Concerned Parents to Save Dreher Park Center v. City of West Palm Beach (1994)
- Sam Shepherd
- Sep 28
- 7 min read
By Matthew Chin
Overview
Concerned Parents to Save Dreher Park Center v. City of West Palm Beach deals with the scope of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), specifically the interpretation of Title II, which protects the right of disabled individuals to participate and have access to services, programs, or activities without being subjected to discrimination because of their disability. Being the first case to address the scope of this title, the court had to determine whether the removal of Dreher Park programs, designed to foster community among disabled people, due to budget cuts, violated the ADA. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and required the defendants to take steps to reinstate the programs they dissolved during their budget cuts.
Summary
In 1986, the city of West Palm Beach conducted a survey regarding the need for leisure activities for physically and/or mentally disabled individuals. The survey revealed that it was highly desired by the disabled population, which prompted the creation of several recreational and social programs, like Jammin’ in the Sun Day Camp (summer day camp services for a variety of children with varying disabilities), little league baseball for disabled youth, and Out and About Club (a program for visually impaired teens). During this period, between 1992 and 1993, roughly 300 disabled individuals were involved with one or more of the programs at Dreher Park. Financially, to run these programs, Dreher Park Center was given a budget of $170,694 from the Department of Leisure Services, which had a budget of $6,573,550 (Special Populations Section of the department was allotted $384,560, which is where Dreher Park’s budget came from). However, in the next fiscal year (1993-1994), due to budget constraints, the allotted funds were significantly cut from the leisure services from $384,560 to only $82,827. The way the Special Populations section distributed the funds, it seems most of it went into the supervisor’s salary and benefits. With a significantly lower budget, three positions of the special populations section were cut, and Dreher Park took the biggest hit as all three positions were personnel of Dreher Park Center, and they saw their maintenance of their facility eliminated. This effectively eliminated all the programs for the disabled that Dreher Park offered.
In response, a new, unincorporated association was created. Concerned Parents to Save Dreher Park Center consisted of both parents and volunteers in protest of the elimination of these programs. They instituted this action for injunctive relief (a court order that commands a party to either perform or stop performing a specific action), citing that the elimination of these programs was in violation of the ADA and Article I, Section 2 of the Florida Constitution. The action was removed from the state court and into the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, as the ADA was a federal law.
For a motion of preliminary injunction to pass, the plaintiffs had to show that 1) a substantial likelihood that they will ultimately prevail on the merits, 2) that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not issued, 3) that the threatened injury to the plaintiff outweighs the potential harm to the defendant and, 4) that the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest.
a) Substantial Likelihood of Prevailing on the Merits
What the court is looking for here is whether there is enough evidence presented by the plaintiffs to gauge the strength of the claim that the defendant’s action was in violation of the ADA. This would allow their case to be moved forward with a high likelihood that the plaintiffs will win the trial regarding their claim that the defendant violated the ADA. Title II of the ADA states 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.”
When examining Title II of the ADA, the court had to determine whether 1) the plaintiffs are representing the interests of “a qualified individual with a disability”; 2) the individual was discriminated against, whether it is being excluded from participating or denied benefits of the public entity’s services; 3) there is evidence that this exclusion, denial of benefits or discrimination was because of the plaintiff’s disability.
There is no dispute that the plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities; however, while the city did not bring it up, the court examined whether these are “qualified” individuals with disabilities. In other words, some of the disabled individuals may not be qualified for some activities. For example, in soccer, it is essential for a player to be able to kick the ball, which a person in a wheelchair cannot do, therefore making that individual confined to the wheelchair an unqualified individual with disabilities. The court counters this argument, saying that the main focus is not the individual programs but the recreation program as a whole. Therefore, individuals simply have to ask to participate in the recreational program for them to be considered a “qualified” individual with disabilities.
