[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
May I please to the Court, Aaron Clefton for Plaintiff Appellant Matthew Scott.

[00:00:07] Speaker 03:
I'd like to reserve five minutes for my time.

[00:00:09] Speaker 03:
I'd like to thank the Court for allowing us to have a hearing today.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
This case is narrowly about the Court's decision below to narrow whether a plaintiff can succeed on a plaintiff's motion for a plenary injunction on the basis of whether intentionality is an element within the ADA.

[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
And then broadly, it touches upon several different aspects of the regulations involved with ADA Title II discrimination cases, including the general discrimination regulations, as well as the specific ones about what happens when a facility is altered.

[00:00:50] Speaker 02:
If the court were to find as a threshold matter that there was a failure to apply the proper standard and that the lower court incorrectly applied this intent requirement or element, would it be helpful for us to, well, wouldn't it make more sense for us to just remand so that a full record could be developed versus wrestle with some of these other issues, particular ones of a first impression?

[00:01:17] Speaker 03:
yes your honor I think it remand is appropriate if your honor would like to honor honors excuse me would like to give instructions about you know the other underlying issues and given the

[00:01:28] Speaker 03:
departure I would say of the district court from what has been clear law for a long time touching on the aspects of whether plaintiff is likely to prevail in the court below for the reasons given could be a thing your honors decide to do but your honors correct like you could you all could decide

[00:01:49] Speaker 03:
just to remand and get a full record on the case below.

[00:01:52] Speaker 02:
Do you believe we have a sufficient record to address all these various theories that you offer as to why the City of Los Angeles was required to leave these single-use restrooms unlocked?

[00:02:06] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor, because there's undisputed facts about what happened, the policy involved in shutting the, locking the restrooms.

[00:02:13] Speaker 03:
There's no further record as to, the only thing that would need more sussing out would be the issues regarding security, which, because the court didn't get to the further elements of the Plummer injunction, there's no way to know what the court below was thinking in terms of factual findings.

[00:02:33] Speaker 03:
On the other hand,

[00:02:34] Speaker 03:
The record is very clear.

[00:02:35] Speaker 03:
The videos that we've submitted, the policies that the court, the defendant and appellees have provided show that there's no question about what is happening in the case.

[00:02:53] Speaker 03:
It's just a question of those other elements not being decided by the court below.

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
All right, so let's address then the other issues before us.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
Okay, sure.

[00:03:00] Speaker 03:
So I would say,

[00:03:04] Speaker 03:
First of all, I want to touch on the Loper-Bright issue that was an intervening decision that may or may not affect the case.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
We believe it does not affect the case for a very specific reason.

[00:03:15] Speaker 03:
Title II, Congress specifically mandated that the Department of Justice do the regulations for it.

[00:03:25] Speaker 03:
There's numerous Supreme Court authority as well as district, I mean appellate court authority on what happens when

[00:03:34] Speaker 03:
an act like the ADA, which was itself an affirmation of previous Rehab Act regulations.

[00:03:42] Speaker 03:
And then subsequently, the 2008 ADA Amendments Act is then a reaffirmation of the regulations of the ADA that basically Congress is adopting the regulations and interpretation that the DOJ presents under those

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
through, you know, through that process of passing that legislation.

[00:04:12] Speaker 03:
Specifically, if you look at U.S.

[00:04:13] Speaker 03:
versus Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, it says that when Congress then that reenacts a statute, voices its approval of an administrative order or other interpretation thereof, Congress is treated as having adopted that interpretation.

[00:04:29] Speaker 03:
The Third Circuit applied this reasoning in Helen L. versus Dieter Rio regarding the Rehab Act regulations.

[00:04:40] Speaker 03:
Olmstead versus Xtrel Zimmering was a Supreme Court case that talked about why the Chevron was not implicated in the regulations and interpretations thereof.

[00:04:55] Speaker 03:
And finally, shots versus city of, excuse me, Planceton, Florida, in the 11th Circuit, that Congress expressly authorized the Attorney General to make rules within the force of law interpreting and implementing the ADA provisions applicable to public entities.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
The DOJ issued its rules contemporaneously with implementation thereof and have controlling weight.

