Opinion ID: 75528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Stating a claim under Title II

Text: To state a claim under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff must allege: (1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability ; (2) that he was excluded from participation in or . . . denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity or otherwise discriminated [against] by such entity ; (3) by reason of such disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Levy County is undoubtedly a public entity within the meaning of § 12132. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131 (The term public entity means . . . any State or local government.). The County does not 1 In addition, Shotz claimed that the defendants violated the ADA by initially refusing to allow him to enter the courthouse with his service dog. Tacl claimed that Judge Smith violated the ADA by not providing him a hospital bed to use during the course of his trial. The district court dismissed both claims for lack of standing, noting that neither plaintiff had suffered injury in fact because a) Shotz and his dog eventually were allowed into the courtroom, and b) Judge Smith allowed Tacl to use his own hospital bed during the trial. Neither Shotz nor Tacl appeals the dismissal of these claims. 4 dispute that the plaintiffs properly have alleged that they are qualified individuals with a disability. Rather, the County contends that the plaintiffs have not properly alleged that they were excluded from or denied the benefits of the County's services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminated against on account of their disability. Regulations issued pursuant to the ADA2 state that no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, 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 public entity. 28 C.F.R. § 35.149. A public entity must make its services, programs, or activities readily accessible to disabled individuals. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 (A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.). A public entity need not make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. 28 C.F.R. § 2 Because Congress explicitly authorized the Attorney General to promulgate regulations under the ADA, see 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), the regulations must [be given] legislative and hence controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious, or plainly contrary to the statute. United States v. Morton, 467 U.S. 822, 834 (1984). 5 35.150(b)(1).3 For example, if one facility is inaccessible, a public entity may comply with Title II by making its services, programs, and activities available at another facility that is accessible. See Parker v. Universidad de Puerto Rico, 225 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2000). Pursuant to these requirements, the County was obligated to ensure that each service, program, or activity at its courthouse, when viewed in its entirety, was readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. Id. Here, the plaintiffs have alleged that certain aspects of the Levy County Courthouse prevent them from enjoying the services, programs, and activities offered there. Specifically, Shotz and Tacl allege that the wheelchair ramps and bathrooms at the courthouse impede their ability to attend trials at the courthouse. A trial undoubtably is a service, 3 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(b)(1) provides: A public entity may comply with the requirements of this section through such means as redesign of equipment, reassignment of services to accessible buildings, assignment of aides to beneficiaries, home visits, delivery of services at alternate accessible sites, alteration of existing facilities and construction of new facilities, use of accessible rolling stock or other conveyances, or any other methods that result in making its services, programs, or activities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. A public entity is not required to make structural changes in existing facilities where other methods are effective in achieving compliance with this section. A public entity, in making alterations to existing buildings, shall meet the accessibility requirements of § 35.151. In choosing among available methods for meeting the requirements of this section, a public entity shall give priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified individuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate 6 program, or activity within the meaning of § 12132. See Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d 469, 472 (8th Cir. 1998) (holding that Title II requires that county court be made accessible to disabled persons). The County contends that because both Shotz and Tacl were able to attend the trial, they have not alleged a violation of Title II. A violation of Title II, however, does not occur only when a disabled person is completely prevented from enjoying a service, program, or activity. The regulations specifically require that services, programs, and activities be readily accessible. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150. If the Courthouse's wheelchair ramps are so steep that they impede a disabled person or if its bathrooms are unfit for the use of a disabled person, then it cannot be said that the trial is readily accessible, regardless whether the disabled person manages in some fashion to attend the trial. We therefore conclude that the plaintiffs have alleged a set of facts that, if true, would constitute a violation of Title II. Accordingly, they have stated a claim under Title II.4