# Amicus Curiae Brief — Lonberg v. City of Riverside > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_1870%3A5 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2010 - **Citation:** 562 U.S. 829 ## Text Supreme Court. U S \(o ag MAY 19 2010 No. 09-1259 OFFIUtE Ur tric CULEHK jn Whe Supreme Court of the United States JOHN LONBERG he ponde ni Qn Petition For A Writ Of Certiorars lo The United States Court Of Appeals kor The Ninth Cireurt BRIEF OF AMICUS CURTAI RICHARD M. SKAFF IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER . ANDIIEW Jd. DHUES (CHARLES Ga. WENTWORTH Attorne at iuaw Cour el of Reecord 156 Boynton Avenu WENTWORTH LAW OrrkICES PP. berkeley, CA 9470% 160 N. Main Street, Suite 204 (510) 528-8200 Gaien llyn, 1h. 6013% O30) 469-9600 ( harle COW ¢ ntworthiawoll (“4 CTT) TABLE OF CONTENTS INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURTAE ... | REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION 6 | Comphance with the ADA’s Requirement: by Public Intities Is Virtually Impossible Without the Establishment of a Prope: Selfl-KMvaluation and ‘Transition Plan . 7 iW. Mr. Skaff’s Expernence Both as a Public Official and as a Private latigant Dem onstrate the Importance of Forcing Public Mntities to Kstablish and Maintain Self Mvaluation and ‘Transition Plans 15 A. Mr. Skaff’s Expenence Shows the W1: dom Behind the Regulations’ Require ment that Transition Plans Must be in Place to Effectively Locate and Correct ADA Violations 1G Is. Without a Proper ‘Transition Plan Al ready in Place, Individuals with Di: abilities are Forced to Litigate ADA Violations on an After-the Injury, Curb by-Curb Basi: 20 CONCLUSION 20 PABLE OF AUTHORITIES Pape CASK Ability es: of Crreater loledo U (lily of San dusky, 385 F.3d 901 (6th Cir. 2004) {> Alexander v. Sandoval, 5382 U.S. 275 (200]) 8 American Assoc. of People with Disabilitte:s Dv. Harris, Case No. 07-15004., I Sd (ath Cir, May 11, 2010), available at httpy/ www.cal luscourts.gov/opimons/ops/Z007 15004 pal 6, 14,17, 18 Chaffin v. Kan. State Fair Bd., 348 F.3d 850 (1Oth Cir. 2003) 6, 10 fverson v City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94 (Ist Cn 2006) & Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846 (9th (air. Z0O0%) passim Skaff v. City of Corte Madera, Case No. 4:08-ey 05407 SBA (N.D. Cal.) 20. 23 Southwestern Comty. College v. Davis, 442 US 387 (1979) 13, lo REGULATION PABLE OF AUTHORITIES — Continued Preagre OTHER AUTHORITE The ADA and City Governments: Common Prob lems (Oct. 9, 2008), aquatilable at http Www ada.gov/comprob. htm Project Covi Acc avatlabl al http://w WV ada.pov/civicac. htm Questions and Answer. About ADA/Section 504, avatlable at http://www.thwa.dot.gov civilmeht: ada (aa Hntm ‘) Settlement Apreement Between the United States of America and the City of San Rafael California, Under the Amertcans with Di abilities Act, DPJI# 2O4I-11-272, avatlable at http://www.ada.gov/SankKataelSA. htm Title a Lee Anical A: isla ce Manual avatlal :-2as. 28. 2a, 34 http wWww.ada.vov/tamanZ. html INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE’ his case presents the Court with an opportunity tO recognize that 28 C.F R. § 35.150(d)(1) create: a private mght of action in individuals to enforce its requirement that public entities establish Self Kvaluation and ‘Transition Plans. Such a_ holding would resolve a mature circuit split between the hirst, Sixth, and now Ninth Circuits on the one hand and the lenth Circuit on the other he resolution of thi question 1 mncredibly im portant to amicus Richard M. Skall because of his MWiahhy role a a leader br the busine S community, as a publ offiqial, as an advocate tor disability rights and as an individual with disabilities who has had to briny Suit him elt to entorce the ADA requiremer In the jurisdictions where he lives and works. Failure to addre the split will mean that individuals with disabilitue residing in the First. Sixth. and Ninth Circuits will be forced to litigate enforcement of the ADA’s requirements on an alfter-the-injury, curb-by curb bas} rather than a preemptive chanve that Pat int to this Courts Rule 37.6, amicus attirms that counsel for a party authored this bmef in whole or in part, that rn uch counsel or partly made monetary contribution mtendeda to fund the preparation or submission of this brief, and that no person other than amicus curtae or his counsel made a monetary contribution to its preparation or submission. Pursuant to thi ( puirt rteahe Dt «4 CL71iCU COUT) 1 of record brciVe Cach party nttlorire \ il | is| ten day Wrilte l nmol ol thy Intent to fale Ltil bri it) Lrit | ili Corre pondence mentin I t] bitin ol would allect global ch LP)p7¢ throughout thie othe nding jurisdiction As a former mayor and town council member, a leader in the business community, the director of a disability-access non-profit corporation, and a para plepic, Mr. Skaff is uniquely qualified to addr thie issues facing both public entities and individuals witt disabilities Mr. Skafi’s” busine leadership began in tt! 1970s when he manaved a large 250-seat restaurant on FKisherman Whartin San Iranci coand erved oO! the Board of the Golden Gate Restaurant A Octal fs i) He later spent,five years as thi executive Director of the bisherman Whart Port ‘Tenant \ MlaLION In 1981, Mr. Skatl was elected to the Town Cou cil of Corte Madera. California. and late: erved a Mayor until 1985. During that time, he served on thi Marin County Council! of Mayors and Counci!| Mem ber ) ra | thie founde! amiga Chairpet On ol {tae Ro Valley Paramedu Authority (County of Marin). and ai Program Developer Lor Acct Mari | in tt il la | po ition. he consulted with ¢ ty, County. and State building department: as well as other State and local arenche architect enginee! and individuals witt disabilities to ensure that these entits Were Con pliant with the ADAS mandate Later. he wa hired by Mayor Diane Fetnstein 1 create a new Propralth lor thie 5 I) iran Cd) sure iul f Jsuilding In pection and assure it enforcement of California Building Code acce requirement tie Wort c n 1d) I 1 pl il i} [ } ‘ ‘ L rie { ( rit { | ( it (f th he D ra " for to {| My |) ; } LA ' Wort LAiK IT) rs | ? i\ ; ? ? i i Triicl ? \ { 199 ' | { | { vi} lr opened Ul U1 4 the Dey y | VV I ( \ Phil ] [ { 1 . } ' ’ , Pil , ‘ ' ' } } \ ’ . | & ; ; ’ While workll for the City, My } It U! elled t | ; \ pork Colt | ve | Lire y doe Y | Housin nd one itely } PrCOp Willi ¢ i Lill bie ntinued I ear Mayor CTT ti] Aglen vt mnie re I | \ 1 Line pul [ I Vit } Tt be I Paraple I l ! | n 19, leaving | paralyzed belo nec Latil mat ne i \ cha hor mol hortly iter | pent Nit Katt tou 1 Ul Viarin Center for Independent (now I) cl penaent [ erice | ( Lif [) Wi versaw eliorts t rm ( Die ( rica V1 rin ( MInLy ina l cit I { | KID L | ts rif iro! Liye ( ) | ran . Kat] founded |) ivr ril \ tyle , I | Lit } ’ fit ro ry} it) i i toc cy i . a) CIV I tie { rl I | > l |) { 1 Kall i it'd i | [ [ nt I | 1 I} | Crimi ul Li persol ty an undue unde Lana 1 | [ I L} | Le rm) oder me liiatl ' { } . Tv pte ith disab 1d t Cl . rip) LI rt ore ilatior pul | lit ys tLhrouphout the United Code and regulatory Lraininy Lale michud rij? bates beauye atl the request of the Louriana Governor C office hortly after Hurricane Mr. Skalfl has also traveled extensively to lecture On ace Ibiity and disability mphts, presenting train Myif? Wy ilerial about acce public right Of Way, and emerpency-related issue LO Proups in Japan Portu gal, and Imeuador, locales that previously had no repu lations requiring ply ical acce Or thie protection of the nights of individuals with disatilitye Mis input Vas instrumental in the creation of new acce Law and poles mn those countric Parically, Mey Kadi has, on multiple occasions, had lo personally bring suil to enforce the ADA require ment lo allow him acee LO pruitoie prea Sven i} Pibtarasedpocadibse Where he ones erved a i) elected Othicial, Pde 4 Uyit personal fagniidsear With Chie roadbhloct both tavurative and literal that puta entities | coin Ubi ry Of person bhi Gaisaiboaditye 1 th th backvround that My Kall urp thie 4 ivt to rant the Petitione: request and j Lif L hie if l cert ri to the nth Coarcuit Court of Joyo! REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION Phe Ninth Circuit panel below has already ac Knowledped that opinion, as well as those of the ruxth Circuits, 1s squarely in conflict: with of the Jenth Circuit regarding the enforceability privals Individual of the ADA’ transition plan repulations. Pet. at 11-21 (citing Alexander ov. San doval aba Zéty (200)) Lonberp l y Of Htiverside, 071 b.4d 846 (9th Cir. 2009); Lverson vo. City Of Boston, 452 3d 94 Ost Cir. 2006); Ability