h) Maintenance Policies
82. Kirola complains that the City's maintenance policies and procedures "do not set specific and prompt deadlines for the identification and repair of items that are broken, non-operational, or in need of repair." Dkt. 662, 14:9-11.
83. Under 28 C.F.R. § 35.133, public entities "shall maintain in operable working condition those features of facilities and equipment that are required to be readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities[.]" 28 C.F.R. § 35.133(a). The section, however, "does not prohibit isolated or temporary interruptions in service or access due to maintenance or repairs." 28 C.F.R. § 35.133(b); see also U.S. Dep't of Justice Technical Assistance Manual, II-3.10000 Maintenance of Accessible Features ("Where a public entity must provide an accessible route, the route must remain accessible and not blocked by obstacles such as furniture, filing cabinets, or potted plants. An isolated instance of placement of an object on an accessible route, however, would not be a violation, if the object is promptly removed.").
84. At trial, Kirola failed to identify a single barrier that she encountered as a result of something being "broken, non-operational, or in need of repair," much less an ADA barrier that existed because of any maintenance policy. Dkt. 662, 14:9-11. The errant stools Kirola encountered on occasion at three libraries have not been shown to be broken, non-operational or in need of repair, nor did they render the particular library—or the library system in general—inaccessible. She also failed to identify any maintenance issue as to any RecPark facility.21 Accordingly, the Court finds that because Kirola has not shown that she suffered any injury stemming from the City's maintenance policies, she cannot show any injury resulting from those policies.
21. The uneven sidewalk surfaces identified by Kirola could be considered a maintenance issue, and are addressed in the section discussing the SIRP and ASAP.
User Comments/Questions
Add Comment/Question