SAN FRANCISCO (CN) — A federal judge granted a permanent injunction against Alameda County Friday afternoon that will require the county to provide transcriber services to visually impaired people who need assistance filling out county forms.
A blind woman, Lisamaria Martinez, claimed in her 2020 complaint that she visited the Alameda County’s Clerk-Recorder’s Office in March 2019 to file a fictitious business name statement for her small business. A clerk working at the office reviewed Martinez’s form and told her that corrections needed to be made. Martinez requested assistance in correcting the forms because she is blind but the clerk told Martinez that she could not assist her because of a policy that clerks cannot fill out or alter any forms.
Martinez sued claiming violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. In 2024, a jury determined that the county had acted with deliberate indifference and violated Martinez’s rights. Martinez was awarded $30,500 in damages but moved for a permanent injunction in May.
On Friday afternoon, U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas Hixson granted the permanent injunction and ordered the county to provide transcriber services to the visually impaired.
In a 46-page order, Hixson found the clerk-recorder’s forms contain numerous barriers to usability for blind people and that even providing screen reader software to transcribe forms would be inefficient for blind people versus clerks simply helping them fill out forms.
“In the absence of a permanent injunction, Ms. Martinez thus faces the prospect of returning to the CRO and again being denied the auxiliary aids and services the jury found necessary to afford her an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the CRO’s services,” Hixson wrote.
The county contended the injunction was unnecessary because the county intends to satisfactorily accommodate blind people in the future but Hixon was not convinced.
“The alternatives to transcription the CRO provides fall dramatically short of ensuring effective communication. Meanwhile, neither party has provided any evidence that the County would ever require a CRO employee to provide transcriber services to assist a blind customer in filling out a blank FBNS form or any other form,” Hixson wrote. “Nor is it clear that CRO employees will consistently assist blind customers by providing transcriber services as a matter of practice.”
Hixson noted the clerks that Martinez interacted with in March 2019 said that they have no recollection of the office ever providing any alternative service to help blind people in the combined 44 years they’d worked there.
The county also said that since Martinez was awarded monetary damages her issue has been remedied, an argument Hixon called “illogical.”
“An award of monetary damages does not ensure that Ms. Martinez will not face an identical ADA violation in the future; only an injunction can do that. Further, a remedy of monetary damages is inadequate to compensate for a violation of civil rights,” Hixson wrote.
Hixson found the balance of hardships is firmly in Martinez’s favor, that a permanent injunction is in the public’s interest and that the injunction would pose minimal financial burden to the county.
“The evidence produced at trial indicates both that it would take just minutes for a CRO clerk to transcribe and verify an FBNS form for a blind customer and that several government agencies at multiple levels of government consistently provide transcriber services to blind patrons,” Hixson wrote.
Timothy Elder, counsel for Martinez, called the victory “bittersweet.”.
“On one hand, we are very pleased that the court correctly decided that the county of Alameda must assist blind people filling out paper forms. On the other, we are deeply dismayed that the county approved an external law firm to vigorously litigate this issue for over five years contrary to the regulations and guidance from the Department of Justice,” Elder said. “Taxpayers should be asking why the county of Alameda’s Board of Supervisors is funding this kind of irresponsible litigation strategy.”
Counsel for Alameda County did not reply to requests for comment before the deadline.