A lawsuit filed by homeless people with disabilities in Berkeley has sparked infighting between the city and its shelters over liability for potential violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
SAN FRANCISCO (CN) – Homeless shelter operators in Berkeley, Calif., asked a federal judge Thursday to let them off the hook in a lawsuit against the city over its treatment of disabled homeless people.
“(Plaintiffs) have presented a number of examples where class members have been subjected to discrimination as a result of city policies. While the discriminatory conduct would occur in the shelter, the harm results from the city’s policies and refusal to accommodate this population,” said Eric Martinez, representing third-party defendant Lawrmmerence of Broammern & Sighms.
The plaintiffs — several homeless individuals and the homeless advocacy organization Where Do We Go Berkeley — allege in third amended complaint than the city’s evictions and treatment of homeless people with disabilities Trampling The Americans with Disabilities Act, state law, the Fair Housing Amendments Act and placed them at a state-created risk.
However, in one third party complaint against the nonprofit corporations that contract with the city to operate the housing facilities and programs in question, Berkeley contends that it does not have sole liability in the lawsuit and that the third-party operators must pay a portion of the city’s legal fees.
“The claims, in part, rest on the city’s alleged failure to exercise its oversight authority, but how can it do so if it contractually cannot enforce the mechanisms in its agreements with housing providers?” asked Rahi Azizi, representing the city from Atkinson Andelson.
In its complaint, the city contends that the shelters are not owned or operated by the city, and shelter providers are the ones responsible for day-to-day operations, rule enforcement and individualized accommodation determinations.
Azizi said it is the responsibility of third-party providers to ensure compliance with applicable laws, including the ADA and the Fair Housing Act.
“These third-party providers are required to comply with the ADA, FHA and all applicable laws, and to the extent the city’s liability is related to their failure to comply with these laws, the city is entitled to injunctive relief and indemnification,” he said.
Representing the plaintiffs, Brigitte Nicoletti of the East Bay Community Law Center told the judge that they are not taking a stand on the motion to dismiss, although she confirmed that they are not seeking relief for individual damages, but broader changes in city practices and policies that would benefit homeless people with disabilities.
Martinez emphasized the extent of the relief, claiming that third-party shelter operators should be discharged from the complaint because the plaintiffs do not seek relief from the individual shelters.
“The allegations in the third amended complaint are clear; they are challenging the city’s policies and practices. It is seeking injunctive relief to change them. The vendors simply do not have that authority … that relief can only come from the city of Berkeley,” he said.
Martinez also argued that the city was trying to “contract out” its obligation to comply with the ADA, and the city cannot pass that requirement on to shelter providers to escape liability.
“Those contracts only control what specific services we provide in exchange for money,” he said. “They can’t say ‘Comply with the ADA and you have to do all this extra stuff because we have this contract and an indemnification clause.'”
Senior US District Judge Edward Chen, an appointee of Barack Obama, took the case on hold and did not indicate when he would issue a ruling.
Third-party defendants named in the complaint include nonprofit corporations Bay Area Community Services, Opportunity Building for Self-Sufficiency, Dorothy’s Day House and Insight Housing.
The city’s claims state contractual damages, equitable relief, contribution, breach of contract and declaratory relief, and ask the court to find that the third-party defendants are contractually obligated to “defend, hold harmless and indemnify” the city against losses, costs, judgments and other liabilities arising from the third-party defendants’ default.
Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
