Greer v. Richardson Independent School District
752 F. Supp. 2d 759
N.D. Tex.2010Background
- Greer sued the Richardson Independent School District challenging accessibility at Berkner B Field under the ADA Title II.
- The court previously granted partial summary judgment: ramp noncompliance was established for Greer, while existing Berkner B Field facilities received summary judgment for the defendant.
- The parties submitted a joint stipulation: Parking Area A has 189 spaces; ADAAG requires six accessible spaces for that lot, but compliance was disputed.
- RISD moved for reconsideration after Frame v. City of Arlington (Fifth Circuit 2010) was decided as controlling law.
- The court thus addressed (i) the ramp and (ii) handicapped parking spaces under the Frame framework to determine standing and relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Frame control the private right of action for the ramp issue? | Greer has a private right under Frame to enforce noncompliance. | Frame controls and limits relief; no private right without correlation to services. | Frame controls; plaintiff cannot prove denial of access to services via the ramp. |
| Did noncompliance with the ramp or parking spaces deprive Greer of access to Berkner B Field's services, programs, or activities? | Ramp/parking noncompliance effectively denied meaningful access. | No demonstrated denial of access to services. | No denial of access shown; no injunctive relief on ramp or parking spaces. |
| Are sidewalks, curbs, and parking lots themselves ‘services, programs, or activities’ under Title II or merely infrastructure? | Framed as services affected by noncompliance. | Frame clarifies they are infrastructure; only access denial to services matters. | Sidewalks/curbs/parking lots are infrastructure; not themselves services. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 616 F.3d 476 (5th Cir.2010) (establishes private action when noncompliance effectively denies meaningful access to services)
- Pace v. Bogalusa City Sch. Bd., 403 F.3d 272 (5th Cir.2005) (ADA Title II requires removal of architectural barriers to enable access)
- Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir.2004) (constructive exclusion doctrine recognized in Fifth Circuit)
- Jones v. City of Monroe, Mich., 341 F.3d 474 (6th Cir.2003) (constructive denial of access to services recognized in other circuits)
- Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir.2001) (constructive denial of access framework adopted by other circuits)