Sidewalks

The following cases involve sidewalks in the context of land use law and disability:

Hamer v. City of Trinidad, Civil Action No. 16-cv-02545-NYW, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29844 (D. Colo. Feb. 21, 2020).

Tags

ADA
RHA
Sidewalks
Public transportation
Undue burden

Story

Plaintiff, Mr. Hamer, confined to a motorized wheelchair and resident of the City of Trinidad, defendant, uses the City’s public sidewalks as his primary means of public transportation. Hamer alleged the City’s noncompliant sidewalks violate the ADA and lodged complaints first at City Council Meetings. The plaintiff’s expert found that roughly 67% of the surveyed curb ramps were noncompliant with ADA standards. The City pledged money in the budget for ADA compliance issues, however they estimated it would cost over $10M for complete compliance throughout the City which would divert funds from other City programs. The City argued that sidewalks are not services, programs, or activities, so the ADA doesn’t provide Mr. Hamer with a claim. However, the court determined that that statutory interpretation of services leads to the conclusion that sidewalks are services under the ADA. The City also argued that an undue financial burden would be caused because Mr. Hamer sought to have an immediate remedy for all City sidewalks to be fixed in an all-or-nothing claim. However the Court found that the city did not meet their burden of showing an undue burden.

Legal Claims

The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the City discriminated against and subjected him to unlawful or hazardous conditions due to the absence of accessible curb ramps in the pedestrian right of way. The lower court held that assuming sidewalks (including curb cuts) constitute services under the ADA and RHA, the plaintiff failed to prove he encountered any noncompliant sidewalk within the statute of limitations period. Plaintiff filed an appeal, and the 10th circuit reversed and remanded the matter back to the District court holding that the statute of limitations may constrain the right to relief to injuries sustained during the limitations period, but a public entity violates the ADA and RHA every day that it fails to remedy a noncompliant service, program, or activity.

Holding/Reasoning

The Court held a sidewalk is a service and the City had not established its undue burden defense. Since a sidewalk was found to be a service, the city was mandated to remove any architectural or transportation barriers that prohibit a qualified individual from utilizing the service.

Willits v. City of Los Angeles, 925 F.Supp.2d 1089 (C.D.Cal. 2013).

Tags

ADA
RHA
Sidewalks
Accessibility
Rights of way

Story

Plaintiffs allege that the pedestrian rights of way in the City of Los Angeles, when viewed in their entirety, suffer from numerous deficiencies. Among the named deficiencies, the plaintiffs included the following: “(1) unsafe, non-compliant, or missing ramps; (2) broken pedestrian rights of way that are cracked, crumbled, steep, sunken, or uneven or that have improper slopes or broken and inaccessible surfaces; (3) physical obstacles on the sidewalk between intersections, such as improperly placed signs, light poles, newspapers or bus stop benches; and (4) apron parking.” The plaintiffs also claimed the state of these rights of way were directly attributable to Defendants’ lack of policies in place to maintain the rights of way. The lack of policies and procedures to maintain accessible rights of way were alleged to constitute a systematic denial of meaningful access and discrimination.

Legal Claims

Plaintiffs filed a class action complaint alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

Holding/Reasoning

First, “[a]ny public sidewalk over which the City of Los Angeles has responsibility to inspect and notify property owners of repair needs is a ‘program, service, or activity’ within the meaning of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.”
Second, the City of Los Angeles could not avoid their responsibilities to maintain the rights of way, even if doing so placed a heavy burden on the City. The court stated that Title II of the ADA does not allow for such a defense, “with respect to streets, pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and curb ramps that have been newly constructed or altered since January 26, 1992, and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act with respect to streets, pedestrian rights of way, sidewalks, and curb ramps that have been newly constructed or altered since June 3, 1977.”

Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002).

Tags

Sidewalks
RHA
ADA
Accessibility

Story

Appellants, various individuals with mobility and/or vision disabilities, brought a class action against the City of Sacramento. The Appellants alleged that the City violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to install curb ramps in newly-constructed or altered sidewalks and by failing to maintain existing sidewalks so as to ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities. The parties stipulated to the entry of an injunction regarding the curb ramps; however, they did not reach agreement on the City’s obligation to remove other barriers to sidewalk accessibility, such as benches, sign posts, or wires.

Legal Claims

Appellants alleged that the city violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to install curb ramps in newly-constructed or altered sidewalks and by failing to maintain existing sidewalks so as to ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities.

Holding/Reasoning

The court held that the ADA covered anything a public entity did. As such, maintaining public sidewalks was a normal function of a city and maintaining their accessibility for individuals with disabilities therefore fell within the scope of Title II. Requiring the city to maintain its sidewalks was consistent with the federal regulation, 28 C.F.R. § 35.150, which required the provision of curb ramps.