## Facts

- The City of Los Angeles (City), a public entity receiving federal financial assistance, maintained an emergency-preparedness program addressing public communication, evacuation, and sheltering for emergencies such as natural disasters or terrorist attacks.
- Plaintiffs included Communities Actively Living Independent and Free (CALIF) and an individual with a disability, suing on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.
- Plaintiffs alleged the City’s emergency-preparedness program lacked workable procedures to serve residents with disabilities during an emergency.
- The program did not include adequate procedures for notifying people with auditory impairments about emergencies.
- The program also did not include adequate procedures for housing or otherwise accommodating people with mobility disabilities at emergency shelters.
- City officials asserted that disability-related responsibilities had been assigned to particular City departments.
- Plaintiffs showed there was no documentary evidence explaining how any department would actually assist individuals with disabilities during an emergency.
- The City’s Department on Disability (DOD) reported that the emergency-preparedness program was out of compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
- The DOD issued multiple recommendations to address the compliance problems, but the City implemented few, if any, of them.
- As an example, although the Department of Parks and Recreation had responsibility for emergency sheltering, few (if any) designated shelter sites complied with ADA accessibility requirements.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment (summary adjudication) on liability only under Title II of the ADA and § 504, leaving remedies for later proceedings.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s emergency-preparedness activities (including communication, evacuation, and sheltering) are a covered “service, program, or activity” under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. Whether the City denied qualified individuals with disabilities meaningful access to the benefits of its emergency-preparedness program by failing to include documented, workable procedures for accessible notification and sheltering.
3. Whether the City could avoid liability by asserting that disability-related tasks were assigned across departments, despite the absence of written procedures or other documentary evidence showing how people with disabilities would be served during an emergency.
4. Whether plaintiffs were entitled to summary judgment on liability based on undisputed deficiencies in the City’s planning and preparation for people with disabilities.

## Decision

- The court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary adjudication on liability against the City.
- The court held that the City’s emergency-preparedness program violated Title II of the ADA and § 504 because it failed to provide people with disabilities meaningful access to emergency communication, evacuation planning, and sheltering.
- The court rejected the City’s reliance on informal delegation to departments where the City could not produce documentary evidence showing how individuals with disabilities would be notified, evacuated, transported, or sheltered during an emergency.
- The court credited evidence that the City had been informed—through its own DOD—that the program was out of compliance and that recommended corrective steps largely were not implemented.
- The ruling addressed liability only; the case proceeded to remedial proceedings to determine appropriate injunctive relief.

## Legal Principles

- Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding qualified individuals with disabilities from participation in, or denying them the benefits of, a public service, program, or activity by reason of disability.
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act imposes similar nondiscrimination duties on recipients of federal financial assistance.
- Emergency-preparedness planning and operations are covered public programs and must be accessible to people with disabilities.
- “Program access” is evaluated by considering the program as a whole; compliance may require planning, policies, and procedures that make emergency warnings and sheltering usable by people with disabilities, not just isolated accessible locations.
- A public entity may not satisfy Title II or § 504 obligations through undocumented, ad hoc assurances that other departments will address disability-related needs; the entity must show concrete, implemented measures.
- Internal findings and reports identifying ADA/§ 504 noncompliance, along with failure to implement recommended corrective actions, may support a finding of liability where the program lacks accessible procedures for people with disabilities.

## Conclusion

The court held the City of Los Angeles liable under Title II of the ADA and § 504 because its emergency-preparedness program lacked documented, workable procedures to provide accessible emergency notification and sheltering for people with disabilities, and the City could not justify those gaps by pointing to unproven departmental delegation; remedies were left for later proceedings.


Communities Actively Living Independent and Free v. City of Los Angeles, No. CV 09-0287 CBM (RZx), 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 118364 (2011)