Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215

Plaintiffs with disabilities sue City of Arlington under Title II and § 504 alleging newly built/altered sidewalks are not readily accessible.
District court dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds, adopting accrual when the city finished construction or alteration.
Panel initially held a private right of action exists and that accrual occurs when disabled individuals know they are denied benefits; en banc reconsideration narrowed scope.
This opinion holds sidewalks built or altered after Jan 26, 1992 are within Title II’s private right of action and that accrual occurs when plaintiffs know or should have known they are denied benefits.
Framed issues include whether Title II §12132 extends to new/altered sidewalks and when accrual occurs for such claims.
The court remands for further proceedings consistent with the ruling on private right of action and accrual.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does Title II extend to newly built or altered sidewalks?	Frame contends sidewalks are services; Title II covers denial of benefits from public services.	City argues sidewalks are facilities, not services, and thus not within §12132’s private action scope.	Yes; Title II extends to newly built/altered sidewalks.
Is there a private right of action to enforce regulations for sidewalks?	Plaintiffs rely on Title II and §504 as enforceable through private action to ensure accessibility.	City argues no private right of action for sidewalks; relies on regulatory framework distinctions.	Yes; there is a private right of action to enforce the sidewalks regulations.
When does accrual occur for claims concerning newly built/altered sidewalks?	Accrual occurs when plaintiffs knew or should have known they were denied benefits.	Accrual occurs at construction/alteration completion date.	Accrual occurs when plaintiffs knew or should have known they were denied benefits.
Do standing doctrines limit challenges to sidewalks not yet personally encountered?	Plaintiffs may challenge sidewalks not yet encountered if there is a high likelihood of denial of benefits.	Standing requires actual or imminent injury; no concrete plans defeat standing.	Standing adequate where plaintiffs allege concrete plans and concrete impact; remand for standing analysis.

Pennsylvania Dep't of Corr. v. Yeskey, 524 U.S. 206 (1998) (Title II private right of action and broad reading of benefits)
Lane v. Tennessee, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (reasonable modifications and accessibility in designations)
Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581 (1999) (reasonableness of adjustments and regulator respect)
Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (interpretation of disability rights and access measures)
Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (private rights of action must be created by Congress; regulatory review)
Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) (private right of action to enforce DOJ roadway/sidewalk regulations)
Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) (private right of action to enforce DOJ regulations for sidewalks)
Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993) (private enforcement of accessibility regulations)
Chaffin v. Kansas State Fair Board, 348 F.3d 850 (10th Cir. 2003) (private enforcement of facility accessibility regulations)