In Kirola v. City and County of San Francisco, published June 22, 2017, the 9th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court's decision after a bench trial in a Title II ADA class action challenging access to the disabled for San Francisco's sidewalks, libraries, pools, and parks. The district court ultimately decided that the class representative lacked Article III standing, because she had failed to prove inaccessibility to the city's programs. Alternatively, the court decided the case on the merits, and rejected the plaintiff class's experts by holding they had erred in applying Americans with Disabilities Act
Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) standards to public rights of way, parks and playgrounds.
The 9th Circuit held that the district court had conflated standing with success on the merits. To prove Article III standing in a Title II ADA case, the plaintiff had to prove that she had encountered access barriers at a facility, and either intended to return or was deterred from returning. Access to the program as a whole is the standard for deciding the merits. The appellate court also held that ADAAG standards do apply to public rights of way, parks, and playgrounds. It therefore held the district court erred by rejecting the plaintiff's experts testimony on that ground. The appellate court upheld other findings by the district court. It remanded the action for further proceedings.
Comments