June 2021 - Parks & Recreation - 28

L AW R EV I EW

the uniform, and be able to take
part in off-the-water activities together. " But, F.V. would have to
have one-to-one instruction for
the safety of the rowers.
According to Perez, she was not
seeking an accommodation for F.V.
so that he could participate in the
after-school program. She denied
seeking any accommodation from
LCRA and any modifications in

In this particular instance, the
ADA claims involved a Title II
claim against the City and a
Title III claim against LCRA.
the training of LCRA's personnel.
Perez only sought to have LCRA
integrate F.V. into the after-school
program. Specifically, she stated
that she " just wanted him to row
after school " and that " he doesn't
need any accommodations to row "
because he can row. Perez stated
that she would like F.V. " to be with
his peers and in a team setting and
be accepted and not segregated and
go off on a boat by himself and row
with a man that he doesn't even
know. " Perez stated that she did
not request any accommodations
for F.V. because, in her opinion, he
did not need any accommodations
to participate in the after-school
program.
Perez also denied seeking a modification to any of the City's policies, practices or procedures. Perez
stated that she was seeking from
the City the same thing she was
seeking from LCRA. She was only
requesting for F.V. " to be accepted
like any other child. "
A resolution was not reached at
the meeting and Perez did not get
28	 Parks & Recreation

| J U N E 2 02 1 | PA R K S A N D R E C R E AT I O N .O R G

back to LCRA about its proposal.
LCRA tried to coordinate a followup meeting with F.V.'s family, but
there was no response.

ADA Titles
As cited by the federal district
court, the ADA covers three main
types of discrimination, each of
which is addressed in one of the
statute's three main subchapters:
Title I prohibits discrimination
in private employment; Title II
prohibits discrimination by public entities (state or local governments); and Title III prohibits discrimination by a " place of public
accommodation, " which is a private entity that offers commercial
services to the public. 
In this particular instance, the
ADA claims involved a Title II
claim against the City and a Title
III claim against LCRA.

Title II Claim Against
the City
As cited by the federal district
court, Title II of the ADA states:
" no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of
the services, programs, or activities
of a public entity, or be subjected
to discrimination by any such entity. "  42 U.S.C. § 12132. Accordingly, as described by the court, Title II
requires the following for a plaintiff
to establish a Title II ADA claim:
(1) that he is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) that
he was either excluded from participation in or denied the benefits
of a public entity's services, programs, or activities, or was otherwise discriminated against by
the public entity; and (3) that the

exclusion, denial of benefit, or discrimination was by reason of the
plaintiff 's disability. 
Further, when a plaintiff alleges
discrimination based on a public
entity's refusal to provide reasonable accommodation, the court
noted: " Plaintiff must also establish that Plaintiff requested an accommodation and that the public
entity failed to provide a reasonable accommodation. "
In addition, proof of a Title II
claim would only entitle a plaintiff
to injunctive relief; i.e., a court order prohibiting discriminatory conduct in violation of the ADA. In
this case, Perez was seeking monetary damages. To obtain damages
under Title II, the court would require Perez to prove the City " engaged in intentional discrimination, which requires a showing of
deliberate indifference. " Moreover,
to establish deliberate indifference,
plaintiff Perez would have to prove
the defendant City " knew that
harm to a federally protected right
was substantially likely and failed
to act on that likelihood. "

City Service Program 
As noted by the federal district
court: " Individuals and private entities are not subject to liability under Title II of the ADA. " Instead,
Title II of the ADA only governs
the actions of a " public entity. " In
this particular instance, the City
did not dispute that it is a " public
entity. " The City, however, questioned whether the LCRA " Learn
to Row " program at the City's
boathouse constituted " a public entity's services, programs, or activities " under Title II.
While Title II applied to " all services, programs, or activities pro-
June 2021 - Parks & Recreation

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of June 2021 - Parks & Recreation
