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

Eric Baum #2591618 (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)

Andrew Rozynski #5054465 (Pro Hac Vice To Be Filed)

EISENBERG & BAUM, LLP

24 Union Square East, Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10003

Telephone No. 212-353-8700 

Facsimile No. 212-353-1708 

E-mail: ebaum@EandBLaw.com

 arozynski@EandBLaw.com 

William A. Richards #013381

Alan S. Baskin #013155

David E. Wood #021403

BASKIN RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone No. 602-812-7979

Facsímile No. 602-595-7800

E-mail: brichards@baskinrichards.com

alan@baskinrichards.com 

 dwood@baskinrichards.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Mark Tauscher and Ivanito Tauscher, a married 

couple,

Plaintiffs,

v.

Vanguard Health Management, Inc. d/b/a 

Abrazo Community Health Network; Hospital 

Development of West Phoenix, Inc. d/b/a 

Abrazo West Campus,

Defendants.

Case No.

COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiffs, Mark Tauscher and Ivanito Tauscher (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their 

undersigned counsel, Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, and Baskin Richards PLC, hereby assert the 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 1 of 23
2

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

following claims against Defendants, Abrazo Community Health Network and Abrazo West 

Campus (“Defendants”), and in support of their claims and demands for relief allege as follows: 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs Mark Tauscher and Ivanito Tauscher (“Plaintiffs”) are deaf individuals 

who communicate primarily in American Sign Language (“ASL”), which is their expressed, 

preferred, and most effective means of communication. Defendants, Abrazo Community Health 

Network and Abrazo West Campus discriminated against Plaintiffs by refusing and failing to 

provide effective auxiliary aids and services despite the Plaintiffs’ repeated requests for 

effective communication. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs by failing to provide the 

auxiliary aids and services necessary for Plaintiffs to effectively communicate; Defendants

failed to provide on-site ASL interpreters when necessary, provided malfunctioning Video 

Remote Interpreting (“VRI”1) systems, failed to adequately train its personnel in the use of VRI 

systems, and required the Plaintiffs to rely upon other means of communication, including 

passing of notes and/or lip reading, that were ineffective for communication regarding the 

medical treatment required by Plaintiff Mark Tauscher and the services required by his 

companion and spouse, Plaintiff Ivanito Tauscher. Plaintiffs bring this action to compel 

Defendants to cease unlawful discriminatory practices and implement policies and procedures 

that will ensure effective communication, full and equal enjoyment of, and a meaningful 

opportunity on the part of Plaintiffs and other deaf individuals to participate in and benefit from 

Defendants’ services. Plaintiffs seek declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief; damages; and 

attorneys’ fees and costs to redress Defendants’ unlawful discrimination on the basis of 

disability in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 

12181, et seq. and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 36; Section 504 of the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 

84; Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 148116; the 

 

1

 Video remote interpreting is a video telecommunication service that uses devices such as web 

cameras or videophones to provide sign language or spoken language interpreting services 

through a remote or offsite interpreter.

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 2 of 23
3

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Arizonans with Disabilities Act (“AzDA”), A.R.S. § 41-1492, et seq.; and any other applicable 

common law rights.

2. Due to physical, environmental, and pedagogical factors, many deaf individuals, 

including Plaintiffs, have difficulty acquiring English. Indeed, the median reading level of deaf 

high school graduates is fourth grade. This is because English is generally a second language 

(after ASL or another form of sign language) for individuals who are born deaf or become deaf 

before acquiring language. In addition, many deaf people acquire English as their second 

language later in life, and well past the critical developmental period of language acquisition. 

Despite this, Defendants often forced Plaintiffs to communicate in a medical setting using this 

unreliable and ineffective method, instead of properly accommodating their disability through 

qualified ASL interpreters.

3. Lip-reading, the ability to understand the speech of another by watching the 

speaker’s lips, does not provide effective communication for most deaf and hard of hearing 

individuals. In fact, the upper limits of estimates for accuracy in lip-reading, in an ideal oneon-one situation, have been as low as getting only 10% to 30% of words correct. This is because 

only a small amount of the spoken sounds of aural language are visible, and many of those 

appear identical on the lips. Even if a primary ASL user were able to determine the sounds 

appearing on a speaker’s lips, he or she would still not necessarily understand the English 

language or the speaker’s vocabulary, because many deaf individuals, including Plaintiffs, have 

difficulty acquiring and communicating in English. Despite this, Defendants forced Plaintiffs

at times to communicate in a medical setting using this unreliable and ineffective method, 

instead of properly accommodating their disabilities through qualified ASL interpreters.

