Case: Davis v. Keypoint Credit Union

09-451050 | California state trial court

Filed Date: May 7, 2009

Closed Date: Aug. 31, 2011

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

A California class action, filed May 7, 2009 alleges KeyPoint Credit Union, a 30-year-old institution, has 10 branches with 80,000 members, discriminates against deaf customers by refusing to accept relay calls. Disability Rights Advocates, on behalf of two hearing impaired Alameda County residents, contends the Silicon Valley-based credit union violates state and federal law for failing to accept calls made via communication-assisted devices.Plaintiffs allege KeyPoint requires those who are h…

A California class action, filed May 7, 2009 alleges KeyPoint Credit Union, a 30-year-old institution, has 10 branches with 80,000 members, discriminates against deaf customers by refusing to accept relay calls. Disability Rights Advocates, on behalf of two hearing impaired Alameda County residents, contends the Silicon Valley-based credit union violates state and federal law for failing to accept calls made via communication-assisted devices.

Plaintiffs allege KeyPoint requires those who are hard of hearing to physically present themselves and two forms of identification at branches in order to receive information about their accounts and services because the credit union will not take the relay calls.

One named plaintiff claimed she could not receive information about an automobile loan financed through KeyPoint. Another likewise was told he had to come to the branch for information about services.

Telephone relay services allow those who have speech or hearing impairments to communicate in a manner that is functionally equivalent to the ability of those who do not have such impairment.

The Berkeley-based nonprofit law center alleged violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act, Civ. Code Section 51; the Disabled Persons Act, Civ. Code Sections 54, 51; Section 504 of the Federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794(a); and California Govt. Code Section 11135.

The case was settled in December 2009. According to DRA's 2010 annual report, KeyPoint agreed to accept "relay" calls at its branch offices and customer service centers and provide disability awareness training to its staff. The settlement apparently had some open-ended terms, but set up compliance procedures for 18 months; the court retained jurisdiction through August 31, 2011. No subsequent activity appears on the docket.

Summary Authors

Denise Heberle (8/17/2012)

People


Judge(s)

Brick, Steven A (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Elsberry, Ronald (California)

Paradis, Laurence W. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Simantov, Leora R. (California)

Judge(s)

Brick, Steven A (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Elsberry, Ronald (California)

Paradis, Laurence W. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Simantov, Leora R. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

09-451050

Docket sheet [Alameda County Court]

Dec. 24, 2009

Dec. 24, 2009

Docket

09-451050

Complaint

May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Complaint

News Release

No Court

May 7, 2009

May 7, 2009

Press Release

09-451050

Order: Motion to Dismiss Granted [on settlement]

Dec. 24, 2009

Dec. 24, 2009

Settlement Agreement

Resources

Docket

Last updated July 25, 2022, 3:02 a.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 7, 2009

Closing Date: Aug. 31, 2011

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Hearing-impaired customers of large California credit union.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Unknown

Defendants

KeyPoint Credit Union, Private Entity/Person

Defendant Type(s):

Bank or credit provider

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

State law

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Unknown

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 2009 - 2011

Issues

General:

Access to public accommodations - privately owned

Other Banking

Phone

TTY/Close Captioning/Videophone/etc.

Discrimination-basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Disability:

Hearing impairment

Type of Facility:

Non-government for profit