Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_98-cv-00951/USCOURTS-cand-4_98-cv-00951-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SPIELER, by his guardian ad

litem, ALISON J. SPIELER,

Plaintiff,

v.

MT. DIABLO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

 /

No. C 98-0951 CW

ORDER ADOPTING IN

PART PLAINTIFF'S

PROPOSED REMEDIAL

ORDER

On May 1, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff Jason Spieler's

motion for enforcement of the consent decree. Plaintiff and

Defendant Mt. Diablo Unified School District were ordered to meet

and confer regarding an appropriate remedy. The parties could not

reach an agreement and both sides submitted proposed remedial

orders. The matter of an appropriate remedy was heard on June 21,

2007. Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties and

oral argument, the Court adopts in large part Plaintiff's proposed

order.

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 1 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

According to Defendant's Assistant Superintendent for

Administrative Services, there are currently thirty-two playboxes

in the Mt. Diablo Unified School District that contain EWF.

2

BACKGROUND

In 2000, the parties entered into a consent decree that

resolved a class action, alleging a denial of Plaintiff's and other

class members' right to full and equal access to Defendant's

facilities and programs. The agreement provided, in part, 

The Parties agree that all playboxes shall be made minimally

accessible by providing new surfacing under the "use zone" of

the playboxes at a cost of approximately $10,000 per site as

Priority 1 work. Exceptions would be Gregory Gardens,

Shadelands, and Sunrise Center for which the entire playbox

will be made accessible as Priority 1 work. The Parties

further agree that the remainder of the costs currently

designated as "playbox access" shall be included as Priority 2

work. Should new regulations pertaining to playbox access be

issued, the parties [sic] will meet and confer regarding any

changes necessary in this agreement.

Consent decree, § III.A.3. According to the Self-Evaluation and

Transition Plan, attached as Exhibit B to the consent decree, the

estimated total cost of playbox access, including Priority 1 and

Priority 2 work, was $1,800,000.

Pursuant to the consent decree, Defendant fixed its playboxes 

to make them minimally accessible to mobility-disabled children. 

Defendant replaced the surface of some playboxes with a rubberized

surface; it replaced the surface of other playboxes with engineered

wood fiber (EWF).1 According to Defendant, it costs at least

$85,000 to install a rubberized surface in a playbox, far more than

it costs to install EWF.

In 2005, the parties disputed whether the district had

satisfied its obligation under the consent decree concerning the

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 2 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2Bonded EWF has yet to be determined to be ADA compliant, nor

has it been certified as compliant with the American Society for

Testing and Material standards for accessibility of playbox

surfacing. 

3

playboxes. After meeting with a magistrate judge, the parties

entered into an interim settlement agreement to resolve whether the

use of EWF, as maintained by Defendant, satisfied the requirements

of the consent decree. This agreement required Defendant to pay a

neutral observer to observe the condition of the EWF in the

playboxes during the 2005-2006 school year. 

If the parties were unable to resolve their disagreements,

after meeting and conferring about the year-long observations, they

would bring their dispute to the Court. Each party would submit a

single letter brief to the Court, no longer than five pages. The

agreement provided for limited briefing; there was to be no

evidentiary hearing. Under the agreement, after reviewing the

letter briefs and observations of the observer, the Court would

determine whether Defendant satisfied the requirements of the

consent decree and, if necessary, would order an appropriate

remedy. If the Court determined that Defendant must remove and

replace EWF surfacing in whole or in part, Defendant could

"(1) phase in installation of the prescribed surfacing over a

period of three years and replace at least one playbox at each

school site within the first year after the Court's order; or

(2) install a bonded EWF product within three years of the Court's

order and a formal Court confirmation that the use of a bonded EWF

product complies with the Consent Decree and all applicable laws."2

The parties did not reach an agreement. On March 2, 2007,

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 3 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The parties' agreement does not provide for such supplemental

briefing, nor was it requested by the Court. The Court, however,

reviewed the supplemental opposition. Because it did not affect

the outcome, the Court did not give Plaintiff an opportunity to

respond.

4

pursuant to the interim settlement agreement, the parties filed

letters with the Court concerning whether Defendant had satisfied

its obligations with regard to the maintenance of the EWF in the

playboxes. Plaintiff argued that Defendant did not and moved for

enforcement of the consent decree. Defendant argued that it had

satisfied its obligations and that its maintenance of the EWF was

satisfactory and sufficient. The observations did show steady

improvement by Defendant. Nonetheless, there were still instances,

even at the end of the school year, where the surfaces in the

playboxes exceeded a slope found to be accessible for children with

disabilities. 

