Alexander v. Kujok

158 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (2016)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Alexander v. Kujok

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
158 F. Supp. 3d 1012 (2016)

  • Written by Ann Wooster, JD


Kelly Alexander and Donald Porter (plaintiffs) were profoundly deaf and used American Sign Language (ASL) to communicate. Alexander and Porter were forced to seek new primary physicians when their previous primary physician retired. Alexander was referred to Dr. Kujok (defendant), who was unwilling to provide interpreting services. Alexander then sought care from Dr. Debruin (defendant), who did not provide an interpreter. Debruin told Alexander that she could communicate well and there was no need for an interpreter. Debruin insisted that Alexander communicate about technical terms in writing, and Alexander left his office. Alexander sought care from Dr. Karma (defendant), who promised an interpreter but did not provide one. Karma misunderstood Alexander and failed to note her allergy to iodine. Karma referred Alexander to podiatrists Dr. Del Zotto and Dr. Larsen (defendants), but their office refused to provide ASL interpreting services. Porter was referred to Dr. Martinez (defendant), who provided an ASL interpreter at the initial intake visit. Porter claimed that Martinez grabbed Porter and demanded that he lipread. After three appointments, Martinez stopped providing an ASL interpreter. Martinez’s staff members hung up on Porter repeatedly when a relay operator service explained that they were calling for a deaf person. Martinez’s staff members would not communicate with Porter by text message and Porter had to drive to the office in person to make appointments. Alexander heard about Porter’s experience and canceled her initial intake appointment with Martinez to avoid the same discriminatory treatment. Alexander and Porter sued these physicians under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related state laws based on the physicians’ failure to accommodate the disability of profound deafness by providing ASL interpreters. The physicians moved to dismiss the claims for lack of standing because Alexander and Porter had no intent to return for further treatment.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (England, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership