Mayer v. City Of San Jose

Background

Thomas Mayer, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair, attended about a dozen public gatherings and events in the West Plaza beside San Jose City Hall. He alleged that he could not reach elevated areas that provided better views because City Hall was closed during events held after hours or on weekends, and because some interior doors were difficult to open. Mayer proposed unlocking City Hall after hours, repairing the door force, building a ramp, or installing chair lifts.

Mayer asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the California Unruh Civil Rights Act, the California Disabled Persons Act, the California Government Code, and other California laws identified in the complaint. Both parties moved for summary judgment, which asks whether the evidence leaves any legally important factual dispute for a jury.

Statute of Limitations

The City argued that Mayer’s ADA claim was untimely because he first contacted the City about barriers in 2016 and filed this case about four years later. The court rejected that argument. It held that the 2016 incident was not before the court and that the more recent events alleged in the complaint occurred in 2019, 2020, and 2022, within the applicable three-year period.

ADA Issues

The court found no genuine factual dispute that Mayer was disabled for ADA purposes and that the First Amendment Events were a City service, program, or activity because the City regularly allowed public gatherings in the West Plaza, including gatherings that did not require a permit.

The court also found no genuine dispute that access to Locations 1, 2, 4, and 5 was necessary for wheelchair users’ full and equal enjoyment of the events. The court explained that Mayer could attend the events but was blocked from seeing speakers because people standing in front of him obstructed his view. It found disputed facts, however, about whether access to Location 3, the tiered seating, was necessary because City evidence indicated that the view there was not good.

The court did not resolve whether the City violated the ADA through failure to provide reasonable accommodations. It found disputed facts about whether Locations 1, 2, and 5 were restricted walkways rather than viewing areas, whether allowing access would create safety risks or change the spaces’ essential function, and whether keeping City Hall unlocked after hours would create an unreasonable safety risk. The court also found disputed facts about the reasonableness of modifying the City’s practice of locking the doors after business hours, which Mayer challenged as having a disproportionate effect on wheelchair users.

The court likewise left unresolved Mayer’s claim that City Hall was constructed without complying with federal accessibility standards. Disputed facts remained about whether certain doors functioned as entrances, whether the related exterior walkway had to meet accessibility requirements, and whether openings beside the walkway were regulated “gratings” or instead drainage openings.

California Government Code Claim

The court granted Mayer summary judgment on his claim that the doors at the top of the exterior walkway violated the 1998 California Building Code because their operating force exceeded the eight-and-one-half-pound limit. Both experts measured force above that limit when the doors were opened to a 90-degree angle, and the court applied that measurement rather than the City expert’s measurements at a 70-degree angle.

The court granted the City summary judgment on the accessible-exit-discharge issue. It held that the City’s sprinkler system satisfied the specific 1998 California Building Code requirements Mayer cited. The court denied both parties’ motions on the remaining California Government Code issues, including signage and other disputed accessibility requirements.

Other California Claims

The court denied Mayer’s motion for summary judgment on his California Disabled Persons Act claim because it had not granted judgment establishing ADA liability.

The court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment on Mayer’s Unruh Act claim. It reasoned that Mayer attended unplanned and unpermitted public gatherings, and the evidence did not show that the organizers had reserved the plaza, paid for permits, or entered contracts with the City. On those specific facts, the court found no evidence that the City was operating as a business when it allowed the gatherings.

Disposition

The court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART Mayer’s motion for summary judgment. Mayer obtained judgment on the limited issues that he was disabled under the ADA, the events were ADA services or activities, access to Locations 1, 2, 4, and 5 was necessary for full and equal enjoyment, and the doors violated the 1998 California Building Code.

The court GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART the City’s cross-motion for summary judgment. The City obtained judgment that its sprinkler system satisfied the cited accessible-exit-discharge requirements and that it was not liable under the Unruh Act. The court denied summary judgment to both parties on the remaining issues.