Recent Development by Justin M. Woodard
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiffs challenged the lower court's opinion on several grounds. First, they contended that in a suit for injunctive relief under the ADA, the applicable statute of limitations accrues when an injured plaintiff first encounters a non-ADA-compliant construction, rather than when the city completes or alters the construction. Alternatively, the plaintiffs argued that suits for injunctive relief do not carry limitations periods, the continuing violations doctrine relieved them from a statute of limitations defense, and the City had the burden of showing that the limitations period had expired. The Fifth Circuit held that Texas' two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims applied to the plaintiffs' case; the plaintiffs' Title II cause of action accrued when non-ADA-compliant construction was completed rather than encountered; and the City, rather than the plaintiffs, had the burden to prove that the limitations period had expired. Frame v. City of Arlington, 575 F.3d 432, 437, 441 (5th Cir. 2009).
About the Author
Justin M. Woodard. J.D. candidate 2011, Tulane University School of Law; B.A. 2008, Philosophy, magna cum laude, Sewanee: The University of the South.
Citation
84 Tul. L. Rev. 1373 (2010)