Tyler v. City of Manhattan
849 F. Supp. 1429, 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5386, 3 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 289 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, a public entity's obligation to ensure its programs are accessible is an immediate and ongoing duty, distinct from deadlines for structural changes, but this obligation does not extend to requiring accessibility in private establishments that the public entity merely licenses.
Facts:
- Lewis 'Toby' Tyler, a resident of Manhattan, Kansas, is partially paralyzed and uses a wheelchair for mobility.
- The City of Manhattan is a public entity under the ADA and employs more than 50 people.
- In November 1992, Tyler was unable to attend a City Commission meeting held on the second floor of City Hall because the elevator was not functioning; the Commission proceeded with part of its agenda despite his absence.
- To comply with the ADA, the City created a self-evaluation and transition plan, but relied heavily on a similar plan from 1984 prepared under the Rehabilitation Act.
- The City's transition plan listed needed structural modifications for city facilities but lacked detailed methods, a specific schedule for completion, and a designated official responsible for its implementation.
- Tyler alleged that physical barriers in existing city recreational facilities prevented him from participating equally in city-sponsored recreational programs.
- The City of Manhattan administered a licensing program for various private businesses, including liquor stores, taverns, and restaurants, that Tyler alleged were not accessible to him.
Procedural Posture:
- Lewis 'Toby' Tyler filed a lawsuit against the City of Manhattan in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas, alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- The City of Manhattan, the defendant, filed a motion for summary judgment to have the claims dismissed.
- Tyler, the plaintiff, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to rule in his favor as a matter of law.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by issuing licenses to private businesses, such as restaurants and liquor stores, that are not physically accessible to individuals with disabilities?
Opinions:
Majority - Saffels, Senior District Judge.
No. A city does not violate Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act by licensing private businesses that are not accessible to individuals with disabilities. The court held that under the ADA's implementing regulations, the programs or activities of a licensed private entity are not considered programs or activities of the public entity merely by virtue of the license. Title II prohibits discrimination by public entities in their own services and programs; it does not require them to impose ADA compliance on private businesses as a condition of licensure. The court did, however, find that the City's ADA transition plan was legally insufficient for failing to include a specific schedule, detailed methods, and a responsible official. Furthermore, the court held that a public entity's obligation to ensure program accessibility is immediate and cannot be deferred until the deadline for making structural modifications, meaning claims for exclusion from programs like recreational activities were ripe for judicial review.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the scope of a public entity's liability under Title II of the ADA by establishing a clear boundary between a city's direct responsibilities and its regulatory functions. The ruling prevents municipalities from being held liable for the accessibility of every private business they license, which avoids a massive expansion of municipal liability. At the same time, the opinion reinforces the stringent, non-delegable duties public entities have for their own programs, emphasizing that compliance plans must be detailed and that the core obligation of program accessibility is immediate, requiring non-structural solutions like relocating events while structural fixes are pending.
