oh well the you know the court granted it end it was really she said that i am a qualified person with a disability she said taking the record in the light that needs to be case it was a very similar question of whether you know the the city of will port in indiana could you know if they had to maintain their sidewalks or not and the judge in my case that yes to maintain the sidewalks and in that opinions which was mentioned in my i have peace order but not in the order that dismissed my case but the  d over in northern district of indiana says that the parties don't dispute that all members of the class because it was a class action are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the da and have standing to bring this action and then there's a footnote very important footnote that describes the class people who are were recognized as having standing in that footnote it says the plaintiff class in the section is defined as all persons who live or will live or who visit or will has that the city it will porte indiana into because of a ambulation so i think that's the right standard for so's your argument to have difficult i mean you have you also say that maybe someday you'll be in a wheelchair and that surely not enough you know but do you say that you have present problems definitely i do i have pain and like on a day like today we're training especially or snowing especially my left leg at this point it's i've got like fourteen different passenger you know pictures of him and it it's painful so so you don't really know if they're really or not going to pay any attention to the fact that you might someday have something worse you say you have enough right now yeah i think i have enough right now i mean i'm going to reconstruct a poll this on this side and which i think on as i said in my brief and pleadings that you know this is so severe in there that it was completely reconstructed as you can see in my in the appendix that i'm somewhat bothered the district court judge was that these incidents that you mention didn't seem to result in anything your lot of pictures taken from your car not any allegation in elgin that the snow prevented you from getting your groceries you know you mention navigate the ice and stream would you know just which is actually after the time of the filing here so maybe you should roll through the standing requirements sure well you know she she b minneapolis well it bothers me i mean for different reasons a bothers me because you know i have been very public about my disability advocacy in northern illinois northern indiana southern indiana and you know i've run for congress on disability platform twice i didn't win but that was my platform i've started a party called disability party which you know i have a lot of friends who have disabilities or even worse than mine you know in wheelchairs and power wheelchair years over in south bend but this this court below said that i didn't lost my case in south bend that's not true i did lose on a summary judgment but the court allowed me to you know amend my complaint and when i did that then the city wanted to mediate with me and we came up with  settlement and federal highway administration was involved over there thank you very very clear instructions to south bend but they have to clear their sidewalks a t a i under twenty shows that you know the image is surveyable when you know a little government or in that case it was you know it was police but you know governments have to local government state governments have to abide by the a t f under title two and you know for me i was borrowing my fiance's car that's what i was taking her  mortgage check to to the credit union in bloomingdale and i was on my way back and i'm just noticing gosh i'm all sidewalks are full of ice not not like  a sheet of ice but a pile of big piles of ice making them completely impassable so i stopped and of course there's no way i'm going to use a sidewalk like that myself in that condition so it's totally speculative you know in that sense but in the other sense that people who live there in this congressional district where i leader was running they're going to run into those problems like every day so i was not just opposing it for myself which i was but for the other people who live in those places to leo have standing there i think all all the people who would use a complain of course and you know say because the i think the answer to the standing question gear is going to propagate out through you know through the seventh circuit but not just there the whole snow belt is waiting to answer that question oh well here we come winter is coming in and you know can disable people complain about it or not what are the what are the limitations of that and i agree with the fiedler case and maine where there was a guy i believe fiedler was from baltimore i believe anyone not from maine  he wanted to visit me and there was a hotel up there and so he calls on the phone and asks do you have the features that i need they didn't and so he sued them ok stanford proposition that the court should effectively find that the a da would apply requiring all municipalities to effectively shovel every sidewalk within their jurisdiction after snow that is respectively a merits of the sole issue in front of this court has to do with standing and in fact the court lacks appellate jurisdiction to even address the merits of the a b a claim and that's because there were motions that were filed under twelve the one and twelve of the six however the district were only address the twelve b one motion and there's been no cross appeal that's been filed so the issues that relate to the well but their underlying at least some of them maybe not your client maybe not blowing tail but in elgin for example he gets pretty specific he says there's snow on the path that i use when i go to the corner convenience store to get food