[00:05:20] Speaker 02:
So let's talk about the actual regulations themselves.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:05:24] Speaker 03:
So first, 35, 28 CFR 35130B32, a little i2.

[00:05:34] Speaker 03:
This is about the methods administration or purpose and effect.

[00:05:38] Speaker 03:
of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishments of the objectives of a public entity's program with respect to individuals with disabilities.

[00:05:45] Speaker 03:
This is the key, I would say the key regulation that is simply dismissed in this case and should be, should fall in plaintiff's favor.

[00:05:58] Speaker 03:
Intention of LAX and defendant to create unisex family all gender restroom and have it be accessible is a clear statement of the objective of its program with respect to people with disabilities.

[00:06:15] Speaker 03:
Locking that door

[00:06:16] Speaker 03:
is clearly substantially impairing that objective.

[00:06:20] Speaker 03:
It makes no sense to have millions of dollars spent on a renovation and supporting the restrooms that are serving that area of alteration and then lock them away.

[00:06:31] Speaker 03:
When there's alternatives to securing that kind of, like if there were security issues, for instance, they're common across all

[00:06:44] Speaker 03:
all private spaces that are publicly offered.

[00:06:48] Speaker 03:
So any restroom that's going to be offered to the public is going to be implicated for security.

[00:06:53] Speaker 03:
And they're not unique to just that one restroom.

[00:06:57] Speaker 03:
However, what is unique is that defeating that purpose, defeating that objective for people with disabilities is itself defined as discrimination.

[00:07:05] Speaker 02:
So clearly, there was an ADA compliant bathroom that was available, that was accessible near the single use restrooms.

[00:07:15] Speaker 03:
There is, however, it does not have an adjacent sink.

[00:07:18] Speaker 03:
So the family restrooms are one compartment, one room, essentially, and it has an adjacent sink, whereas the

[00:07:25] Speaker 02:
Unicef or sort of same-sex so they're different is but the same time the multi-use Restrooms are ADA compliant.

[00:07:35] Speaker 02:
Yes.

[00:07:36] Speaker 02:
All right, so to extent that those exists Why in this case you believe that the law would require the single use to be not only in existence which it does it is in existence it's available and

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
And it requires somebody to find a janitor or find somebody to let them in.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
Yes, your honor.

[00:07:57] Speaker 02:
But unlocked.

[00:07:59] Speaker 03:
Yes, your honor.

[00:08:00] Speaker 03:
So for the same, your honor, for the same reason that this court decided that it was a proper to, in Rhodey versus Bonta, to keep a hospital open that was served both disabled and non-disabled people, but primarily disabled people.

[00:08:15] Speaker 03:
that it was improper that would disproportionately impact those who were being served by that hospital, so too in this case.

[00:08:25] Speaker 03:
If you're going to have the offer of the family restroom, it has to be made accessible and has to be made available.

[00:08:32] Speaker 03:
The DOJ interpretation of the maintenance statute, so as we get to another regulation here, is 28 CFR 133A.

[00:08:40] Speaker 03:
requires that features of facilities and equipment be maintained and be made available.

[00:08:48] Speaker 03:
And the DOJ interpretation of that, which we think has been ratified by Congress because of the 2008 ADA Amendment Act, specifically says that during business hours,

[00:09:01] Speaker 03:
Accessible entrances and and accessible routes should be main said be required to be unlocked And so that's what and then also was the finding of the district court in Arroyo Versus gauge bowl in the title three context as well, but that What you're talking about is an accessible route and there's no question that This single-use bathroom was accessible.

[00:09:25] Speaker 02:
You could get there.

[00:09:26] Speaker 02:
The only question was entering it, correct?

[00:09:29] Speaker 03:
Not quite, Your Honor.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
So the regulations are very clear that the path of travel, what is defined as path of travel, is two things at once.

[00:09:37] Speaker 03:
It's both the physical route you're describing, Your Honor, but it's also statutorily defined as the restrooms serving the area of alteration.

[00:09:46] Speaker 03:
So when you're talking about maintaining the path of travel statutorily and regulatory-wise, you're talking about ensuring that the restrooms are still serving that area of alteration.

[00:09:57] Speaker 03:
So in a sense, even though there are some bathrooms available, and let's set aside the disparate impact side of things for a second.