4. Video Remote Interpreting (VRI) is a videotelecommunication service that uses 

devices such as web cameras or videophones to provide sign language or spoken language 

interpreting services through a remote or offsite interpreter. VRI is inappropriate in many 

circumstances, including when the deaf user has other conditions that impair the deaf user’s 

ability to utilize the device (i.e., if the deaf user has a visual impairment, is in a lot of pain, or 

cannot achieve the proper posture); when there are many people in a room; when staff is 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 3 of 23
4

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

inadequately trained to set up or operate the device; or in situations that are especially 

complicated or emergent. Despite this, Defendants forced Plaintiffs to utilize a nonfunctioning 

VRI, or to use VRI when it was not appropriate to do so, instead of properly accommodating 

Plaintiffs’ disabilities.

THE PARTIES

5. Defendant Vanguard Health Management, Inc. d/b/a Abrazo Community Health 

Network is, on information and belief, a corporation registered and doing business in the State 

of Arizona. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Vanguard Health Management, Inc. d/b/a 

Abrazo Community Health Network was and still is licensed and doing business in the State of 

Arizona, with a domestic address in Phoenix, Arizona and a foreign address in Dallas, Texas. 

6. On information and belief, Vanguard Health Management, Inc. d/b/a Abrazo 

Community Health Network owns, leases, and/or operates hospitals, specialty medical centers, 

surgery centers and urgent care facilities, including Abrazo West Campus, located at or near 

13677 W. McDowell Rd., Goodyear, Arizona 85395.

7. Defendant Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc. d/b/a Abrazo West 

Campus is, on information and belief, a corporation registered and doing business in the State 

of Arizona. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc.

d/b/a Abrazo West Campus was and still is licensed and doing business in the State of Arizona, 

with a domestic address in Phoenix, Arizona and a foreign address in Dallas, Texas. On 

information and belief, at all times material to the allegations of this Complaint, Hospital 

Development of West Phoenix, Inc. d/b/a Abrazo West Campus was also involved in and 

responsible for operations of the Abrazo West Campus hospital facilities in Goodyear, Arizona.

8. On information and belief, Vanguard Health Management, Inc. and Hospital 

Development of West Phoenix, Inc. share responsibilities for and act in coordination in the 

operation of and overseeing the policies and practices of the Abrazo West Campus hospital 

facility.

9. Abrazo West Campus is a place of public accommodation as defined in 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12181(7)(G) and A.R.S. § 41-1492(11)(f) and, on information and belief, Vanguard Health 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 4 of 23
5

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Management, Inc. and Hospital Development of West Phoenix, Inc. are recipients of federal 

financial assistance. Thus, they are subject to the requirements of the ADA, the Rehabilitation 

Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and the AzDA. 

10. On information and belief, Vanguard Health Management, Inc. and Hospital 

Development of West Phoenix, Inc. have sufficient financial resources to afford all aids and 

services necessary to provide effective communication to the Plaintiffs. 

11. Plaintiffs Mark Tauscher and Ivanito Tauscher are married individuals who have 

at all material times hereto resided in Maricopa County, Arizona. They are profoundly deaf, 

communicate primarily in ASL, and are substantially limited in the major life activities of 

hearing and speaking within the meaning of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Affordable 

Care Act, and the AzDA. Plaintiff Mark Tauscher was a patient at Defendants’ Abrazo West 

Campus facility, where he and his patient companion, Plaintiff Ivanito Tauscher, were denied

appropriate auxiliary aids and services for their disabilities despite repeated requests to facilitate

effective communication between them and Defendants’ employees and staff during Mark 

Tauscher’s medical treatment in May 2016.

JURISDICTION & VENUE

12. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for claims arising under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C §§ 12181, et 

seq., as well as claims arising under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 

794, and its implementing regulation, 45 C.F.R. Part 84, and under Section 1557 of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 148116. This Court has supplemental 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims under the AzDA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

13. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because 

Defendants have sufficient contacts with this District to subject them to personal jurisdiction at 

the time this action is commenced, and the acts and omissions giving rise to this Complaint 

occurred within this District.

///

///

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 5 of 23
6

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

STATEMENT OF FACTS

14. Plaintiff Mark Tauscher is deaf and requires a qualified sign language interpreter 

to communicate effectively in medical settings.

15. Plaintiff Ivanito Tauscher is also deaf and requires a qualified sign language 

interpreter to communicate effectively in medical settings. 

16. Plaintiffs Mark and Ivanito Tauscher are married to each other. They have been 

married to each other since May 27, 2016. Prior to their marriage, Ivanito Tauscher’s last name 

was Maldonado. 

