Maryland federal courts rule plaintiffs can't sue for lack of handicap access

The Fair Housing Act's two-year statute of limitations for design claims begins to run on the date construction is completed - and therefore claims against architects and builders were time-barred, the 9th Circuit and a U.S. District Court in Maryland have ruled.

Student housing

The plaintiff in the Maryland case was a wheelchair-bound college student who signed a lease for an apartment in a publicly funded student housing building designed and constructed six years earlier. Handicapped access was not designed into the building, but the college informed the plaintiff there were no handicapped accessible rooms available before he signed the lease.

After seeing the apartment for the first time, he sought assistance from the university but received no accommodation. He then sued the college and architecture firm under the Act for the lack of handicap access in the building's design.

The architects moved to dismiss the claim as time-barred, arguing the two-year statute of limitations began to run when the building was first constructed.

The court agreed, refusing to apply the "continuing violation" doctrine.

"The statute of limitations provision would essentially be meaningless if the continuing violation doctrine were applied to claims asserted under that section, because a company designing or constructing a non-compliant building could be subject to liability indefinitely," the court reasoned.

The court also rejected an ADA claim against the architects.

"A review of the statute compels the conclusion that Congress merely intended to require handicap accessibility at a greater number of newly constructed facilities, not to expand the scope of who can be liable for noncompliant structures," the court said.

"[T]he ADA does not impose liability on architects for failing to 'design and construct' buildings to be accessible to persons with disabilities," it concluded.

No ramps

The 9th Circuit considered two consolidated cases challenging apartment buildings that lacked access ramps to entrances and curb cuts for handicapped parking spaces.

In both cases, the plaintiffs filed design-and-construction claims against the builders and architects.

But the court held that claims for improper design must be brought within two years of the completion of the construction phase, which ends on the date the last certificate of occupancy is issued.

"Plaintiffs confuse a continuing violation with the continuing effects of a past violation," the court said.

"Although the ill effects of a failure to properly design and construct may continue to he felt decades after construction is complete, failing to design and construct is a single instance of unlawful conduct."

To hold otherwise "'raise[s] serious equitable issues with respect to timeliness,' because it strips the statute of limitations of all meaning," the court added.

Kuchmas v. Towson University (Lawyers USA No. 9938319) U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland No. 06-3281. Sept. 10, 2007..

U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit. Garcia v. Brockway, No. 05- 35647. Sept. 20, 2007. Lawyers USA No. 9938324.

Credit: Lawyers USA Staff