Barden v. City of Sacramento (2002)
- reannonrieder
- 6 hours ago
- 3 min read
By Marcus Rosenberg
Overview:
A case was brought in the Ninth Circuit which held that public sidewalks are a “service, program, or activity” of a city under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Sidewalk maintenance is a normal municipal function, and because of that, sidewalks must comply with the standards set forth under the applicable statutes. This case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
Summary:
The City of Sacramento was sued by a class of plaintiffs with mobility/vision disabilities, in which they alleged that the City violated the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. These plaintiffs believed that their rights were violated by the city failing to install curb ramps in newly constructed or altered sidewalks and by failing to maintain the current sidewalks to ensure that they were accessible.
Both the plaintiffs and the City moved for summary judgement on one integral question: Are sidewalks a “service, program, or activity” of the City such that the ADA and Rehabilitation Act regulations apply? Upon this question initially being raised, the district court said no, but the court certified the issue for interlocutory appeal, and the Ninth Circuit took it.
The Ninth Circuit was to make judgement on the same integral question as the district court, do public sidewalks qualify as a city “service, program, or activity” under the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. The Ninth Circuit narrowed this a bit as they were specifically focused on ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act §504. Upon their analysis, the court held that sidewalks were indeed covered as maintaining them is a normal function of a municipal entity, making them subject to Title II and § 504’s requirements.
The court presented a few different arguments as to why they believed this to be true beginning with a discussion of the broad scope of “services, programs, or activities.” The Ninth Circuit reads Title II to cover anything a public entity does as they are not into the idea of splitting hairs regarding which city functions are and are not covered. The real question they prefer to ask is whether it’s a normal government function, and sidewalk maintenance is. The court then refers to the Rehabilitation Act, which defines “program or activity” as all of the operations of a local government. That definition clearly supports treating sidewalks as covered governmental operations. There is also a legislative history argument presented by the court, referring to the history of the ADA supporting a generous construing of the language. The court also delves into the structure of the regulation, ultimately reasoning that curb ramps cannot be required unless the sidewalks they connect to are also covered and kept accessible, another idea lending more credence to the idea that sidewalks should be covered by the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Finally, the court discusses Auer deference which is essentially just the court deferring the decision to whatever regulatory agency oversees these matters. In this case, it’s the Department of Justice (DOJ) who issues Title II regulations, so the court looked to how they interpret this issue. To the benefit of the plaintiff’s, the DOJ interprets the regulations as including sidewalks, despite not specifically mentioning them.
It is because of the reasons discussed prior, that the court reversed the district court's decision to exclude sidewalks and remanded the case back to said district court for further proceedings that are consistent with this ruling.
Impact:
Barden v. The City of Sacramento has a few aspects that impact the future of court cases similar to this one, and that is what will be discussed in this portion. The decision here eliminates the common argument saying that sidewalks are not a program that the ADA covers by holding that the ADA is written broadly enough to cover sidewalks. This case also establishes a real world truth: curb ramps mean essentially nothing if the sidewalks between them are unable to be used by people needing curb ramps. This decision from the Ninth Circuit pushes cities towards factoring ADA compliance into their everyday public works planning, allowing for system wide fixes rather than just the occasional fix here and there. All in all, this case reinforces that it is not a special accommodation to be able to safely move through a city, rather it is a normal public benefit that should be addressed in all circumstances.
References:
Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2002)
