A District Court judge in Maryland has granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act along with state law over how it attempted to collect from the plaintiff, who is deaf. The ruling concluded that the plaintiff failed to plausibly allege that the collector denied her access to its services or engaged in conduct that would violate federal or Maryland consumer protection laws.
The background: The case stems from efforts to collect approximately $2,600 tied to a retail credit card account. The plaintiff, a Maryland resident who is deaf, alleged that beginning in April 2025 she repeatedly notified the defendant that she required “ADA-compliant written communication due to her Deafness.”
- The defendant allegedly continued to route communications through channels such as telephone calls and TTY or TDD options rather than providing written or email communication as requested. The plaintiff claimed this communication structure systematically excluded deaf individuals who may not use American Sign Language, lack video relay services, or cannot access TTY equipment or adequate internet connectivity.
- The plaintiff also alleged the defendant violated the ADA during related litigation over the debt, claiming the company’s attorneys denied receiving certain filings, ignored settlement offers, and retaliated against her by issuing a directive instructing her to communicate only with legal counsel.
- She sought significant relief, including $1 million in compensatory damages, $2.5 million in punitive damages, and an injunction requiring the company to implement ADA communication policies and appoint an ADA compliance officer.
The ruling: Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby of the District Court for the District of Maryland concluded that the plaintiff’s allegations did not state plausible claims under the ADA, the FDCPA, or Maryland consumer protection statutes.
- First, the judge held that the ADA claim failed because the statute applies to public entities such as state or local governments, and the defendant is a private company. The judge explained that a private company does not become a public entity simply because it files lawsuits to enforce debts.
- The plaintiff’s other ADA claim also failed. While the plaintiff argued the defendant refused to accommodate her request for written communication, the court emphasized that the ADA does not guarantee a person’s preferred accommodation. Instead, businesses must provide effective communication, and the complaint itself acknowledged that the company used telephone and TTY communication methods. Judge Griggsby concluded that these allegations showed only a disagreement over the preferred communication method rather than a denial of access to services.
- The judge also dismissed the FDCPA claim, noting that the complaint did not allege conduct such as threats, obscene language, repeated harassing calls, or other behavior that would qualify as harassment or abuse under the statute.