Ctr. of Greater Lloledo v. City of Sandusky, 385 ¥.3d 901 (6th (ar. 2004); Chaffin vo. Kan. State hatr Bd., 348% b38d MO (Oth Cir, Z008)). And the eleventh Circuit re reached 4 similar result as the Furst, Sixth, and ATC albeit with re pect to a different Ameriwan Assoc. of People with DPrsabilitee: v. ftlarri (rase No. O7-15004 Hd (Jilth Cir May 11. ZOO). avatlable at http://www.call].uscourt ops/ZO0 015004 pdf [hereinafter “/flarri: if }2 Ae i (holding Lhat no ( |: It ) dor nol ale rival rig Of action) } repeating that tablishment of a Sell-lvaluation lan ois the only way aflect asi iCipaled “iy required by thie pecihie example WW Lhe GX) alflected hit ii publue entita both from a public official, and from. the maiviagual wt disabilitue and Ntivation Unless individuals are allowed to bring private mghts of action to require that public entities adopt transition plans, the ADA’s non-discrimination poal: will be frustrated. Plaintiffs will be forced to litigate on after-the-injury, curb-by-curb bases rather than compelling public entities to preemptively interact with the disability community, enabling publie offh cials lo understand what must be done to comply with the ADA’s mandates, and thereby create plans that address those needs globally. The Court should there fore prant Petitioner’s request for a writ of certiorari to resolve the circuit spit Ss Compliance with the ADA’s Requirements by Public Entities Is Virtually Impossible Without the Kstablishment of a Proper Self-i valuation and Transition Plan. The Ninth Circuit erred when it speculated that the “existence or non-existence of a transition plan doe nol by JUS If deny a disabled Person acces. LO a pubhie entilys service Lonberg, 571 kdd at 65] Quite to the contrary, and as the DOJ’s Civil Right: Dpeehion reECcouymnize “When seif-evaluations are not conducted and transition plans not developed, city povernments are ill-equipped to implement acc bilily chanpe required by the ADA.” The ADA and City Governments: Common Problems (Oct. 9. 2008) avatlable at http://w WWoada povie OMmiprob htm. In Olney words, unle a pubhe entity has a complete asse ment of its facilities, services, and programs, 1 1s in possible for the entity to effectively plan, budget, and prepare for the changes necessary to meet the ADA requireme nt See id. Without a Self-Kvaluation and Transition Plan, “people with disabilities cannot par or benechit from the city ervices, program VEOSI importantly, the creation of a transition forces public entities to review their properts tics, and programs so that they know what they lransition plans are not only there to protect hts of individ tals with disabilities. They are essary for the pubhe entities to protect them from future htipgation by identifying areas of yrovement and forcing the entities to create a plan hdr those shortfalls. Only after a plan has been pleted can an entity demonstrate that it 3 n fact Nith the ADA’s mandate ason : » repulation ured public entities to adopt pelf-hivabscation ransition Plan by danuary 26 1993. 286 C.F KR L5OCd 01) ul a yel, only a very smail portion diction: ave taken the time necessary to di plas adequate to addre the need the ADA was adopted, the Attormne that these plans would be necessa: event that structural chanpe to facility undertaken to achieve propram acc Horlity milicipation of this, the regulations mandated ansition plat contain at a minimum Lhe int > ldentification of physical obstacles tim iling accessibility of individuals with disabilities to programs and facilitie: ° A detailed description of the method that will be used to make the facilitie ace idole . Specification of a schedule for taking Lep GT ed AT y LO CON mito Comphance and : Naming the official responsible for im plementation of the plan Cdyie example ol Lhe bi porlvance a) tiie sell ( aluation | CCF }y} Lie mstruction provided LO State and local tran portation department: The led eral Highway Administration teaches that an “ADA transition plan is intended to identify system need and mteprate them with the State; planning pro ( " Questions and Answer About ADA/Section 504 j avatlable at http://wwwihwa.dot.vov/eivilmehts/ada | (ja hitnn Moreover Lae 1) )J lechnical A iISbLance Man u explain to State ana local yovernments how to poll anne prac (¢ Lyi r¢ riulat (iT) Title // Technical f istance