
 
\
But still.....when the City said..." that the settlement of 3/4 of a million dollars does not constitute an admission of violating her rights, according to the TERMS of the settlement"...what are we supposed to think of that?

Said a City Law Department spokesman: "It was in the city's best interest to resolve this litigation."
So what was the litigation about? Why did they pay her?
 
It's usually cheaper to settle than fight. It's often suggested by their insurance carrier.
Yeah, I know that but Tousi pointed out that the city won't admit that it violated her rights.

The city paid her because it violated her rights, even though the officials won't admit it. I am sure her lawyer told her to ignore the terms of the settlement and TAKE the money which is a lot and move on. It doesn't matter what it said. We already know that the city violated her rights.
 
I expected the City to say they will train their police force, and other things that will reflect better on themselves, etc.....as it is now, they seem dismissive....
 
And who knows how much of the award will actually go to the victim.....
 
And who knows how much of the award will actually go to the victim.....
Usually ⅔ to the victim and ⅓ to the lawyer, unless they made a different agreement.
 
Yeah, I know that but Tousi pointed out that the city won't admit that it violated her rights.

The city paid her because it violated her rights, even though the officials won't admit it. I am sure her lawyer told her to ignore the terms of the settlement and TAKE the money which is a lot and move on. It doesn't matter what it said. We already know that the city violated her rights.

No that is not why they paid her the city didn't think they didn't anything wrong . They paid her to keep it from going to court this would had cost the city more money . This happen a lot with cases like this they just want to made the whole mess go away and pay a settlement .
 
No that is not why they paid her the city didn't think they didn't anything wrong . They paid her to keep it from going to court this would had cost the city more money . This happen a lot with cases like this they just want to made the whole mess go away and pay a settlement .
OIC...the city can't afford to fight in a court so it paid a settlement which is cheaper. Interesting! The key question is "Why did it pay the settlement if it said that it didn't do anything wrong?". The answer is that it knows that it would lose if it was going to court.

Supposedly, the lawyer/client disagree with the terms of the settlement, then what happens? The city would have to go to a court to fight or admits that it did wrong in the settlement, right?

The city is lucky that the lawyer/client let it go when they got money which they always thought about. $$$$
 
We must be proactive and make sure that our local police departments are adequately trained. I am working on that now for my child. It has been hard though, the entity that should help me in this says it is not their responsibility but the responsibility of the police departments.
 
Back
Top