CALIF v. Los Angeles

From Service Dog Training

Summary of CALIF v. City of Los Angeles Case

This case was initially filed in January of 2009 against both the City and County of Los Angeles alleging that the city violated Title II of the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, and California Civil Code section 54 by failing to include the needs of people with disabilities in their emergency preparedness programs. In June of 2010, the County of Los Angeles began to develop a functional needs annex; as a result, the action against them was stayed. This summary judgment concerns only the City of Los Angeles. The summary judgment looks particularly at effective emergency notification of people with auditory or cognitive disabilities and the evacuation, transportation, and sheltering of people with disabilities during and after an emergency.

The representatives of the people with disabilities argue that:

• People with disabilities suffer discrimination as a result of their disabilities because the city’s emergency plans fail to account for their needs.
• People with disabilities are disproportionally vulnerable in an emergency because of their exclusion from the city’s emergency preparedness programs.
• People with disabilities have felt fear, apprehension, or unease because they are not included in the emergency program, and they believe they have the right to be included.

The City of Los Angeles argues that:

• The responsibility for addressing the needs of people with disabilities has been delegated to specific city departments.
• The American Red Cross, not the city, is responsible for mass housing and care in an emergency or disaster.
• The city has not taken any action which disproportionally burdens people with disabilities.
• The city cannot be held liable for alleged violations because they have not excluded people with disabilities because of those disabilities.
• The class of people with disabilities cannot prevail on a motion for summary judgment because there is no evidence that the plaintiffs requested and were refused reasonable accommodations from the city.
• It is sufficient that the city can provide reasonable accommodations during a disaster when requested.
• It is the responsibility of people with disabilities to perform their own personal planning.

The Court holds that:

• Despite the City’s assertion that the responsibility has been delegated to specific departments, the city fails to show that any of these departments have undertaken any specific planning.
• Despite the fact that the city’s current policy is facially neutral to the issue of disability, it is discriminatory because people with disabilities lack meaningful access to emergency preparedness programs because the programs do not include provisions for emergency notifications for those who have auditory impairments or cognitive disabilities or to evacuate, transport, and shelter people with disabilities during and after a disaster.
• People with disabilities are disproportionally burdened by the city’s failure to consider their unique needs in its emergency preparedness programs.
• Providing ad hoc reasonable accommodations during a disaster is inadequate because the purpose of emergency planning is to anticipate the needs of the city’s residents and to minimize last minute requests during a disaster.
• Whether or not people with disabilities should engage in personal preparedness planning is irrelevant for the purpose of the case.
• The denial of meaningful access to the emergency preparedness programs is because of the plaintiffs’ disabilities
• Reasonable modifications to the city’s emergency preparedness program are available and would not cause undue hardship.

What does this mean for emergency planners? This case, as the first of its kind, sets the record clear that including the needs of people with disabilities in emergency plans is NOT optional, it is required by Title II of the ADA. If your city, county, or other Title II entity has an emergency plan, you must also explicitly plan for the needs of people with disabilities. For people with disabilities, it means that the ADA protects your right to the same kind of access to emergency and disaster services as a person without a disability, and that there is now legal recourse if those plans are not in place.

In short, including people with disabilities in emergency planning is no longer just a good idea, it’s required!

You can find the entire text of the summary judgment here.

--Tiffany Huggard-Lee 20:42, 13 February 2011 (CST)

---

or read what others have said