Galloway v. Superior Court of the District of Columbia
2 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 577, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3314, 816 F. Supp. 12 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public entity's policy of categorically excluding all blind individuals from jury service, without conducting an individualized assessment of their ability to serve, violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Facts:
- Donald Galloway, a U.S. citizen and resident of the District of Columbia, has been blind since the age of sixteen.
- Galloway holds a Master's degree and has held numerous high-level professional positions requiring him to evaluate facts, weigh evidence, and make judgments.
- He received a notice from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia summoning him for jury duty.
- On March 1, 1991, Galloway reported for jury duty as instructed, accompanied by his guide dog.
- When Galloway attempted to register for the jury pool, Superior Court personnel informed him that he was barred from serving.
- The reason given for his exclusion was the court's official policy, which categorically prohibits all blind persons from serving as jurors.
Procedural Posture:
- Donald Galloway filed a lawsuit against the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- His initial complaint alleged violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Civil Rights Act of 1871 (42 U.S.C. § 1983).
- Galloway later filed a second amended complaint, which added a claim under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Both Galloway (plaintiff) and the Superior Court (defendant) filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The case is before the U.S. District Court for a decision on the parties' summary judgment motions.
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 a court policy that categorically excludes all blind persons from jury service violate the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the Civil Rights Act of 1871?
Opinions:
Majority - Joyce Hens Green
Yes, the policy of categorically excluding blind individuals from jury service violates the Rehabilitation Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Civil Rights Act of 1871. A blanket exclusion based on disability is a form of discrimination rooted in stereotype and overgeneralization, which these federal statutes were enacted to prevent. The court reasoned that the Superior Court's policy is based on the unfounded assumption that sight is an essential function for a juror, particularly for assessing witness credibility. However, blind individuals can effectively assess credibility using other sensory data, such as speech patterns, intonation, and pauses. The court found the policy irrational and self-contradictory, noting that the same court system permits deaf jurors to serve with accommodations (sign-language interpreters) and that a blind judge had successfully served on the very same court, performing the duties of a fact-finder. Rather than a per se exclusion, the court must make an individualized, case-by-case determination of a blind person's qualifications to serve on a particular jury, considering whether reasonable accommodations could be made.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that civic duties, such as jury service, are protected activities under federal disability discrimination laws. It establishes that public entities cannot rely on stereotypes or blanket exclusions for individuals with disabilities, but must instead perform an individualized inquiry into a person's actual ability to perform the essential functions of a role, with or without reasonable accommodation. The ruling mandates a shift from a categorical exclusion approach to a case-by-case assessment during the voir dire process. This significantly impacts court administration by requiring them to dismantle discriminatory policies and actively consider how to accommodate jurors with disabilities, thereby broadening participation in the justice system.