Manual, avattable at http WWW. ON taman2. html [herematter “ADA Manual}. opecili ally the ADA Manual Five extensive instruction on hoy putt Cyibiblie al ¢ LO create and use Lranmsition plan ld : 1] ‘ AULOLE elf ( Valuation The ie ereuene' 1 | il Lructl thal if} ernibil hould bye mindtul that iQ) although its policies and practices may appear harm- less, they may result in denying individuals with disabilities the full participation of its programs, ac tivities, or services.” Id. This is exactly the harm that Title Il of the ADA was intended to remedy And these instructions to State and local author tics from the Federal povernment’s administi ative bodies also recopnize the importance of having transi tion plans in place, both to evaluate current efforts and to plan for future changes. Indeed, the ADA Manual notes that once a public entity identifies the areas of concern in its Communities, “it Should take unmediate remedial action to eliminate the impedi- ments to full and equivalent participation.” Jd. (em phasis added). Further, the manual points out that “Is|tructural modifications Should be made as expeditiously as possible, but no later than January 26, 1995” — now more than 15 years ago. /d. Thus the Tenth Ciresit correctly held that the ADA prants to Individuals private nghts of action, allowing them to brings suit to compel public entities to establish such plans. Chaffin, 34% F.3d at 858. This is because the requrrements of the regulations and “the type. of discrimination prohibited [by them| fallf | squarely within the type prohibited by the ADA itself.” Jd. at ire Ode That the regulations implement the ADA is clear Indeed, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged as much, ob erving that “section 35.150(d) was promulgated by the Attorney General pursuant to § 204 of the ADA in order to implement & 202." Lonberg, 571 13d at 1 | 851 0.6. Yet, that court still ilopgically held that the regulations do not create a private right of action. It reached this decision in part because a public entity could be ADA comphant without having a transition plan in place, “in which case, a lawsuit forcing the public entity to draft such a plan would afford the plaintiff no meanimyptul remedy.” [d. at 85] gut the Ninth Circuit's concern was misplaced Under the hypothetical situation where a publie en lily is already “fully comphant with § 202 without ever having drafted a transition plan,” id., meaning ful 2CCC: would have already been provided, ng) thie I'¢ would be no need for litigation and nothing to remedy Phe importance of creating and maintaining ef fective transition plans is again underscored by the Mederal povernment’s ADA Manual, which it devel oped to help State and local povernment program and services comply with ADA requirements. Build ing on the four “minimum required categories out lined in 28% Cbekt. § 85.150(d 01), the manual contain an additional thirteen areas of “careful examination that publi entitle hould analyze in doing then eit evaluations. ADA Manual & I1-8.2000, Self-evaluation ‘hhese thirteen areas are as tollow | Physical barmners to acc Modification of policn where ne ify lo avoid exclusion, and justifications for exclu: 101) Ww hi t¢ fi) modihication will ay miade itlective means of communication “with individuals with impaired hearing. os peech such re | through TDD “Ol qually effective telecommunication tems_ lL tjeader lor individual with sual Impairment interpreters or other alter native communication measure Lol mdivdual With hearing ind aMmanuUenIse fot bid) manual impairment bur ’ Pac € acuatllon | during Sch ECeReeCE A pit lnipairment vidual ith | Pub C1] fil Leria | olen r yf P«Aatti { it ryt) ca : } } | i i j b> idhe«a il AA COMP ant itl i} {| iil j i ' I Lilt ¢ { Prope Lraining§ tor! public employes revarding full participation tf indi viduals with disabilitie Distineurshing \ 1. former and cut rent drug users wil setting polici denying participation in Propram DAased on aruy usape ld. ito as the Ninth Circuit determined nothing: about a public eENnvity detailed plan and schedule yr achieving such mean iInglol ace Lonberp would the government have thorough ¢ x planation OO] 14 (oo? ily ( olle pe { Davi: 142 \ : Ten 110 (1979) which by it nature includes the way thie polici are actually implemented and not Imply the words pul down on papel by the public entitle Also, the adoption of a transition plan allow member a) the COMMUNDILS both individual with disabilitue and otherwise, to discu what areas of improvement are most critical. Although there is no required public-comment period, entitie are strong ly encouraged to consult with individuals wath di boadatue and organizations that represent them to the sell-evaluation proce VDA Manual 1E-&. 