Opinion ID: 6323813
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Defendant unreasonably failed to give

Text: primary consideration to her request for an in- terpreter; 3. As a result, Plaintiff was unable to effectively communicate with the officers; and 4. In failing to provide an interpreter, the De- fendant intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff based on her disability. Intentional 14 Nos. 20-3048, 21-1110 discrimination does not require personal ani- mosity or ill will. The district court also instructed the jury on certain regulations, discussed further below, that elaborate on a public entity’s obligation to ensure effective communication. Relevant to this appeal, the court informed the jury that police officers generally should not rely on a minor child to interpret, except in emergencies. It went on to state: “Police need not interfere, however, in the decision of a private citizen to use his or her own child to facilitate her communication.” Lange objected to this instruction, arguing that it had no basis in the regulation and misstated the law. The district court overruled her objection, reasoning that it “d[id not] think that the police should be preventing a deaf person from communicating with them in the manner they choose” and that this instruction was “consistent with the requirement of reasonableness.” After deliberating for approximately two hours, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Cities on each of Lange’s four claims. The district court denied Lange’s motion for judgment as a matter of law, concluding that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find in favor of the defendants on each count. Following the verdict, the clerk of the court taxed costs to Lange in the amount of $4,012.97. Lange then filed a motion for the district court to review the decision to tax costs. She requested that the district court deny the Cities’ bill of costs because she is indigent. The Cities and the district court recognized Lange’s indigency; nonetheless, the district court still taxed Lange a reduced amount of $1,000 in costs. Nos. 20-3048, 21-1110 15 After the entry of the district court’s final judgment awarding costs to the Cities, Lange appealed to this Court.