17. On May 14, 2016, Mark and Ivanito went to an urgent care facility. Mark had 

some lab work done, and was told to immediately go to the hospital. The urgent care facility 

recommended he go to an Abrazo hospital; however, his doctors are associated with Banner

Health, so Mark Tauscher and Ivanito Tauscher went to Banner Estrella hospital immediately 

afterward. The following day, Mark Tauscher was still concerned about his health and decided 

to go to an Abrazo facility as the urgent care facility had recommended.

18. On May 15, 2015 in the morning, the Tauschers called Abrazo West Campus

through Video Relay Service (VRS) and informed the woman who answered (upon information 

and belief, she was the nursing supervisor and her name was Kathy) that they were on their way 

to the hospital and are deaf and would require a live sign language interpreter. Kathy assured 

the Tauschers that Defendants would have a live sign language interpreter present and ready 

upon their arrival. After speaking with Kathy, the Tauschers left their home to go to the Abrazo

facility.

19. When Mark and Ivanito arrived at Abrazo West Campus, no ASL interpreter was 

present.

20. Plaintiffs inquired of a nurse about the interpreter. The nurse informed Plaintiffs 

that Defendants had not yet called an interpreter.

21. Mark Tauscher filled out his registration paperwork and was taken to a screening 

room.

22. Inside the screening room, no live sign language interpreter was present; 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 6 of 23
7

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

however, hospital staff attempted to use a VRI machine during Plaintiff Mark Tauscher’s initial 

interactions with them. Three different nurses struggled to get the VRI connected 

unsuccessfully. Finally, a nurse took the VRI machine out of the room. The initial screening 

was conducted without the VRI and without a live ASL interpreter.

23. During the first approximately three hours of Mark Tauscher’s stay at 

Defendants’ hospital, the VRI was not working at many points. Throughout this time, the 

Tauschers continued to request a qualified live sign language interpreter. Defendants denied 

their requests.

24. The Tauschers then asked a nurse at Defendants’ hospital to contact the

interpreter licensing coordinator at the Arizona Commission for the Deaf and the Hard of 

Hearing in hopes that they would be able to assist in getting a live interpreter. Despite hearing 

from this official, the nurse indicated that the hospital intended to continue trying to utilize VRI.

25. At some point during the stay, Defendants informed the Tauschers that they can 

only utilize an interpreter through a specific vendor with whom they have a contract. 

Defendants further indicated that they had reached out to the interpreter agency and did not get 

a response. Defendants further indicated that they were quoted a 6 to 12 hour wait time until a 

live interpreter would arrive. Even so, Defendants refused to contact any of the interpreting 

agencies suggested by the Tauschers.

26. When the VRI would not work, Defendants brought in a nurse by the name of 

Paul who knew some sign language. When Paul came in, the nursing supervisor was in the 

room and was still attempting to set up the VRI. It became apparent to Mark Tauscher that Paul, 

the nurse, was not a sufficiently proficient signer. He asked Paul in sum and substance: are you 

a certified interpreter? Paul responded in sum and substance: no, but I’m here to help you. 

27. Mark Tauscher told Paul he was not comfortable with him interpreting and that 

he needed a qualified interpreter. Mark sensed that Paul became angry and, often he spoke with 

a nurse outside Plaintiffs’ presence, he informed Mark Tauscher in sum and substance: we are 

going to discharge you because we can’t find an interpreter and you won’t use the VRI. At that 

time, the VRI was not working.

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 7 of 23
8

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

28. Mark signed to Paul, in sum and substance: no, I’m worried about my health, I 

want you to check me out. Mark and Ivanito both observed that Paul did not voice to the nurse 

supervisor when/after Mark was signing despite the fact that Paul was supposed to be acting as 

an interpreter. Paul signed to Mark, in sum and substance: no, we are going to discharge you. 

This exchanged happened twice and both times Paul failed to voice Mark’s request to be 

examined for the nurse supervisor.

29. Paul and the nurse supervisor then gave the Tauschers discharge paperwork and 

again indicated in sum and substance: we are sorry, we are discharging you. They then asked 

the Tauschers to leave. Mark and Ivanito observed Paul putting notes into the hospital system 

at that time. The Tauschers refused to leave without receiving medical care.

30. The Tauschers asked the nurse supervisor to remove Paul from the room. After 

Paul was removed from the room, the nurse supervisor finally was able to get the VRI to work. 

Even after the VRI turned on, the nurse supervisor struggled for several minutes to use the VRI.

31. Finally, the nurse supervisor was able to use the VRI to communicate with Mark 

and Ivanito, and Mark was finally able to communicate concerns to the nurse. The doctor then 

came in and utilized the VRI to communicate with Mark and Ivanito. During use of the VRI 

there were still occasional transmission issues and Ivanito had to provide interpreting at points 

to help Mark.

