Greer v. Richardson Independent School District
472 F. App'x 287
5th Cir.2012Background
- Greer, wheelchair user, attended Berkner B stadium to watch her son's junior varsity football game.
- Berkner B stadium is an existing facility (built 1968) with bleachers inaccessible to Greer; accessible viewing area existed off to the side but not in the bleachers.
- Greer observed roughly 15% of the game due to obstructed view and relied on a fence-supported vantage within an accessible area.
- Greer sued RISD on February 1, 2008, alleging discrimination under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act for exclusion from participation in programs and activities.
- The district court granted partial summary judgment to RISD, later addressing an undue burden defense and accessibility issues; Greer challenged those rulings and sought sanctions.
- The court ultimately affirmed summary judgment for RISD, holding program access was provided and the challenged facilities did not render Greer discriminated against under Title II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prima facie case of discrimination | Greer contends Berkner B lacked program access for disabled spectators. | RISD provided program access overall; individual elements need not be fully ADAAG compliant. | Greer failed to show lack of program access; RISD affirmed. |
| Undue burden defense viability | RISD had no evidentiary basis for an undue burden defense and failed to provide a written burden analysis. | RISD had nonfrivolous basis and conducted analyses; defense not shown in bad faith. | Undue burden defense upheld as proper under record; no sanction. |
| Frame v. Arlington framework application | Frame II/Frame III should control whether parking and ramp comply with accessibility. | Frame III controls; modifications post-1992 subject to ADAAG/TAS; parking/ramp findings affirmed. | Frame III governs; RISD parking and ramp findings affirmed. |
| Sanctions posture | District court erred in denying sanctions for failure to produce a specific undue-burden document. | Court properly exercised discretion; six findings supported denial. | No abuse of discretion; sanctions denied. |
| Scope of program accessibility for existing facilities | Program accessibility requires access to the viewing experience alongside others, not segregated seating. | Program accessibility can be achieved via available accessible areas and alternative viewing options; not required to modify all elements. | RISD provided program access when viewed in its entirety; Greer's broad segregation claim rejected. |
Key Cases Cited
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 616 F.3d 476 (5th Cir. 2010) (Frame II; informs on sidewalk/gateway analysis under Title II)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (Frame III; en banc; clarifies sidewalk as a private right of action under Title II)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (U.S. 2004) (existing facilities accessibility framework; program vs. facilities access)
- Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden; need for genuine disputes of material fact)
- E.E.O.C. v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009) (common-sense duty to accommodate; knowledge of disability and needs)
- Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir. 2004) (distinguishes disability discrimination from racial discrimination; prima facie framework)