3. Grievance Procedure

This document, portion of document or clip from legal proceedings may not represent all of the facts, documents, opinions, judgments or other information that is pertinent to this case. The entire case, including all court records, expert reports, etc. should be reviewed together and a qualified attorney consulted before any interpretation is made about how to apply this information to any specific circumstances.

229. On behalf of the City, Hecker credibly opined that the City's grievance procedure is consistent with the requirements of ADA regulations. RT 2727:5-19. In particular, he found significant that the grievance procedure allows members of the public to submit complaints in any manner they wished to communicate and requires the City to issue a response within thirty days. RT 2727:5-19. The Court affords significant weight to his opinion regarding the sufficiency of the City's grievance procedure.

230. The Court is unpersuaded by Margen's opinion that the City's grievance procedure is flawed due to its failure to specify a definitive timeline for resolution of each access complaint received. RT 219:23-220:18. The DOJ's model grievance policy does not mandate a specific deadline for resolving each access complaint. See ADA Best Practices Tool Kit for State and Local Gov'ts, Ch. 2, p. 10-11. The Court therefore affords little weight to Margen's opinion regarding the adequacy of the City's grievance procedure.

[MORE INFO...]

*You must sign in to view [MORE INFO...]

Solutions

Documents

Resources

KIROLA v. THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO

User Comments/Questions

[MORE INFO...]