32. Over the next two hours, Mark had a CT scan, x-ray and blood work done.

33. When Mark was taken to the room for the CT scan, Defendants did not bring the 

VRI machine with him into the room. There was no VRI in the room where the CT scan was 

conducted and there was no live interpreter. Therefore, Mark did not have an opportunity for 

effective communication during this process.

34. When Mark was taken to the room for the x-ray, Defendants did not bring the 

VRI machine with him into the room. There was no VRI in the room where the x-ray was 

conducted and there was no live interpreter. Therefore, Mark did not have an opportunity for 

effective communication during this process.

35. When Mark was taken to the room for the blood work, Defendants did not bring 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 8 of 23
9

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

the VRI machine with him into the room. There was no VRI in the room where the blood work 

was conducted and there was no live interpreter. Therefore, Mark did not have an opportunity 

for effective communication during this process.

36. Upon information and belief, Defendants were aware of Plaintiffs’ obvious 

disabilities.

37. Defendants’ staff failed to undertake any meaningful assessment of Plaintiffs’ 

communication needs and abilities.

38. Defendants’ staff never asked Plaintiffs about their communication preference.

39. As alleged above, Plaintiffs repeatedly put Defendants’ staff on notice that 

communication was not effective by alerting them of the inadequacy of VRI systems and to 

their need for qualified ASL interpreters. Yet, despite such notice, Defendants failed and/or 

refused to provide qualified onsite ASL interpreters, failed and/or refused to ensure that VRI 

systems were appropriate for each of the Plaintiffs’ circumstances, failed and/or refused to 

ensure that available VRI systems were properly functioning, and failed and/or refused to 

ensure that the Defendants’ agents were properly trained and qualified in the use of the VRI 

systems.

40. Rather, when the VRI system was not working or was unavailable, Defendants

knowingly limited Plaintiffs to the little communication the Plaintiffs could achieve through 

vague gestures, cryptic notes, and the few words Plaintiffs could understand through reading 

lips.

41. Defendants intentionally discriminated against Plaintiffs with deliberate 

indifference to their rights and to their communication needs, causing Plaintiffs to endure 

humiliation, fear, anxiety, pain, suffering, and emotional distress.

42. Further, Defendants retaliated against and punished Plaintiffs for attempting to 

enforce their rights by attempting to send Plaintiffs away from their facility without medical 

care. 

43. Upon information and belief, Defendants are aware of their obligations under 

federal and state law to provide adequate and effective communication for the deaf, hard of 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 9 of 23
10

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

hearing, and speech unintelligible individuals that visit their medical facilities as either patients 

or companions of patients. 

44. Upon information and belief, Defendants refuse or fail when required to hire 

qualified on-site sign language interpreters as a matter of policy at their hospital and other 

facilities, and insist upon communication through such inadequate means of communication as 

handwritten notes, gestures, lip reading, and/or VRI, regardless of whether such means are

appropriate for the deaf individual involved.

45. As a result of Defendants’ failure to ensure effective communication with 

Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs received care and service that was objectively substandard and that is both 

different from and inferior to care provided to patients and patient family members who can 

hear, and Plaintiffs were subjected to discriminatory treatment because of their disability.

46. It is reasonably foreseeable that each Plaintiff will continue to visit one or more 

of Defendants’ facilities, either by choice or necessity, due to the proximity of Defendants’ 

medical facilities to their home and their need for medical treatment. Based on Defendants’

previous and repeated denials of effective communication for Plaintiffs, it is reasonably 

foreseeable that a denial of effective communication for Plaintiffs as a result of Defendants’

actions, omissions, policies or practices will occur again. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are aware of 

discriminatory barriers to access at Defendants’ facilities and are thereby deterred from 

accessing Defendants’ healthcare services because of the discrimination they have faced and 

expect to face in the future, even though they would do so if the discriminatory acts ceased. 

Therefore, Defendants’ actions warrant the imposition of injunctive relief to ensure the 

cessation of Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

COUNT 1: VIOLATIONS OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

47. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs in support of this claim.

48. At all times relevant to this action, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act 

(ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12181, et seq. has been in full force and effect and has applied to 

Defendants’ conduct.

49. At all times relevant to this action, the United States Department of Justice 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 10 of 23
11

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

regulations implementing Title III of the ADA, 28 C.F.R. Part 36, have been in full force and 

effect and have applied to the Defendants’ conduct.

50. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs have been substantially limited in 

the major life activities of hearing and speaking. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are considered 

individuals with a disability as defined under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).