2000, Self-evaluation. When done properly hie rouabodae envuily 1] able to evaluate what needs exist and et a plan to deal with them in an organized and ffiment manner. Thu an effective transition plan miust have public bipul, ana thie public Cncilsre must first take the time and eftort to pul On I phere LO! there to be anythin LO COMIMEeNHL ¢ Iti bhiport trace Ol J) if trea i phat 1th place { [i Lye lll I ¢ Litriile | \ Like tele bith | I uil recently recognized in maly i] I ther ¢ Cra LDA nabiin revulatiol Ne LCLELLL CON tructed for use by pubhe enti must ! ' tote ( I I ) iS i ithe I ¢ ISU racil Lie miust Iso. bye by] L(t) flay Lip) CPpitton at Zt But what that « rt wrnored (| lirst I qd | bnth Circuit ata tho building | n mavcicall Dual themsel\ With the requi accommodations. The ADA’s enacting regulations ar necessary to the effective implementation of the stat ule because they give pubhe officials an opportunity to interact with the disability community in a way that they, in all likelihood, have never done before This in tarn educates the officials about the disability community and forces them to look at the entity programs and facilities in ways that they never would have otherwise. Such interaction is at the heart of the ADA, helping public officials understand how mem bers of the disability community function both phy cally and cognitively, and giving those officials thi empathy that they need toimplement the meaningful access that this Court has recognized the ADA wa designed to bring about. Davis, 442 US. at 410 lt is extremely important that individuals be al lowed to bring suit to compel public entities to estab lish and maintain the requisite transition plans. Thi Court should thus issue the writ, and bring the lirst sixth, and Ninth Cireuits into conformity with the ‘Tenth i. Mr. Skaff’s Experience Both as a Public Official and as a Private Litigant Demon strates the Importance of Forcing Public Entities to Establish and Maintain Self Evaluation and Transition Plans Mr Skatl has wide-ranging busine and put CLOI CAPCTLE IC during Whit t) at ava \ ned) ¢ {¢ VeELY LO ee that publi eribatye becom md rel mphant with the ADAS mandat \s noted abovy his busine expermence began in MOs, toll bY nearly »Vved a prurtotane ervi ‘ ted } ppomted official nd fA t that 1) ited Mire Skatl itlered a tall that left him paralyzed th t waist down. Uhiuis prmiypury led tise | ( i reatt I bron | [ | Die’ | pI itty a Deaial | nd pr tf { } i ty t if int vit put ' |) requul ts, Mi kati ha DiiStil ell lf-] 1} 1] . \. Mr. Skaff’s Experience Shows the Wis dom Behind the Regulations’ Require ment that Transition Plans Must be in Place to Effectively Locate and Cor rect ADA Violation: i. Without a Proper Transition Plan Al ready in Place, Individuals with Dis- abilities are Forced to Litivate ADA Violations on an After-the-Injyury, Curb by-Curb Basis. addition to his prove ional Encounter Witt ! plan Mr Kall wh personally felt the { { ()] Jif Sinith ( precy ru If? that mdividual i bficadole oenlorce the ADA repulation Lransition joi eqquircmciy! i 7 bTya foie Mi } iff 4 CUTTent | th the town of Corte Madera Over it I ( pstal Ol bOhi-COMI py rice ith ADA man heaff uo. City of Corte Madera, ¢ e No. 4:08 - 40, A Ld) Cal.) (docket entries available on ! Af I 1; Jil { Ori plaitil Mis ; Kall cle crmibed (‘fi i various barners to aces throughout thre le requested that Cor Mader remove all fi J rriei { rCCI lor pel ! With d atoalatue irthies ked for pingunelion ordering the Cait f | ind eniorce a curb ras [) chedule i }) rt | lf I [> ! hia] ClOsT] "odd Docket ONT Phe town | ved for judpiment on the pleading rer Ai PLAC aryu rip that jul La Jf) thie instant Vd kall has no private mypht of action to @ndorce the Caty Lransilion plan The district court peed) ‘ranted that motion relyinyv in part Ori the result. Mr. Skall recovery i now limited to those particular Curb idewalk ramp and ovunel parriel LO acce that