WILMINGTON, Del. (Legal Newsline) - A young man who failed an eye examination needed to participate in the Special Olympics deserves another hearing on whether the Delaware Human Rights Commission improperly rejected his parents’ complaint of discrimination.
Brian and Michelle Ray brought their son, identified as M.R., to the MedExpress for a physical exam that was required for him to participate in the 2019 Special Olympics. M.R. is diagnosed with Down syndrome and apraxia of speech, a condition that makes it hard to verbalize responses. He was unable to complete a vision exam as a result and a MedExpress nurse ended the physical.
The parents said a physician then confirmed their son couldn’t pass the physical without a vision test and said M.R. “had Down Syndrome,” which they described as upsetting. The MedExpress refunded their fee.
The parents then filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, claiming MedExpress violated the Delaware Equal Accommodations Law, or DEAL, by failing to provide reasonable accommodations to their son. They said the clinic should have provided their son with communications assistance and that the physician made an upsetting comment.
The Commission rejected their complaint as failing to state a claim for which relief was available. The dismissal included a ruling that DEAL only requires a “reasonable accommodation” to be made based on gender identity.
The Delaware Superior Court reversed that ruling in a Nov. 22 decision, saying the Commission misconstrued the law and failed to fully consider the Rays’ complaint.
“It is undisputed that MedExpress is a place of public accommodation,” Judge Vivian Medinilla ruled.
To prove discrimination, the judge wrote, claimants must show they belong to a protected class, were denied access to a public accommodation, and that non-members of the protected class received better treatment. The first condition clearly was met, the court ruled. The second was a matter of dispute and the third might be possible under a Delaware rule that considers it discrimination if a person “received services in a markedly hostile manner.”
MedExpress argued the comment regarding May’s Down’s syndrome, if it was made at all, couldn’t support a discrimination claim.
“Perhaps this is true,” the court ruled. “But the record is clear that the claim was not addressed.”
As for the Commission’s argument DEAL only applies to gender discrimination, the court said it “traveled through the narrow rabbit hole of a specific and non-germane statute.” In their complaint, the Rays checked off the box asking if they were “refused, withheld or denied accommodations,” although they used the term “reasonable accommodations” in their affidavit.
Seizing upon the term “reasonable accommodation” in the Mays’ affidavit, the Commission’s lawyers cited a section of the law involving gender discrimination that uses the same term to conclude DEAL’s public accommodation doesn’t apply more generally. That was an error, the judge ruled, since the rest of the statute makes it clear the requirement is meant to apply to all forms of public accommodation.