Ivana Kirola v. City & County of San Francisco
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 11077
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Ivana Kirola, a San Francisco resident who uses a wheelchair, filed a putative class action under Title II of the ADA challenging accessibility of the City’s sidewalks/curb ramps, libraries, pools, and RecPark facilities.
- District court held a five-week bench trial, heard experts for both sides, and certified a mobility-impaired class for parks, libraries, pools, and the public right-of-way.
- The district court found many methodological defects in Kirola’s experts, credited the City’s experts, concluded Kirola lacked Article III standing, and alternatively ruled against her on the merits: no program-wide violations and only isolated departures from ADAAG for new/altered facilities.
- On appeal the Ninth Circuit (1) reversed the standing ruling — finding Kirola had Article III standing to challenge facilities she visited and the certified class could pursue claims for facilities she did not visit, and (2) held the district court misinterpreted legal standards used to discredit Kirola’s experts (notably the applicability of ADAAG and correct ramp-slope assessment), so remanded to reevaluate ADAAG noncompliance.
- The Court affirmed the district court’s conclusion that Kirola failed to prove program-access violations for the public right-of-way and RecPark programs when viewed in their entirety, but directed reassessment of ADAAG compliance for new/altered facilities and potential injunctive relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing to seek injunctive relief | Kirola encountered concrete access barriers at specific facilities and is deterred from return, satisfying injury-in-fact, causation, and redressability | City argued Kirola’s limited encounters did not amount to lack of meaningful access to a program or establish likely future injury | Held: Kirola has individual standing to challenge barriers at facilities she visited; class has standing for all certified facilities per Melendres once named plaintiff has standing |
| Class standing for unvisited facilities | Once named plaintiff shows individual standing, the class may pursue claims for facilities she didn’t personally visit (broad certified class) | City argued plaintiff could only challenge facilities she personally experienced | Held: Adopted class-certification approach from Melendres — class may press claims for all facilities encompassed by the certified class |
| Applicability of ADAAG feature-specific standards to public rights-of-way, parks, playgrounds | ADAAG feature-specific rules apply to newly constructed/altered ramps and features in rights-of-way, parks, playgrounds even without facility-specific sections | City and district court held ADAAG did not apply to facilities lacking facility-specific sections | Held: ADAAG feature-specific requirements apply to those public facilities; district court erred to the contrary |
| Proper method to measure curb-ramp slope for accessibility | Measuring maximum localized variation (steepest point) reflects real-world accessibility limits for wheelchair users | City urged average "rise in run" measurement as the proper benchmark | Held: Maximum localized variation is a permissible and often correct benchmark; district court erred to discredit experts for using it |
| Program-access standard for existing facilities (28 C.F.R. § 35.150) | Many individual barriers evidence lack of access across the program (right-of-way, RecPark) | City showed program-wide access via alternatives (e.g., paratransit, accessible parks), and that surveyed samples were small relative to entire systems | Held: District court correctly concluded Kirola failed to prove program-wide inaccessibility for the public right-of-way and RecPark programs; those holdings are affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (standing for injunctive ADA relief requires barrier plus intent to return or deterrence)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (once a plaintiff shows standing for a facility, she may challenge all barriers at that facility)
- Melendres v. Arpaio, 784 F.3d 1254 (9th Cir. 2015) (named plaintiff’s individual standing ends the Article III inquiry for class claims)
- Daubert v. Lindsay Unified Sch. Dist., 760 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2014) (discussing program access under Title II and standards of review)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretations of their own regulations are entitled to deference)
- Monsanto Co. v. Geertson Seed Farms, 561 U.S. 139 (2010) (standards governing issuance of injunctive relief)