Kirola v. City & County of San Francisco, The

Background

Ivana Kirola filed this class action in 2007, alleging that the City and County of San Francisco, the Mayor, and members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors systemically failed to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and related California laws. The class consists of approximately 21,000 individuals, and the case concerns access for people with mobility disabilities.

After a 2011 bench trial, the court entered judgment for the City on all claims. The Ninth Circuit later held that Kirola had standing and directed this court to apply the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines, reevaluate violations, and reconsider injunctive relief. In a later appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that the court had abused its discretion by denying relief for violations it had found, while also stating that the evidence did not support the sweeping class-wide relief originally sought.

In 2024, the court ordered relief for three facilities: the Main Library, St. Mary’s Playground, and a restroom in Golden Gate Park. It later granted injunctive relief in part and denied it in part concerning seven additional facilities, while finding insufficient evidence of violations at four others. The present motion addressed broader, systemwide relief.

The Motion and the Court’s Analysis

The plaintiffs sought an injunction requiring the City to comply with current federal and state accessibility standards when constructing or altering facilities. They also sought a remedial plan covering newly constructed or altered parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreation facilities, and pedestrian rights of way. The proposed plan would include a survey, opportunities for the plaintiffs to comment and object, disclosure of survey results, and a proposed remediation plan subject to court review and approval.

The court applied the four-part test for a permanent injunction: irreparable injury, inadequate legal remedies, the balance of hardships, and the public interest. It found all four requirements satisfied. The court concluded that Kirola and class members continued to encounter accessibility violations and could encounter violations in future facilities. Money damages could not provide access to noncompliant facilities. The balance of hardships favored the plaintiffs, and the public interest favored correcting unlawful inaccessibility.

The court also rejected the City’s argument that systemwide relief was unavailable. It found that the City’s written accessibility procedure did not require use of the accessibility guidelines for parks, playgrounds, outdoor recreation facilities, and pedestrian rights of way. The court further noted that certain City project documents did not require certification of compliance with those guidelines.

The court found dozens of violations at ten facilities that had undergone new construction or alterations since 2000. Those facilities were the Main Library, St. Mary’s Playground, a Golden Gate Park restroom, the Botanical Gardens, the Bernal Heights Recreation Center, the Tenderloin Recreation Center, the Woh Hei Yuen Recreation Center, the Minnie & Lovie Ward Recreation Center, the Upper Noe Recreation Center, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Swimming Pool. The court did not need to resolve the parties’ dispute about approximately 400 access barriers because it found systemwide relief appropriate without considering them.

Ruling and Required Next Steps

The court held that the City’s failure to require compliance with accessibility standards, together with violations across various facilities, showed a systemwide deficiency. It concluded that the injuries were attributable to policies or practices affecting the whole system and that systemwide relief was necessary to address the class’s injuries.

The court found the requested relief appropriately limited because it applies only to newly constructed or altered facilities. It determined that requiring written policies and procedures to ensure compliance with current federal and state disability-access standards was appropriate and necessary to prevent future violations. The court also approved systemic relief involving a survey and remedial plan for the covered facilities.

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for systemic injunctive relief. It ordered the parties to meet and confer and file a joint proposed form of injunction by October 20, 2025. The opinion does not itself set out the final wording of that injunction.