Opinion ID: 3064828
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of Sandoval to section 35.150(d)

Text: [5] In determining whether section 35.150(d) is enforceable through a private right of action, we look to the statute it is meant to implement: § 202 of Title II of the ADA, which prohibits discrimination by public entities on the basis of disability.6 Section 202 is enforceable through a private right of action, Ability Center of Greater Toledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 F.3d 901, 906 (6th Cir. 2004), (citing Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181, 184-85 (2002)), and provides that “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (1990). [6] The plain language of § 202 prohibits public entities from discriminating against qualified disabled individuals in its administration of services and programs. This prohibition against discrimination is universally understood as a requirement to provide “meaningful access.” See, e.g., Mark H. v. Lemahieu, 513 F.3d 922, 937 (9th Cir. 2008) (noting that the ADA requires reasonable modifications necessary to ensure “meaningful access”) (citing Southeastern Comty. College v. Davis, 442 U.S. 397, 410 (1979)); Ability Ctr., 385 F.3d at 913 (noting Title II’s express aim of providing meaningful access by requiring public entities to alter city streets and sidewalks); Chaffin, 348 F.3d at 857 (noting its prior holding that “the ADA requires public entitles to provide disabled individuals ‘meaningful access’ ”). Section 202 says nothing about a public entity’s obligation to draft a detailed plan and 6 Section 35.150(d) was promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to § 204 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12134, in order to implement § 202. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.101. LONBERG v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE 8077 schedule for achieving such meaningful access, nor does it create a private right to such a plan. [7] Further, and perhaps most importantly, nothing in the language of § 202 indicates that a disabled person’s remedy for the denial of meaningful access lies in the private enforcement of section 35.150(d)’s detailed transition plan requirements. See Sandoval, 532 U.S. at 286 (emphasizing that the operative statute must display “an intent to create not just a private right but also a private remedy”). The existence or non-existence of a transition plan does not, by itself, deny a disabled person access to a public entity’s services, nor does it remedy the denial of access.7 Indeed, a public entity may be fully compliant with § 202 without ever having drafted a transition plan, in which case, a lawsuit forcing the public entity to draft such a plan would afford the plaintiff no meaningful remedy. See Ability Ctr., 385 F.3d at 914; see Iverson, 452 F.3d at 101. Conversely, a public entity may have a transition plan that complies with section 35.150(d), but may still be in violation of § 202 by, for example, failing to alter its sidewalks in a way that provides meaningful access. [8] We do not suggest that section 35.150(d) is invalid or an otherwise improper exercise of agency discretion. We simply conclude that under Sandoval, it is not enforceable through § 202’s private right of action because the obligations it imposes are nowhere to be found in § 202’s plain language. Moreover, requiring a public entity to create a transition plan does not directly remedy a denial of § 202’s right to meaningful access. 7 Tellingly, in his 2001 motion for partial summary judgment with respect to the City’s transition plan, Lonberg sought no remedy other than a declaration that the City was not in compliance with the regulation. Had section 35.150(d) been the true vehicle to right the wrongs caused by the City’s alleged ADA violations, Lonberg might have asked for some actual relief in connection with his first attempt to enforce that regulation. 8078 LONBERG v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE Our conclusions are consistent with the approach outlined by the Sixth Circuit in Ability Center and adopted by the First Circuit in Iverson. Ability Ctr., 385 F.3d at 914; Iverson, 452 F.3d at 100-01. Although the Tenth Circuit held otherwise in Chaffin, it did not address whether § 202 evinced congressional intent to create a private right to a transition plan, or whether such a plan would remedy the denial of meaningful access. Instead, it applied Sandoval broadly to a host of ADA regulations, and without addressing each one individually concluded that they all “simply provide[d] the details necessary to implement the statutory right created by § [202] . . . of the ADA,” and did “not prohibit otherwise permissible conduct.” Chaffin, 348 F.3d at 854, 857-58 (holding that 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.150, 35.151, and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”), 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A, were all privately enforceable). It is true that section 35.150(d) does not “prohibit” conduct that is otherwise permissible under § 202 as the challenged regulation in Sandoval did with respect to § 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. However, we read Sandoval to require a more particularized review of the challenged regulation than was undertaken by the Tenth Circuit in Chaffin, in addition to a determination of whether the regulation effectuates the statutory right and corresponding remedy. As set forth above, the application of this requisite inquiry with respect to 35.150(d) leads us to conclude that it is not enforceable through § 202’s private right of action. This holding does not preclude another panel from finding that other regulations promulgated to effectuate § 202 are privately enforceable, nor does it prevent Lonberg from pursuing his pending claims for damages and injunctive relief raised in the other phases of this litigation. Indeed, to the extent the City is in violation of the ADA and its attendant regulations, Lonberg’s true remedy would lie in an injunction requiring the actual removal of barriers that prevent meaningful access. LONBERG v. CITY OF RIVERSIDE 8079