51. Defendants own, lease, and/or operate places of public accommodation as defined 

under Title III of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(F).

52. Title III of the ADA provides that “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against 

on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, 

privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation by any 

person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12182(a).

53. Title III of the ADA defines discrimination to include denying participation or 

offering unequal or separate benefits to individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 

12182(b)(1)(A); see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 36.202.

54. Title III of the ADA further defines discrimination to include “a failure to take 

such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied 

services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the 

absence of auxiliary aids and services.” 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii).

55. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a public 

accommodation shall furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services to ensure effective 

communication with individual with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iii); 28 C.F.R. § 

36.303(b)(1).

56. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, a public 

accommodation, in choosing the type of auxiliary aid or service to ensure effective 

communication, must consider the “method of communication used by the individual; the 

nature, length, and complexity of the communication involved; and the context in which the 

communication is taking place.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(ii).

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 11 of 23
12

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

57. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, in order to be 

effective, the type of auxiliary aid or service provided by the public accommodations “must be 

provided in accessible formats, in a timely manner, and in such a way as to protect the privacy 

and independence of the individual with a disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(c)(1)(ii).

58. Pursuant to Title III of the ADA and its implementing regulations, when a public 

accommodation provides VRI service, it must ensure that the service includes all the following 

criteria: “(1) [r]eal-time, full-motion video and audio over a dedicated high-speed, widebandwidth video connection or wireless connection that delivers high-quality video images that 

do not produce lags, choppy, blurry, or grainy images, or irregular pauses in communication; 

(2) [a] sharply delineated image that is large enough to display the interpreter’s face, arms, 

hands, and fingers, and the participating individual ́s face, arms, hands, and fingers, regardless 

of his or her body position; (3) [a] clear, audible transmission of voices; and (4) [a]dequate 

training to users of the technology and other involved individuals so that they may quickly and 

efficiently set up and operate the VRI.” 28 C.F.R. § 36.303(f).

59. Based on all of the foregoing allegations, Defendants discriminated against 

Plaintiffs on the basis of Plaintiffs’ disabilities by: (1) denying Plaintiffs an equal opportunity 

to participate in and benefit from Defendants’ goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, 

and/or accommodations, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A); (2) failing to ensure 

adequate and effective communication through the provision of on-site, qualified ASL 

interpreters, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A); (3) failing to ensure adequate and 

effective communication by relying on a VRI system, including a system that was not fully or 

adequately functioning, or other means of communication other than qualified ASL 

interpreters; (4) excluding or otherwise denying equal goods, services, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, accommodations, or other opportunities to Plaintiffs because of the known 

disability of an individual with whom the individual or entity is known to have a relationship 

or association, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(E); and (5) failing to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices, or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to 

afford such goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to individuals 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 12 of 23
13

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

with disabilities, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)

60. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendants’ 

actions will recur with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ family members and/or companions and/or 

additional deaf or hearing impaired persons.

61. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to injunctive relief, as well as an award of 

attorney’s fees, costs, and disbursements pursuant to the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) and/or 

common law.

COUNT 2: VIOLATIONS OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT

62. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all preceding paragraphs in support of this claim.

63. At all times relevant to this action, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 

U.S.C. § 794 has been in full force and effect and has applied to the Defendants’ conduct.

64. At all times relevant to this action, the United States Department of Health and 

Human Services (“HHS”) regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 45 

C.F.R. Part 84, have been in full force and effect and have applied to the Defendants’ conduct.

65. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs have had substantial impairment in 

the major life activities of hearing and speaking within the meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 

29 U.S.C. § 705(9), and its implementing regulations at 45 C.F.R. § 84.3(j). Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs are individuals with a disability as defined under the Rehabilitation Act. 

66. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs were qualified to receive services 

through Defendants’ facilities.

67. Upon information and belief, at all times relevant to this action Defendants have 

received federal financial assistance, including Medicaid reimbursements, and have been 

principally engaged in the business of providing health care. Therefore, Defendants and their 

associated medical facilities qualify as programs or activities receiving federal financial 

assistance pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).

68. Pursuant to Section 504, “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . 

shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied 

the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 13 of 23
14

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794.

69. The Rehabilitation Act permits associational claims by extending relief to “any 

person aggrieved” by discrimination in violation thereof. 29 U.S.C. § 794a(a)(2).

70. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendants and their agents and medical personnel operating within their 

facilities, Defendants have discriminated against and continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs 

solely on the basis of the disabilities of Plaintiffs by denying Plaintiffs meaningful access to the 

services, programs, and benefits the Defendants offer to other individuals, and by refusing to 

provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure effective communication, in violation 

of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.

71. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendants and its agents and medical personnel operating within their

facilities, Defendants further discriminated against the Plaintiffs by: 1) failing to ensure 

adequate and effective communication with Plaintiffs through the specific provision of 

qualified, in-person ASL interpreters; 2) failing to ensure adequate and effective 

communication with the Plaintiffs through a VRI system that functioned properly; and 3) 

requiring the Plaintiffs to rely upon ineffective and inadequate means of communication 

including a VRI system, which was at times malfunctioning, handwritten notes and/or lip 

reading.

72. Defendants’ violation of their obligations and the Plaintiffs’ rights under the 

Rehabilitation Act and its implementing regulations has caused substantial damages, suffering, 

loss and harm to the Plaintiffs, including, without limitation, serious and lasting emotional 

harm, anxiety, frustration, fear and other serious emotional conditions or symptoms, as well as 

the exacerbation, increase, extension, or delay in the resolution of serious medical conditions, 

which itself has also caused additional harm, suffering and injury to such Plaintiffs. 

73. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendants’ 

actions will recur again with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ family members and/or companions and/or 

additional deaf or hearing impaired persons.

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 14 of 23
15

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

74. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek and recover all appropriate compensatory 

damages for the injuries and losses Plaintiffs sustained as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory 

conduct and deliberate indifference as hereinbefore alleged, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

75. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of attorney’s fees, costs, and 

disbursements pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and/or common law.

76. Defendants’ actions and omissions resulting in harms to the Plaintiffs were 

willful, malicious, intentional, recklessly indifferent and undertaken with an evil mind and 

motive and with disregard for and deliberate indifference to the legal rights of Plaintiffs under 

federal and state law and the substantial risk of serious and material harms to the Plaintiffs. 

COUNT 3: VIOLATIONS OF THE ARIZONANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

77. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs in support of this claim.

78. At all times relevant to this action, the Arizonans with Disabilities Act (AzDA), 

A.R.S. § 41-1492, et seq., has been in full force and effect and has applied to Defendants’ 

conduct.

79. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs had substantial impairment in the 

major life activities of hearing and speaking and have been individuals with a disability within 

the meaning of the AzDA, A.R.S. §§ 41-1492(6) and (8)(a).

80. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants’ facilities at which Plaintiffs were 

served or treated have been places of public accommodation within the meaning of AzDA, 

A.R.S. § 41-1492(11). 

81. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiff Ivanito Tauscher has had a familial 

relationship with Plaintiff Mark Tauscher under A.R.S. §41-1492.02(F).

82. The AzDA, A.R.S. § 41-1492.02(A), states that “[n]o individual may be 

discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, 

services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations of any place of public 

accommodation by any person who owns, leases, leases to others or operates a place of public 

accommodation.”

83. Discrimination under the AzDA includes any “failure to take such steps as may 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 15 of 23
16

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

be necessary to ensure that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, 

segregated or otherwise treated differently than other individuals because of the absence of 

reasonable modifications in policies, practices or procedures or auxiliary aids and services.” 

A.R.S. § 41-1492.02(G)(3). 

84. Discrimination under the AzDA also includes exclusion or denial or “equal goods, 

services, facilities, privileged, advantages, accommodations or other opportunities to an 

individual or entity because of the known disability of an individual with whom the individual 

or entity is known to have a relationship or association.” A.R.S. §41-1492.02(F).

85. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiff’s treatment by and 

interactions with Defendants and their agents and medical personnel operating within their 

facility, Defendants have discriminated against and continue to discriminate against the 

Plaintiffs solely on the basis of the disability of Plaintiffs by denying Plaintiffs meaningful 

access to the services, programs, and benefits the Defendants offer to other individuals, by 

failing and refusing to modify the Defendants’ policies, procedures and practices regarding 

reliance on VRI systems and refusal to provide live, on-site ASL interpreters, and by refusing 

to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure effective communication, in violation 

of the AzDA and the Plaintiffs’ rights thereunder.

86. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendants and their agents and medical personnel operating within their 

facility, Defendants specifically discriminated against the Plaintiffs by: 1) failing to ensure 

adequate and effective communication with Plaintiffs through the specific provision of 

qualified, in-person ASL interpreters; 2) failing to ensure adequate and effective 

communication with the Plaintiffs through a VRI system that functioned properly; and 3) 

requiring the Plaintiffs to rely upon ineffective and inadequate means of communication 

including a VRI system, which was at times malfunctioning, handwritten notes, finger spelling 

and/or lip reading.

