A settlement between Brighton and a deaf couple alleging civil rights violations by police is at an impasse over a demand that they not speak badly of the town.
Doug and Mary Karol Matchett sued the town and its Police Department last February, alleging officers rebuffed their requests for interpreters as they struggled to communicate in a mental health crisis involving their son.
The lawsuit sought damages but also policy changes and additional resources. And it appeared the two sides had agreed to settlement terms in December, according to federal court filings Monday by Andrew Rozynski, the Matchetts’ attorney.
Terms of a settlement had the town paying $75,000, records show, and making a series of commitments to better equip and empower police officers, as well as involve the deaf community.
But the two sides are at odds over a non-disparagement clause the town insists is standard, and Rozynski argues was not part of the settlement discussions.
“Even if the parties had agreed to non-disparagement — which they did not — the clause would be unenforceable,” Rozynski wrote to U.S. District Judge Frank Geraci Jr., seeking an order to enforce the settlement without that clause.
Rozynski described it as a First Amendment issue, and cited what he said is legal precedent in another case, "that the government cannot condition settlement payments on silencing citizens’ speech about matters of public concern.”
“The court stated it had ‘never ratified the government’s purchase of a potential critic’s silence,’” Rozynski continued, “‘merely because it would be unfair to deprive the government of the full value of its hush money.’”
The claim is striking, given the basis of the lawsuit is that denial of an interpreter unfairly limited the Matchetts’ ability to freely and fully communicate: “It's as if my hands were tied,” Mary Karol Matchett said in an interview last year.
Rochester is home to one of the largest deaf populations per capita in the world, if not the largest. And the Americans with Disabilities Act dictates that interpretive services should be provided if requested, and at an agency’s expense, so long as it does not cause an undue burden.
Police responded to the Matchetts’ home multiple times in 2021, as their son Scott struggled with depression and anxiety. He also had autism spectrum disorder. But when they asked for an interpreter, the lawsuit alleged, the rote response from officers was that no interpreters were available. They tried to lip read or use written communication, both of which they and experts have said are inadequate. Scott took his own life that August.
The town’s proposed non-disparagement clause reads:
“The Parties all agree they shall not intentionally make, or cause any other person or entity to make, any oral or written statement in any manner, forum or form to disparage, demean, deface, insult, place in a false light, or otherwise negatively impact the personal or business reputation, practices, or conduct of other Parties, or their officers and Employees.”
Brighton and its insurer agreed to drop other provisions for “non-publication” and “statement limitations,” town counsel Erin Elmouji wrote to Rozynski in a Jan. 15 email filed along with the legal papers Monday. But not the non-disparagement clause.
“Mutual non-disparagement upon resolution of this dispute is the backbone of the parties’ settlement,” she wrote, “which is why the issue of avoiding potentially negative media coverage and public statements was repeatedly discussed during the mediation and informed the Town’s determination to settle.”
The proposed settlement expressly states that the town makes no admission of wrongdoing, and police have maintained the officers did not violate any department policies or procedures.
Elmouji argued the Town Board would doubtfully agree to a settlement without the non-disparagement language, and suggested the two sides either meet again with a mediator or resume the litigation.
“Deleting non-disparagement from the agreement removes the Town’s incentive to settle this dispute,” Elmouji wrote, “and undermines the efforts of the Town to move forward in a good-faith partnership with the Matchetts and the deaf community to implement all of the valuable equitable relief that was agreed upon.”
Those other provisions included additional deaf-awareness training, as well as twice-a-year meetings between the police chief and representatives of the deaf community, records show. The terms also required that all officers have access to and are trained on a Video Remote Interpreting mobile application, as well as having contacts for in-person interpreting services, while allowing officers to access those services without needing supervisor approval.
Rozynski declined comment. Elmouji and Town Supervisor Bill Moehle did not immediately respond to voicemails. Elmouji has since asked Geraci to seal many of the documents filed Monday, including her Jan. 15 email, arguing the records fall within a previously agreed-upon protective order to keep some materials confidential.
