William Cohen v. City of Culver City, 754 F.3d 690

Background

William Cohen, an elderly man with dementia, suffered a fall after a vendor’s display blocked a curb ramp outside the Culver Hotel during Culver City’s car show.
Cohen relied on a cane for mobility and faced disabled access barriers on public streets and sidewalks during the event.
Two alternative curb ramps existed nearby (about 20 and 90 yards away) but lacked signs directing Cohen to them, and Cohen did not know of them.
The district court granted summary judgment to the City and ECCC, concluding Cohen could access the sidewalk via a marginally longer route.
The City’s car show permitted vendor booths on public sidewalks, including one obstructing the ramp in front of the Culver Hotel.
The court reversed and remanded on Cohen’s ADA Title II claim, concluding there was a genuine dispute of material fact about denial of access due to disability.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the City denied Cohen access to a public sidewalk due to his disability	Cohen argues the ramp blockage and lack of signage discriminated against him as disabled	City contends Cohen could access the sidewalk via an alternate route and that complete denial was not shown	Genuine dispute of material fact exists; summary judgment improper
Whether § 35.150 vs § 35.151 governs the City’s obligations here	Cohen relies on § 35.151 for new or altered facilities; the obstruction may violate mandatory ramps	City claims § 35.150 applies to program accessibility and did not require ramps at every intersection	Dispute material; both provisions applicable with § 35.151 controlling where new/altered facilities are involved
Whether the obstruction of an existing curb ramp constitutes a failure to maintain accessibility	Blockage by a private vendor violated 28 C.F.R. § 35.133(a) to keep ramps operable	City had no evidence it failed to maintain the ramp or that the obstruction was beyond a reasonable time	Fact question; maintenance/obstruction duration could support liability
Whether Cohen is disabled under the ADA, bearing on standing to seek relief	Cohen is a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA	Disability status was disputed by the district court	Disability status remains disputed; cannot grant summary judgment
Whether California DPA and Unruh Act claims rise with an ADA violation	ADA violation supports DPA and Unruh Act claims	If ADA claim survives, these follow; if not, they fail	Remand on ADA; district court errors; DPA and Unruh Act claims not resolved at summary stage

Key Cases Cited

Lane v. Brown, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (Title II program access includes broad access to public services)
Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2000) (provide at least one accessible route in program; not every path must be accessible)
Schonfeld v. City of Carlsbad, 172 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 1999) (existing facilities: not required to build ramps at every intersection; marginally longer route may suffice in limited circumstances)
Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002) ( sidewalk is a service/program; Title II coverage and accessibility)
Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (retrofitting vs. new construction; accessibility standards balancing)
McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259 (9th Cir. 2004) (duty to accommodate; discrimination can be implicit in maintenance failures)
Crowder v. Kitagawa, 81 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (reasonable modifications and discrimination analysis under Title II)
Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (private damages under Title II; substantive framework for discrimination)
Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668 (9th Cir. 2001) (broad interpretation of Title II scope for public entities)
Munson v. Del Taco, Inc., 46 Cal.4th 661 (Cal. 2009) (ADA violation basis for Unruh Act claims without showing intentional discrimination)