A deaf plaintiff who was ineligible for child protective services was not considered disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act when alleging discrimination in the provision of services. However, the plaintiff can recover under the ADA if he can prove he was arrested during an altercation with police while engaging in legal conduct requiring an accommodation to his deafness.

The dispute began with the suicide of nine-month-old Amanda's mother. The child's father brought her to the home of Charles Lewis, the baby's grandfather. Meanwhile, the child's grandmother called the police to request that custody of the baby be given to her. The police arrived and Charles Lewis expressed his belief that the officers needed authority to remove the child from his home.

The police attempted to speak with Charles Lewis. They were told by family members that he was deaf and used writings to communicate. The police refused to believe he was deaf and did not attempt to write notes to him.

One of the police officers allegedly used abusive and inappropriate language to convey her belief that Mr. Lewis was lying and really did know what she was saying. A friend of Mr. Lewis' offered to prove he was deaf by contacting the teletype system connected by the telephone to the police emergency number. One of the officers told the friend to shut up and threw her into a large piece of furniture.

The officers entered the home, uninvited, and physically assaulted Mr. Lewis. They pulled him to the floor by his hair, handcuffed him, placed him under arrest and proceeded to kick and hit him. Family members warned the police that Mr. Lewis had recently undergone extensive surgery for cancer and his stitches were recently removed. Mr. Lewis suffered severe physical injuries, including the rupture of his surgical incision.

Mr. Lewis filed a claim under the ADA, asserting that he was entitled to be informed concerning the child protective services procedures regarding his granddaughter. He asserted that the police officers had a duty to take steps to communicate with him. His arrest, argued Mr. Lewis, was an inappropriate response to his disability. The state of Illinois filed for summary judgment, claiming Mr. Lewis did not meet the service eligibility requirements of the child protective services legislation and therefore he was not disabled for ADA purposes. The state did not contradict Mr. Lewis' allegations that the police officers knew he was deaf but refused to take steps to communicate with him.

The court held that Mr. Lewis' status as a grandfather precluded him from the service eligibility requirements of the child protective services legislation. He was not entitled to allege discrimination based on disability because he was not entitled to services. However, Mr. Lewis was entitled to offer proof at trial that he was arrested because of his disability and that the police department failed to provide proper training to its officers.