he has already identilied in hit daily moverments and in the litigation. Jo affect any y at IJ i { shnoulde! Lhae pli Cdlidsle WDUPradeysl i neelenall uSer LO 1n poet COET curb ranip iu the City to determine whether they comply with the law. And then he must initiate new litigation related to eac] nd every ne o] the ( pdormiisy OCALIOT bya Piciency reated by the Ninth Circuit Crrot pinton J Layyerin (Corte Madera could Lia] th the Conegre ional mandate ft create 1 ¢njorce el{-} tluation and ‘Tras 1OF) 17} rm | { { modi ij j { priorit A. Piuadee ana p>] fi rOFr ine % recuiol Ol all barrier LO acc J thie ¢ {) 1 yt ( ) edoain the dlenth Circus 11 kal d request that the district court order trial c- mid enlorce ic} plan Pu | Lyi mith Corcust CE Ql vir Kill i! vidual ith, Gasababitae Who live, wor} y! 4 Lé 1 Cd miust git) il A|) compl a ijyce ; i ! l 4 | fit tree] at peat il} i| Carne ! © time a person iu} qd bility en ounte! ri barner, (hat person has been deprived then, the lack of a transition plan does, by ttself, deny person with disabilities access to a public entity: ervices. Granting certiorarn and reversing the Ninth Circuit's erroncous decision will not simply resolve a mature and important circuit split. Jt wall also effectuate Conyressional intent and pive full meaning to ‘Title 1] If the Ninth Circuit is correct, then responsibility for enforcement of the ADA is placed solely on the houlders of the DOJ. In 1999, the Department en gaged in Project Civic Access, whereby it took a small armpling of 100 cities throughout the country to spot check those pubhe entities for comphance with ADA mandates. See Project Crowe Access, available at nttp:// wwwada pov/eivicac htm. One of those municipals ties Was San Rafael, a town only five miles from Mii ; Kall S home While inve ligating pan Ktalacl, the Department discovered numerous violations of the ADA and learned that the Citys transition plan and if in) plementation of it were inadequate. The DOJ then entered into a settlement agreement with the City, in Which at required that San Kafael make variou changes and improvements to its programs and facili Lis Settlement Apres ment Between the United State: of America and the City of San Rafael, California, Under the Amerwans with Disabilities Act, DJ# 204 11-272, available at http-//www.ada-.pov/sankalaeclsA htm bout while Mr Skall welcome such settlement agreements and hopes that more are forthcoming, 1 is ludicrous to beheve that the DOJ will be able to complete inspection of every building, program, and facility in the muallions of public entities throughout the nation. The reality is that meaninptul access wall only come about when individual plaintiffs are al lowed to force the same types of settlement apreem ents with pubhe entities on their own, without having to watt for the JDOd to appeal at the door: Lep ol every offending municipality. In short, leaving enforcement Ol transition plans in the hands of the DOJ will only guarantee that individuals such as Mr. Skaff are never be able to receive the meaningful access that the ADA was ade ined Lo provide CONCLUSION In establishing the ADA's transition plan require ments, Congress and the Attorney General intended that the regulation ela preemptive Course lo cor recuing ADA non-comphance in pubhie entities. Ty failing to recopnize this key facet of the legislation, the Iurst, Sixth, and Ninth Circuits have put an meredible burden on the courts, the puble entitie and most Wniportantly, the individual htigyant with disabilities who the law was intended to protect | The ‘Tenth Circunt reached the proper decision in determining that andividuals have a private mght of 24 action to enforce the ADA’s transition-plan require ments by requesting an injunction ordering publi entities to establish transition plan: lor all of these reasons and those set forth in the petition, the Court should issue a writ of certiorari to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal: Respectfully submitted ANDKEW J. DHUERY CHAKLES G. WENTWORTH Attorney at Law Clounsel of Record 456 Boynton Avenue WENTWORTH LAW OFrbricks Pu Berkeley, CA 94707 460 N. Main Street, Suite 204 Cilen Milyn, tl, 60187 ( harles wwentworthlawoflices com Counsel for Amicus Curiae --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386017_1870%3A5. Public record. Not legal advice.