Daubert v. Lindsay Unified School District
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 14221
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Lindsay High School (built 1971) has metal south-side bleachers that are not wheelchair accessible; the bleachers have never been altered.
- The School District designates multiple paved locations around the field (three specific spots) where spectators who use wheelchairs can watch games with unobstructed views and with companions.
- Plaintiff Timothy Daubert uses a wheelchair, attended games 1997–2005, stopped attending because he claims the available wheelchair locations give an inferior view and do not replicate the social experience of sitting in the bleachers.
- Daubert sued under Title II of the ADA alleging the District must make the bleachers wheelchair accessible or otherwise provide equivalent seating integrated with fixed bleachers.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the School District, concluding the bleachers are an "existing facility" under 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 and the District provides program access to football games; Daubert appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II requires structural alteration of pre-1992 existing bleachers | Daubert: program access includes the social experience of sitting in the south-side bleachers; thus structural alteration required | School District: bleachers are part of an existing facility; Title II requires program access, not structural alterations of existing facilities | Court: No — existing facilities need not be structurally altered if program access to the activity (games) is provided |
| Whether the District's designated wheelchair locations fail to provide "program access" because they are not ADAAG-compliant integrated seating | Daubert: available wheelchair locations are inferior and not ADAAG-compliant; thus they deny meaningful access | District: ADAAG structural requirements apply only to new/altered facilities; program access can be achieved by nonstructural measures already provided | Court: No — ADAAG does not apply to existing facilities; the District’s locations afford program access and reasonable integration |
Key Cases Cited
- Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Sheehan v. City & County of San Francisco, 743 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2014) (elements of a Title II ADA prima facie case)
- Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (explaining Title II program accessibility over facility accessibility)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (older facilities may comply with Title II through less costly nonstructural measures; structural changes required only if those are ineffective)
- Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (distinguishing government programs from incidental experiences)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. Salazar, 706 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2013) (regulatory construction principle: give effect to each provision)
- Boeing Co. v. United States, 258 F.3d 958 (9th Cir. 2001) (principle of interpreting regulations to give effect to all provisions)
Decision: Affirmed summary judgment for Lindsay Unified School District.