87. Discrimination under the AzDA also includes, “[a] failure to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, if these modifications are necessary to afford 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 16 of 23
17

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

these goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with 

disabilities, unless the entity can demonstrate that making these modifications would 

fundamentally alter the nature of these goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or 

accommodations.” A.R.S. § 41-1492.02(G)(2)

88. Upon information and belief, Defendants have a policy, practice or procedure of 

using VRI for deaf patients and of refusing to provide deaf patients with live, qualified, on-site 

ASL interpreters except in discrete situations.

89. As set forth in the foregoing allegations about the Plaintiffs’ treatment by and 

interactions with Defendants and their agents and medical personnel operating within their 

facilities, Plaintiffs requested reasonable accommodations to Defendants’ VRI policy and/or 

Defendants had reason to know of Plaintiffs’ disabilities and inability to request an 

accommodation; Plaintiffs needed a reasonable accommodation; and Defendants denied 

Plaintiffs a reasonable accommodation, which resulted in Plaintiffs being harmed.

90. Defendants’ violation of its obligations and the Plaintiffs’ rights under the AzDA 

has caused substantial damages, suffering, loss and harm to the Plaintiffs, including, without 

limitation, serious and lasting emotional harm, anxiety, frustration, fear and other serious 

emotional conditions or symptoms, as well as the exacerbation, increase, extension, or delay in 

the resolution of serious medical conditions, which itself has also caused additional harm, 

suffering and injury to Plaintiffs. 

91. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendants’ 

actions will recur with Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs’ family members and/or companions and/or 

additional deaf or hearing impaired persons.

92. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek and recover all appropriate compensatory 

damages and injunctive relief for the injuries and losses Plaintiffs sustained as a result of 

Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and deliberate indifference as hereinbefore alleged, 

including as allowed pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1492.09.

93. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

disbursements pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1492.09 and/or as otherwise provided at law.

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 17 of 23
18

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

COUNT 4: VIOLATIONS UNDER AFFORDABLE CARE ACT SECTION 1557

94. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding allegations of this Complaint in 

support of this claim as if set forth fully herein.

95. At all times relevant to this action, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116 was in full force and effect and applied to the 

Defendants’ conduct.

96. At all times relevant to this action, Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, incorporated 

the definition of disability in the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9).

97. At all times relevant to this action, Plaintiffs had substantial limitations to the 

major life activity of hearing and speaking, and were individuals with disabilities within the 

meaning of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 705(9) and of Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116. 

98. At all times relevant to this action, such Plaintiffs’ primary language for 

communication was American Sign Language and not English; and such Plaintiffs had limited 

ability to read, write, speak, or understand English, and were individuals with limited English 

proficiency within the meaning of Section 1557, 45 C.F.R. § 92.4.

99. On information and belief, at all times relevant to this action, Defendants received 

federal financial assistance, including Medicaid reimbursements, and were principally engaged 

in the business of providing health care. Therefore, Defendants are, on information and belief,

health programs or activities receiving federal financial assistance pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

18116(a).

100. Pursuant to Section 1557, “an individual shall not, on the ground prohibited 

under . . . section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), be excluded from 

participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under, any health 

program or activity, any part of which is receiving Federal financial assistance . . .” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 18116.

101. Defendants have discriminated and continue to discriminate against Plaintiffs 

solely on the basis of their disabilities and their limited English proficiency by denying them 

meaningful access to the services, programs, and benefits the Defendants offer to other 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 18 of 23
19

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

individuals by refusing to provide auxiliary aids and services necessary to ensure effective 

communication in violation of Section 1557, 42 U.S.C. § 18116.

102. Defendants discriminated against Plaintiffs by failing to ensure effective 

communication through the providing of qualified sign language interpreters on-site and/or 

through VRI machines that worked.

103. On information and belief, the refusal to offer qualified on-site ASL interpreter 

services is as a result of a policy or practice of Defendants to prohibit or impede the use of onsite qualified sign language interpreters without regard to whether VRI services will provide 

effective communication.

104. As set out above, absent injunctive relief there is a clear risk that Defendants’ 

actions will recur again with Plaintiffs and other Deaf patients and/or family members.

105. Plaintiffs are therefore entitled to seek and recover compensatory damages for the 

injuries and loss they sustained as a result of Defendants’ discriminatory conduct and deliberate 

indifference as hereinbefore alleged, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a).