Looking at the second requirement, the City argued that despite eliminating the entirety of the disabled programs from Dreher Park, disabled people wouldn’t be turned away from other recreational programs and therefore, there was no violation of Title II of the ADA. The court responded by saying that while it is true that cities are not obligated to provide recreational programs, the Leisure Services Department did provide those programs to disabled people, which was in line with their mission to provide comprehensive and quality recreation services/entertainment. Therefore, it is now their responsibility to ensure that these disabled individuals are not prevented from enjoying these services. Since the Dreher Park Center programs were unique in that sense, and no other municipalities in the surrounding area offered such programs, the complete elimination of all programs at Dreher Park left a massive void. Title II states that public entities will provide integrated settings, but emphasizes that these integrated settings must be appropriate to the needs of the qualified individuals with disabilities. Based on the evidence given by the city, the court concluded that these programs were created specifically to offer individuals with disabilities equal benefits and access to recreational activities. So by eliminating the entirety of the programs offered by Dreher Park Center, the defendant had denied the plaintiffs access to the benefits offered by the City’s leisure services, violating Title II.
b) Irreparable Injury
The court found that irreparable injury to the plaintiffs was present, as monetary compensation would not be enough to justify the complete elimination of the programs. The court reasoned that because these are individuals with disabilities, various factors, such as access to leisure activities and the need for trained personnel, make it much more difficult for these individuals to fill this void on their own. The court concluded that these programs, prior to their elimination, created a community that contributed to the well-being of these disabled individuals, and because of that, injunctive relief was appropriately granted.
c) Greater Injury to Plaintiffs than Potential Harm to Defendant
The City claimed that the fiscal integrity and balanced budget outweighed the damages to the Plaintiffs. The court disagreed, stating that the law requires a decrease in funds and therefore is not considered a harm. They also reason that $170,000 can most definitely fit into the $6.5 million budget without threatening the “fiscal integrity.”
d) Public interest
The Court reestablishes its position, arguing that while it is in the public interest to balance the budget, it is also in the public interest to uphold equality for all persons, including disabled individuals, as protected by the ADA.
The Court finally ordered that:
The City of West Palm Beach must take steps to reinstate the recreational programs for persons with disabilities in compliance with Title II of the ADA. With that, the court requested the City submit its plan on how it is going to reinstate these programs
More specifically, the City of West Palm Beach must ensure that they are in compliance with three regulations within Title II: 1) self-evaluation (§35.105), 2) notice (§35.106), and 3) responsible employee and grievance procedures (§35.107). This required West Palm Beach to reinstate the programs, publicly announce that they do not discriminate based on disability, and have an ADA coordinator who establishes a resolution process to ensure they are back within compliance with the ADA.
In May of 1994, a consent summary was held after the court passed the preliminary injunction, where both parties agreed to reach a settlement and not continue the trial. The City of West Palm Beach agreed to take steps to comply with the ADA, reinstate the programs they eliminated, and continue oversight by the court during this process.
Impact
Being the first case that dealt with Title II of the ADA meant this case would set a precedent for future cases regarding Title II. What this case showed is how expansive the ADA can be applied, as it was enforced on the entirety of a program itself rather than individual activities. It also prevents state or city governments from simply eliminating programs designed for disabled people without 1) thinking about how this would affect them, and 2) considering whether there is a replacement to fill the void of the eliminated programs in which disabled individuals can turn to. That doesn’t mean that state or city governments are obligated to create separate programs for disabled people, just that they provide a reasonable modification for disabled people to participate in and take advantage of the public goods offered by the state or city government.
Court Documents
Concerned parents v. City of West Palm Beach, 846 F. Supp. 986 (S.D. Fla. 1994),
Concerned Parents v. City of West Palm Beach, 853 F. Supp. 424 (S.D. Fla. 1994),
Citations
Florida. The Florida Constitution. “Article I, Section 2.” Florida Senate. Accessed September 22, 2025. https://www.flsenate.gov/laws/constitution#A1S02.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., “ADA Statute” (PDF), accessed September 23, 2025, https://archive.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.pdf
