A federal judge has rejected claims from a deaf Brighton couple that the town reneged on a settlement of their civil rights claim — or sought to use the deal to buy their silence.
Doug and Mary Karol Matchett sued the town and its Police Department last year, alleging officers rebuffed their requests for interpreters as they struggled to communicate in a mental health crisis involving their deaf son.
Terms of a settlement allegedly agreed to by the town and its insurer had the town paying $75,000 and making a series of commitments to better equip police to respond to requests for ASL interpreters, as well as to host regular meetings between the police chief and representatives of the deaf community.
But the town also insisted on a non-disparagement clause — meaning the Matchetts would be prohibited from speaking badly about Brighton.
Such provisions are unenforceable, the Matchett’s lawyer Andrew Rozynski argued, and the clause was not part of the settlement talks. He wrote in court filings that, "the government cannot condition settlement payments on silencing citizens’ speech about matters of public concern.”
The Matchetts sought to enforce the terms, absent the non-disparagement clause. U.S. District Court Judge Frank Geraci disagreed, noting there was no signed, written agreement and "not all material terms had been agreed upon, where there was still debate as to items such as attorneys’ fees, tax consequence provisions, no admission, and third-party beneficiary provisions.”
Geraci requested the two sides file a joint report within three weeks indicating if they are ready to proceed to trial or need to continue those preparations.