that sounds to me like a very immediate allegation a person has of a need not to be on a slippery slide path to go get food that he's some instances y y is standing the right approach there and i'm sorry are you asking the right alj and for example when it where he's talking about no you've said you're going to talk about general issues and i'm saying the requirements for stand are so show that there's an injury particularized to you and if you show a i live in the area be there's a sidewalk it goes to someplace that i need to go to you know it's an immediate i'm injured because i can't walk to the nearest food store why isn't that something that needs to loop on criteria well quite frankly with regard to the allegations with regard to elgin there has been no allegations that reflect that the point of had any adverse effect he was able  to fall down before he can sue to get the snow that was certainly we're not arguing that there needs to be a futile gesture but in fact the question is whether or not that's not futile gesture your argument are you arguing that has to actually break his leg first before he is standing not around  the case is slightly different with regard to stream and it's little slightly different still with regards and we're not taking a position that the point of hastert actually fall down and break his leg and order to have standing but so why isn't it enough then you know suppose i decided to sue the city of chicago for failing to clear you know jackson street from union station over to the courthouse because when i take the train in i have to walk on jackson street is that too remote you know the city could certainly send streets and sand out and clear the planet sidewalks but the question becomes whether or not there is some particular injury to you well right now that is what i get to work right and what if he says the adverse effect is because the snow is not cleared i can't get to my grocery store is he required to take a cab is he required to hire somebody himself to shovel it but what's he need to do no your honor but that but the the issue with the lease that we have address and the facts limited facts of this context and to be clear the facts were not alleged in the complaint whatsoever what little facts that we know came out of a response group to the motions to dismiss and specifically with regard and this is so with regard to elton's response but that the key issue is that he simply did not face it on that particular day did not face a blockage or deterrence did not have an adverse effect resulting from it whether it may occur in the future i don't know but at a minimum in order to bring a suit say for injunctive relief for your speaking of future conduct you have to be able to alleged an actual adverse reaction in the past now with regard to what would you view as an adequate adverse effect an allegation that he had to go around the block the other way in order to get to the store was there an allegation of that sort not in the response of the motion to dismiss and again we're still so soling speaking about helping with regard to it and if i could because it is dealing with my clients as well with regard to the filter bloomingdale glendale heights it all concerns the events of martini twenty fifteen where he was driving in a park he had mitts in his responses to the motion to dismiss that the only reason he even stopped the car in the first place was to simply take pictures of the employee parking lot now not knowing the accommodations that are made by streamwood for disabled employees because he's not an employee mr straw just drove in there on a night and saw there was no handicapped space and no access ramp from the employee parking lot into village hall so they he threw that in and it had nothing to do with snow he has no standing he's not an employee so he's not entitled to use the law in any event and so that is a stream of woods beyond all of the joint portions of the brief is the employee parking  lot he has no standing he can't be injured by it because he's not an employee so we agree with judge kendall certainly in that portion of her opinion integral to the entire standing issue that we without being an employee he certainly can't be injured by the conditions of an employee only parking lot all right thank you very  the response of pleadings to the motions to dismiss that there was a specific adverse effect on mr straw on the occasion that he saw snow on the inside so i didn't have to you know call a delivery service for groceries he didn't have to go around the block he didn't you know i think you know drive ten miles further to a better grocery store right in that sense i think it fits within the what the courts have called generalized grievance he saying i saw snow on the sidewalk i wondered if he walks more slowly because the sidewalks all full of bumpy ice such as we all see sometimes and so although you can navigate it you don't walk along at the same pace as you would on a nice clean sidewalk well because they it's not alleged i wouldn't know how to respond to that hypothetical i wouldn't admit that that does create standing in the sense that there is an adverse effect  what we know here is that the district court ruled on the fact that nothing that the plaintiff brought to the court suggested that the condition of the sidewalk prevented him from accomplishing any any goal that day you know there are any more questions i'd be happy decision mentioned favorably in luke that says standing in a civil rights case is the defendant violates the civil rights law and the person complaining fits into the category that isn't vision to be protected by the law and i think that's that's how the a da should be treated and that's that's how the fiedler case treated it over in maine and i hope that that could be you know the standing toast here all right thank you very much thanks to counsel for the very spill