This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Civil Rights
ADA
Unruh Civil Rights Act

Margaret Dowling v. Contra Costa County, Ken Torre, State of California

Published: Aug. 5, 2006 | Result Date: Mar. 30, 2006 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: C 04-00973 Verdict –  Defense

Court

Contra Costa Superior


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Timothy S. Thimesch

Gene A. Farber


Defendant

Janet L. Holmes
(Office of the Monterey County Counsel)


Experts

Plaintiff

Karl Danz
(technical)

Barry N. Atwood
(technical)

Defendant

Larry M. Wood
(technical)

Facts

Plaintiff Margaret Dowling periodically came to the Contra Costa County Superior courthouse for various issues. She is disabled and uses a wheelchair and custom-made van for transportation. Various aspects of the courthouse were not accessible to disabled people. The plaintiff brought suit under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, the Unruth Civil Rights Act and the state Disabled Rights Act and Disabled Rights Statutes.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
The plaintiff claimed that several street curbs and counters were inaccessible, the entrance ramp was too steep, and the bathroom stall, toilet, sink and dispensers were inadequate. She provided expert testimony to numerous violations. She alleged that the county was aware of the violations and failed to respond appropriately or undertake periodic upgrades as required by law.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
The defendant admitted some incompliance but claimed plaintiff's allegations were exaggerated. The small courthouse was built in 1957, and defendant contended that many modern disability laws do not apply to it. The defendant claimed it is only legally required to do what is "readily achievable," which is an industry standard. The defendant alleged that it tried to upgrade the courthouse as much as possible, but financial limitations prevented it from upgrading its disabled amenities to modern standards.

Damages

The plaintiff demanded injunctive relief in the form of a renovated courthouse, which she estimated would cost between $30,000-$50,000. She made a $5,000 claim for her pain and suffering.

Injuries

The plaintiff claimed she was humiliated and denied access to the courthouse.

Result

The jury found for the defense.

Other Information

In post-trial interviews, the jurors stated that they found the alleged violations minor. They were also skeptical of plaintiff's motives because she was absent during most of the trial.

Deliberation

45 minutes

Poll

12-0 (rejecting civil rights violations)

Length

nine days


#92612

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390