A federal judge from the Eastern District of California has denied respective motion to dismiss, ruling that litigation involving a high school football fan, who sued the owner of a stadium for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), should continue until more facts can be uncovered.
The plaintiff, James Smith, suffers from multiple disabilities including arthritis, fibromyalgia, and diabetes. He also has metal prosthetics in his leg and requires a walker for mobility. He cannot walk long distances because of his disability, and he sometimes uses a wheelchair.
The defendant is the City of Lodi, California (City), which owned, operated, controlled, maintained and exercised dominion over the facility known as the Lodi Grape Bowl Stadium (Grape Bowl). The topography of the Grape Bowl, which was built in approximately 1940, includes two earth berms on the North and South side of the field. Beginning in approximately 2010, the City began a series of renovations that included installation of a new scoreboard and sound system, upgraded lighting, installation of synthetic turf, and significant alterations to the south side of the stadium, including new ramps, seating, and parking stalls. Pedestrian entry to the Grape Bowl is from Stockton Street on the West side; public restrooms, a ticket window, and a concession stand are provided in a common building just inside the pedestrian entrance. The City, which spent between $3 and $5 million dollars on the alterations, claims the facility is ADA compliant.
The facility is rented out by local high schools for sporting events. Lodi High School and Tokay High School use the Grape Bowl for their home football games, and their fans sit on the South side of the stadium. During high school football games, the North side of the stadium is primarily used by the visiting team and their supporters. Smith has visited the Grape Bowl an estimated eight times since 2010. One specific visit was a football game between Amos Alonzo Stagg High School and Lodi High School on or about September 20, 2013. When AmosAlonzo StaggHigh School plays at the Grape Bowl, it is considered the visiting team, and thus the team and its supporters sit on the north side of the stadium. The plaintiff claims that it is “significant and meaningful” for him “to be able to sit with his alma mater’s team.” He also alleged that he would like to return to the Grape Bowl, but that he is currently prevented from doing so by ADA violations concerning the North side seating, parking and paths of travel as well as the South side paths of travel.
In his lawsuit, the plaintiff alleged violations of Title II of the ADA; Unruh Civil Rights Act California Civil Code § 51 et seq.; and the California Disabled Persons Act California Civil Code § 54 et seq (CPDA). Shortly thereafter, he filed a motion for summary judgment. The defendants then filed a cross motion for summary judgment, asserting that the facility is ADA compliant and thus it is owed judgment as to all the plaintiff’s claims.
In its analysis, the court noted that Title II regulates state and local governments operating public services or programs. Under Title II, a “qualified individual with a disability” cannot, “by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” For a plaintiff to make out a prima facie case under Title II of the ADA, he or she must show that: “(1) [he] is an individual with a disability; (2) [he] is otherwise qualified to participate in or receive the benefit of a public entity’s services, programs, or activities; (3) [he] was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of the public entity’s services, programs or activities or was otherwise discriminated against by the public entity; and (4) such exclusion, denial of benefits or discrimination was by reason of [his] disability.” O’Guinn v. Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1060 (9th Cir. 2007).
“An individual is excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public program if ‘a public entity’s facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities.'” Daubert v. Lindsay Unified Sch. Dist., 760 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting 28 C.F.R. § 35.149). In defining accessibility, Title II’s implementing regulations distinguish between newly constructed or altered facilities, which are covered by 28 C.F.R. § 35.151, and existing facilities, which are covered by 28 C.F.R. § 35.150. Id.”
An existing structure or facility, which is defined as a facility constructed prior to January 26, 1992, gets some flexibility in terms of satisfying the ADA. However, if an existing facility is modified or renovated, it may trigger some additional requirements.
For the purposes of the ADA, the Grape Bowl is an existing facility. From 2010 to 2013, the City embarked on a renovation project and sought to make the facility ADA compliant.
The plaintiff satisfied the first two of the four factors above, leaving only the questions about whether he was excluded from participation in the defendant’s program and whether such exclusion was due to discriminatory barriers.
After an exhaustive examination of the alterations and whether they are ADA complaint, the court wrote that both parties had presented “contradictory facts … . Therefore, at this junction, material issues of fact prevent this court from granting summary judgment as to either party on these issues.”
In addition, the claims of violations of the Unruh Civil Rights Act and CPDA must await a determination of the ADA claim, according to the court. “Thus, summary judgment as to either party is inappropriate at this time.
James Smith v. City of Lodi, et al.; E.D. Cal.; No. 2:14-cv-01318-TLN-AC, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75512; 6/9/16
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Christina Sosa, Isabel Rose O. Masanque, Mark D. Potter, LEAD ATTORNEYS, Amanda Richards Lockhart, Dennis J. Price, Phyl Grace, Center for Disability Access, San Diego, CA. (for defendant) Amie Collins McTavish, LEAD ATTORNEY, Angelo Kilday and Kilduf, Sacramento, CA; Janice Diane Magdich, LEAD ATTORNEY, City of Lodi Attorney’s Office, Lodi, CA; Kevin James Dehoff, Angelo, Kilday & Kilduff, LLP, Sacramento, CA.