On May 1, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for

enforcement of the consent decree. The Court concluded that, with

respect to the use of EWF in the playboxes as maintained by

Defendant, Defendant violated the terms of the consent decree. The

parties were ordered to meet and confer to attempt to agree upon a

remedy. If the parties could not agree, they were ordered to

submit proposed remedial orders. The parties did not agree and

each side submitted its own proposed order. After the hearing on

June 21, 2007, Defendant submitted a supplemental opposition.3

 

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff's proposal requires the district to replace the EWF

surfacing with an approved rubberized surfacing in eighty percent

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 4 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 5

of the playboxes within four years and to continue its maintenance

program with respect to playboxes that have EWF surfacing. Unless

a parent complains about a particular playbox, Plaintiff's proposal

grants the district control over prioritizing which playboxes

receive the rubberized surfacing, so long as twenty-five percent of

the total playboxes designated to receive new surfacing are

completed each year. If a parent complains about accessibility

related to EWF surfacing in a particular playbox, the district must

replace the surfacing of that playbox within one year. Plaintiff

contends that its proposed remedy is fair, moderate and, in several

respects, more lenient than that provided in the interim settlement

agreement. It gives Defendant four years, instead of three, and

requires replacement of only eighty percent of the playboxes. 

Defendant's proposal requires that it continue its current

maintenance plan for playboxes with EWF surfacing and that it offer

an intra-district transfer to any student with a mobility

disability attending a school without rubberized surfacing

playboxes, if the student requests such a transfer. Defendant

notes that it has thirty-one elementary schools, seventeen of which

have at least one play box containing rubberized surfacing, and

that four students with mobility disabilities attend schools that

do not have a playbox with rubberized surfacing. 

Defendant argues that it is not obliged under the consent

decree to install rubberized surfacing in all playboxes and that

ordering it to do so would result in an undue financial burden.

As Defendant notes, to do so would require it to spend far more

than the $1,800,000 allotted for playbox access. The consent

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 5 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 6

decree did not mandate what type of surfacing must be installed,

other than that it had to be accessible. Nonetheless, in January,

2003, Logan Hopper, the consent decree monitor, concluded that his

inspections of EWF surfacing have "shown that this surfacing has

failed, on a consistent basis, to meet the performance standards

referenced above at the time of inspection." Macy Dec., Ex. B,

p.4. Thus, he "strongly recommended that the existing

installations of this type of surfacing be phased out and replaced

with rubberized matting, a material which has been shown to meet

the standards during site inspections, as soon as is feasible." 

Id. And, when Defendant signed the interim settlement agreement in

2005, it agreed that, if it did not maintain accessible surfaces

and the Court determined that Defendant must remove and replace EWF

surfacing in whole or in part, it would do so within three years. 

Defendant has been on notice for over four years that its

maintenance of the EWF does not make the playboxes accessible as

required by the consent decree. It was given an opportunity to

prove that it could maintain the EWF, providing accessible

playboxes. But, as noted above, even at the end of the school

year, there were still slope violations. The Court concludes that

Defendant must replace the EFW surfacing in the use zone of the

playboxes with an approved rubberized surfacing. Plaintiff's

proposed remedial order is reasonable and, as noted above, in

several respects, more lenient than that provided in the interim

settlement agreement. Thus, the Court adopts in large part

Plaintiff's proposed remedial order. 

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 6 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 7

CONCLUSION

Plaintiff's proposed remedial order provides that Defendant

shall have four years to replace EWF surfacing with an approved

rubberized surfacing in eighty percent of its playboxes. In light

of Defendant's alleged financial constraints, the Court shall give

Defendant another year to complete the replacement. Therefore,

within five years, Defendant shall replace EWF surfacing in the use

zone of eighty percent of its playboxes with an approved rubberized

surfacing. Although the Court recommends that Defendant replace

EWF surfacing in playboxes where Defendant knows students with

mobility disabilities will be playing, Defendant shall have control

over prioritizing which playboxes receive new surfacing so long as

twenty percent of the total playboxes designated to receive new

surfacing are completed each year. The replacement of EWF

surfacing in the first group of playboxes shall be completed by the

beginning of the 2008-2009 school year. Should a parent complaint

to Defendant, to a school within Defendant's control or to

Plaintiff's counsel concerning accessibility problems relating to

EWF surfacing in a particular playbox, Defendant must replace the

surface of that playbox within one year. Defendant must also

continue to maintain any playboxes that contain EWF surfacing

pursuant to the maintenance plan implemented during the 2005-2006

school year. 

The parties are ordered to meet and confer concerning

attorneys' fees. If they are unable to resolve the attorneys' fees

issue or to agree on an alternate mechanism for resolving the

dispute, Plaintiffs shall submit an application for attorneys' fees

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 7 of 8
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 8

to this Court. That application must be submitted within thirty

days from the date of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8/16/07

Dated: ________________________ 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:98-cv-00951-CW Document 147 Filed 08/16/07 Page 8 of 8