Eddie I. Sierra v. City of Hallandale Beach, Florida
904 F.3d 1343 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA) does not create an administrative exhaustion requirement that would bar a plaintiff from bringing claims directly under § 505 of the Rehabilitation Act or Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) for lack of closed captioning on online video content.
Facts:
- Eddie Sierra is deaf.
- The City of Hallandale Beach, Florida ('City') makes video content available to the public on several online webpages.
- These webpages include the City's official government site, a tourism-related site, and a Facebook page.
- Sierra alleged that the video content on these webpages was provided without closed captioning.
- The lack of closed captioning prevented Sierra from having equal and effective access to the content of the publicly available videos.
Procedural Posture:
- Eddie Sierra filed a lawsuit against the City of Hallandale Beach in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging violations of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA.
- The City filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).
- The City argued that the CVAA required Sierra to first file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) before suing in court.
- The District Court granted the City's motion to dismiss without prejudice, holding that the CVAA imposed a mandatory administrative exhaustion requirement.
- Sierra, as the appellant, appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, with the City as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Twenty-First Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (CVAA), which grants the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) exclusive jurisdiction over complaints filed under that Act, require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies with the FCC before filing a lawsuit under the Rehabilitation Act or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Tjoflat, Circuit Judge
No, the CVAA does not require a plaintiff to exhaust administrative remedies with the FCC before suing under the ADA or Rehabilitation Act. The CVAA grants the FCC exclusive jurisdiction only over complaints brought under that specific section of the statute, not over all issues concerning closed captioning. Because the plaintiff is the 'master of the claim' and Sierra chose to sue under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA, his claims are not governed by the CVAA's procedural requirements. This conclusion is supported by a statutory savings clause that explicitly preserves rights of action under other federal laws unless expressly superseded. Furthermore, abstention under the primary-jurisdiction doctrine is not warranted because the FCC has no special expertise in interpreting the ADA or Rehabilitation Act, and the FCC itself has indicated that its rules do not preclude or supersede the operation of other federal disability laws.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the CVAA's administrative complaint process is a parallel, not a prerequisite, path for addressing online video accessibility. It establishes that plaintiffs can sue public entities directly in federal court under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act for failing to provide closed captioning, without first having to file a complaint with the FCC. This holding prevents defendants from using the CVAA as a procedural shield to delay or dismiss disability rights litigation and preserves the broad remedial power of existing civil rights statutes in the context of modern internet-based communication.
