Hamer v. City of Trinidad
924 F.3d 1093
10th Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Stephen Hamer, a wheelchair user in Trinidad, Colorado, alleged many city sidewalks and curb cuts were ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act §504 non-compliant and deterred him from using them.
- Hamer repeatedly complained to the City and filed a DOJ complaint; the City later began repairs and funding but had not remedied all alleged barriers when suit was filed.
- Hamer sued the City on October 12, 2016 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and fees under Title II and §504.
- The district court applied Colorado’s two-year statute of limitations and held Hamer’s claims accrued when he first discovered the barriers (April–August 2014), barring his suit as untimely; it rejected both continuing-violation and repeated-violation theories.
- The Tenth Circuit took the case on de novo review to determine whether Title II and §504 give rise to repeated violations (a new violation each day a public entity fails to remedy a barrier) and thus how the statute of limitations applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title II and §504 violations recur daily (repeated violations doctrine) so that each day of continued inaccessibility is a new violation | Each denial of access when he was deterred constituted a new violation and separate claim; recovery limited to injuries within the limitations period prior to suit | The statutes accrue at discovery; barriers are discrete, so accrual occurred when Hamer first encountered them and later inaccessibility are mere continuing ill effects | Held: Title II and §504 support repeated violations; each day a non-compliant service remains unremedied and a plaintiff is deterred, a new violation (and injury) occurs |
| Whether continuing-violation (aggregation of discrete acts into one claim) applies to make time-barred earlier acts actionable | (Abandoned on appeal) | Morgan and precedent preclude aggregating discrete past acts into a single timely claim | Not addressed on appeal; court notes Morgan concerns but distinguishes continuous-aggregation from repeated-violation theory |
| Effect of applying repeated violations on statute of limitations and remedies | Statute of limitations should operate as a look-back limiting recoverable damages to injuries within the limitations period and while suit is pending; injunctive relief remains available | Ruling would nullify the statute of limitations and expose public entities to indefinite liability | Held: Statute of limitations is not nullified—it limits damages to the look-back period; injunctive relief may persist and damages remain constrained and difficult absent proof of intentional discrimination |
| Whether the district court’s dismissal on statute grounds was correct | District court applied wrong accrual standard and rejected repeated-violation theory; remand needed to apply correct framework | District court believed accrual at discovery barred suit | Held: Reversed and remanded for the district court to apply the repeated-violation framework and determine which injuries are recoverable and which sidewalks/ramps deterred plaintiff |
Key Cases Cited
- Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Grant, 505 F.3d 1013 (10th Cir. 2007) (temporary nuisance discussion: continuing nuisances give rise to new causes of action until abated)
- Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2002) (distinguishes hostile-work-environment aggregation under continuing-violation doctrine)
- Pickern v. Holiday Quality Foods Inc., 293 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2002) (ADA enforcement language construed to allow continuing or threatened violations as injury)
- Scherr v. Marriott Int’l, Inc., 703 F.3d 1069 (7th Cir. 2013) (relies on Pickern to recognize continuing injury where plaintiff remains deterred)
- White v. Mercury Marine, Div. of Brunswick, Inc., 129 F.3d 1428 (11th Cir. 1997) (describes modified/repeated violations doctrine and limits recovery to damages within the limitations period)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (accrual when plaintiff has sufficient information to know he was denied benefits; does not resolve repeated-violation applicability)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (U.S. 2002) (punitive damages unavailable under ADA and §504)
- Havens v. Colo. Dep’t of Corr., 897 F.3d 1250 (10th Cir. 2018) (intent required for compensatory damages under §504 in this circuit)