Plaintiff Jerome Hardene sued the St. Louis Public Library in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, raising claims of invasion of privacy under state law, violations of his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act arising from an incident in a public bathroom. Before the court was the Library’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Hardene had been a card-carrying member of the Library for over 35 years and had previously used the bathroom at the Julia Davis Branch without incident. On September 9, 2022, Hardene entered the men’s bathroom, which had a main entryway door and a partition wall blocking the view of the urinal and stalls from the entryway. When Hardene arrived, the entryway door was propped open. He closed it upon entering but rushed into the first stall without closing the stall door due to urgency, not disability as initially claimed in his complaint.
Hardene alleged that while he was in the stall, Public Security Officer Vanessa Keys opened the bathroom’s entryway door and remained there, announcing it was Library policy to keep restroom doors open to prevent homeless individuals from washing in the sinks. However, Library documents showed the door was propped open that day only due to lingering odors and to provide fresh airflow after cleaning. The Library had no formal policy of keeping bathroom doors open, and their actual policy required doors to be closed during public hours.
Evidentiary Disputes
The court addressed Hardene’s request for an adverse inference regarding Keys’ unavailable testimony, which was denied because Keys was not “peculiarly available” to the Library and her medical condition made her equally unavailable to all parties.
Legal Analysis
Section 1983 Claim: The court found no constitutional violation occurred since Keys could not have seen Hardene from the entryway due to the partition wall. Additionally, Hardene failed to establish municipal liability as there was no evidence of an official policy or widespread custom of keeping bathroom doors open.
ADA Claim: The court determined that damages were not recoverable under Title III of the ADA, which only permits injunctive relief. Hardene confirmed he was not seeking injunctive relief, and the evidence showed the Library immediately accommodated his request for a closed door.
State Law Claim: The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law invasion of privacy claim after dismissing the federal claims.
The court granted summary judgment to the Library on the federal claims and dismissed the state law claim without prejudice.
Schrag on Law 