Lexplug logoLexplug

Howe v. Hull

District Court, N.D. Ohio
1994 WL 682944, 874 F. Supp. 779 (1994)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An individual may be held personally liable as an 'operator' of a place of public accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) if they are in a position of authority with the power and discretion to perform a discriminatory act, and the act is a result of their own discretion. Unlike the Federal Rehabilitation Act, the ADA does not require that discrimination be the sole reason for the adverse action.


Facts:

  • Fred Charon, who was HIV positive, was traveling through Ohio with plaintiff Howe.
  • After taking a new antibiotic, floxin, Charon developed a severe allergic drug reaction, including fever, nausea, and redness of the skin.
  • Charon and Howe sought treatment at the emergency room of Memorial Hospital.
  • The emergency room physician, Dr. Reardon, examined Charon and determined that he needed to be admitted to the hospital for treatment.
  • Dr. Reardon telephoned the on-call admitting physician, Dr. Charles Hull, to arrange for Charon's admission.
  • Dr. Reardon informed Dr. Hull that Charon was HIV-positive and was suffering from a severe, non-AIDS related drug reaction.
  • During the phone call, Dr. Hull stated, 'if you get an AIDS patient in the hospital, you will never get him out,' and instructed Dr. Reardon to send Charon to the Medical College of Ohio (MCO).
  • Charon was not admitted to Memorial Hospital and was instead transferred to MCO, where he eventually recovered and was released.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiff Howe, representing the estate of Fred Charon, filed suit against Memorial Hospital and Dr. Charles Hull in the U.S. District Court.
  • The complaint alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Federal Rehabilitation Act (FRA), the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), and state law torts.
  • Defendant Memorial Hospital filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
  • Defendant Charles Hull filed a motion for summary judgment on all claims.
  • The U.S. District Court is now ruling on the defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Locked

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 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) permit a private cause of action against an individual physician, who does not own or lease a hospital, as an 'operator' of a place of public accommodation for refusing to admit a patient based on their disability?


Opinions:

Majority - John W. Potter

Yes. An individual physician can be personally liable under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as an 'operator' of a public accommodation. The plain language of the statute prohibits discrimination by any person who 'operates' a place of public accommodation. The court interpreted 'operate' to mean exerting power or influence, which is consistent with the ADA's broad remedial purpose. Unlike Title VII employment cases that have limited individual liability, the ADA's text and intent support holding individuals with discretionary authority accountable for their discriminatory actions. Dr. Hull held a position of authority as Vice Chief of Staff and the on-call admitting physician, giving him the power and discretion to admit or deny treatment. Because a jury could find that he exercised this personal discretion to deny admission based on Charon's HIV status, he can be considered an 'operator' under the ADA and may be held personally liable.



Analysis:

This decision establishes an important precedent for individual liability under Title III of the ADA. By defining 'operator' to include individuals with discretionary authority, the court expanded the scope of liability beyond just owners and corporate entities. This ruling contrasts with the narrower interpretation of individual liability under other civil rights statutes like Title VII, signaling that courts may interpret the ADA's public accommodation provisions more broadly to achieve their remedial goals. This case provides a framework for holding decision-makers, such as physicians in a hospital, personally accountable for discriminatory acts, potentially increasing deterrence against such conduct in public accommodations.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Howe v. Hull (1994) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Howe v. Hull