106. Plaintiffs are further entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

disbursements pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 18116(a), the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) 

and/or common law.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court grant the following relief 

against the Defendants:

A. Enter a declaratory judgment, pursuant to Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure, stating that Defendants’ practices, policies and procedures have 

subjected Plaintiffs to discrimination in violation of Title III of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the 

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, and the 

Arizonans with Disabilities Act;

B. Enter permanent injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from implementing or 

enforcing any policy, procedure, or practice that denies individuals who are deaf 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 19 of 23
20

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

or hard of hearing, such as Plaintiffs, meaningful access to and full and equal 

enjoyment in Defendants’ services or programs;

C. Enter permanent injunctive relief ordering Defendants:

i. to develop and comply with written policies, procedures, and practices to 

ensure that Defendants do not discriminate in the future against Plaintiffs 

and other similarly situated individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing or 

companions of deaf or hard of hearing persons by failing to provide 

effective communication; 

ii. to develop, promulgate, implement and comply with a policy requiring that 

when a patient or other deaf individual appearing as a companion or family 

member, or other person for a patient requests an on-site interpreter for 

effective communication, a fully qualified, on-site sign language interpreter 

will be provided as soon as practicable in all services offered by 

Defendants;

iii. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy to ensure that 

Defendants will notify individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing of their 

rights to effective communication under all applicable federal and state law. 

This notification will include posting explicit and clearly worded notices 

that Defendants will provide live sign language interpreters, videophones, 

and other communication services to ensure effective communication with 

deaf or hard of hearing persons;

iv. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy to ensure, in 

the event any facility operated by Defendants utilizes a Video Remote 

Interpreting System (“VRI”), that such system has all functions and 

characteristics necessary to ensure it provides for effective communication 

given all the conditions and circumstances present, including without 

limitation that such system utilizes 1) a high-speed Internet connection; 2) 

a video screen and camera with appropriate size, resolution, position, 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 20 of 23
21

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

capture angle, focus, and proximity to the deaf individual; and 3) 

appropriate audio quality. When necessary for effective communication the 

equipment must be portable and made available to the patient where the 

patient is located, preferably in a private room to minimize distractions and 

maintain confidentiality;

v. to provide at all times and at all Defendants’ medical facilities utilizing VRI 

systems adequately trained and experienced employees or contractors 

sufficient to ensure that any VRI systems or related communications 

equipment or resources are maintained at all times in proper working 

condition and can be promptly fixed in time to avoid any prejudice or 

unreasonable delay in patient care or companion communication;

vi. to develop, implement, promulgate, and comply with a policy to ensure that 

deaf or hard-of-hearing patients are able to communicate through the most 

appropriate method under the circumstances, recognizing that the VRI is 

not appropriate in all medical situations;

vii. to create and maintain a list of qualified American Sign Language 

interpreters and ensure availability of such interpreters at any time of day 

or night;

viii. to train all their employees, staff, and other agents on a regular basis about 

the rights of individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing under the ADA, 

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Patient 

Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, and the AzDA;

ix. to train all their employees, staff, and other agents on a regular basis about 

how to properly assess when VRI or other alternative means of 

communication do not provide effective communication for a deaf patient 

or other deaf and hard of hearing companions or visitors to the Defendants’

facilities;

x. to train their employees, staff, and other agents on a regular basis about 

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 21 of 23
22

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

Defendants’ policies regarding when and how to properly use VRI services 

(including how to set up the VRI system and how to obtain technical 

assistance in case of system malfunction or failure) and how to obtain 

interpreters when requested by deaf or hard of hearing patients or 

companions;

D. Award to Plaintiffs:

i. compensatory damages pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 

Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 18116, and the Arizonans with Disabilities Act sufficient to fully remedy 

all damages, suffering, injury and losses caused to Plaintiffs by Defendants;

ii. to the extent allowed by any applicable law, punitive damages in an amount 

sufficient to punish the Defendants and to deter similarly situated persons 

or entities from similar future conduct; 

iii. reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to the ADA, Section 504 of 

the Rehabilitation Act, Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and 

Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, and the AzDA;

iv. interest on all amounts at the highest rates and from the earliest dates 

allowed by law; and

v. any and all other relief that this Court finds just, necessary and appropriate.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury for all of the issues a jury properly may decide, and for 

all of the requested relief that a jury may award.

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 22 of 23
23

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

BASKIN 

RICHARDS PLC

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, Arizona 85012

Telephone 602-812-7979

Facsimile 602-595-7800

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 28th day of December, 2017.

BASKIN RICHARDS PLC

/s/ William A. Richards

William A. Richards

Alan S. Baskin

David E. Wood

2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 1150

Phoenix, AZ 85012

AND

EISENBERG & BAUM, L.L.P.

Eric Baum, Esq.

Andrew Rozynski, Esq.

24 Union Square East

Fourth Floor

New York, NY 10003

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:17-cv-04779-GMS Document 1 Filed 12/28/17 Page 23 of 23