Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04696/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04696-12/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 29:0794 Job Discrimination (Handicap)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, a District

of Columbia non-profit corporation, TAMMY

RENEE COOPER, SCARLETT MILES,

MARVELENA QUESADA, ARLENE DOHERTY,

ALICE MARJORIE DONOVAN, BILLIE JEAN

KEITH, GEORGE P. SMITH, and DOROTHY

JACKSON on behalf of themselves and all others

similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MICHAEL ASTRUE, Commissioner of the Social

Security Administration, in his official capacity,

and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,

Defendants. /

No. C 05-04696 WHA

ORDER RE PROPER

COURSE OF FUTURE

PROCEEDINGS

An order dated April 23, 2008, concluded that jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims was

proper under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and that the special notice provisions of the Social Security Act

did not relieve the Social Security Administration of its duties under Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act. The order then requested the recommendations of counsel concerning the

best case management steps going forward. The order proposed the following options:

 1. Actively continue litigating this case under Section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act, decide the issue of class certification, and determine the

scope of relief, if any.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 84 Filed 05/13/08 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

2. Stay the proceedings of the case so that the agency can engage in

rulemaking or pursue other agency action in light of the ruling on the merits

made therein. 

3. Remand the action to the agency for rulemaking or other agency

action. 

4. Certify the order dated April 23, 2008, for interlocutory review

under 28 U.S.C. 1292(b) and stay all proceedings.

The parties submitted briefs discussing the relative merits of these options. The parties are in

agreement that the best course of action is to continue litigating this case under Section 504 of

the Rehabilitation Act. 

The Court could require prudential exhaustion for those plaintiffs who have not yet

exhausted administrative remedies but declines to do so. First, delaying judicial review would

result in irreparable injury to the plaintiffs. Many of the injuries about which plaintiffs complain

— for example, the anxiety caused by the ineffective communication formats and the extra

burdens associated with obtaining a reader — are ones for which plaintiffs could not be

compensated if delay is allowed. Second, requiring exhaustion would be futile. The agency has

already denied the discrimination claims of plaintiffs Cooper and Keith and has them on

perpetual hold on “administrative appeal.”

Litigation will therefore proceed under the Rehabilitation Act. The Court believes it is

best for both sides to conduct discovery and to meet the deadlines set forth in the case

management order dated February 28, 2008. Any deviation from the case management order

would require a formal motion and will only be granted in all events for very good cause. For

the time being, the Court is unwilling to bifurcate discovery or bifurcate proceedings in any

manner.

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 84 Filed 05/13/08 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

Contrary to plaintiffs’ suggestion in their brief, the Court has not ruled yet on whether or

not the defendants have violated Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Rather, the Court has

ruled that the complaint states a claim under Section 504. It is up to plaintiffs to prove a

violation through evidence at trial or on summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04696-WHA Document 84 Filed 05/13/08 Page 3 of 3