[00:10:05] Speaker 03:
It's just when we look at the general prohibition against discrimination, the 35.130 B32, we're talking about the ways in which the public entity puts forward its goals or its various actions towards the public and the people with disabilities they're in.

[00:10:24] Speaker 03:
So if it has these,

[00:10:27] Speaker 03:
special accommodations, like these 80 accessible family restrooms, they need to be maintained, they need to be left unlocked, because to do otherwise is to defeat the purpose of their goal.

[00:10:38] Speaker 00:
I mean, can it be argued that the airport is making a judgment?

[00:10:43] Speaker 00:
I mean, they've said we lock these because homeless people go in and lock themselves in and for periods of time.

[00:10:49] Speaker 00:
and cause damage or whatever.

[00:10:52] Speaker 00:
So in that scenario, they're not accessible to people who might need them who have disabilities because somebody's got themselves locked in there.

[00:10:58] Speaker 00:
And so the airport makes this judgment of we're going to solve that lack of access problem by preventing that from happening, locking the door and making sure that people who actually need them go in.

[00:11:10] Speaker 00:
So why isn't that them trying to serve the accessibility goal

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:15] Speaker 03:
So I think if that were the only fact in the record below, that would make sense.

[00:11:20] Speaker 03:
But the fact is there are other things that have happened in the multi-stall single sex restrooms that if that logic were followed, all the restrooms would be closed.

[00:11:30] Speaker 03:
Because the fire was set in the multi-stall restrooms.

[00:11:34] Speaker 03:
There was no response to sort of stop.

[00:11:36] Speaker 03:
or to enhance accessibility by closing those and keeping the others open.

[00:11:41] Speaker 03:
So there's a logical sort of slippage that happens, I think, when we're talking about what the security response is to these various sort of access of, you know, sort of what available access there is.

[00:11:58] Speaker 03:
So to your honest point, like, if there are other ways to sort of solve homelessness, it shouldn't be on the backs and the rights of disabled people.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
And so, for instance, it's not in the record.

[00:12:09] Speaker 03:
We could go to the court below and argue it.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
But if their concern was you lock yourself in and you can't get into that restroom and nobody can see in there, you could just remove the bottom half of the door.

[00:12:19] Speaker 03:
Just know you have in the multi-stall restrooms, you have a way to look in and see if somebody has locked themselves in and take appropriate action because of that.

[00:12:27] Speaker 03:
Nothing stops a disabled person or a homeless person, excuse me, from going into a multi-stall restroom and camping out there either.

[00:12:34] Speaker 03:
Homelessness is not an issue that should be exclusively burdened to be solved based on the burden to disabled people.

[00:12:44] Speaker 03:
It should be something that our society has to deal with in a separate manner that still respects the laws that have been longstanding.

[00:12:52] Speaker 01:
And I'm going to take you over your time, so I will give you some time for rebuttal.

[00:12:57] Speaker 01:
Circling back to your original argument that the district court applied the wrong standards.

[00:13:01] Speaker 01:
So under Title II, there's a causation requirement.

[00:13:05] Speaker 01:
So we have to show the person was excluded from services because of their disability.

[00:13:11] Speaker 01:
And the district court's order is not fulsome.

[00:13:15] Speaker 01:
Not a lot for us to figure out what the basis of the decision was.

[00:13:19] Speaker 01:
But it seems that the district court may have been saying that it was a causation problem, not an intentionality problem.

[00:13:27] Speaker 01:
You agree that you would have to show causation and then you'd have to show causation for the injector for leaf as well.

[00:13:35] Speaker 01:
Is that correct?

[00:13:36] Speaker 03:
I think the causation is linked to the regulatory requirements.

[00:13:41] Speaker 03:
So when you look at the, excuse me, the second element of an ADA claim under Chandler versus, I think it's Chandler,

[00:13:55] Speaker 03:
that says excluded for participation in or otherwise discriminated against with regard to public entities, services, programs, or activities, that otherwise discriminated against is defined by the regulations.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
So when you look at the regulations, if there are violations of them, then you're going to have a cause, you know, that's the cause of the discrimination.

[00:14:14] Speaker 03:
Okay, thank you.

[00:14:16] Speaker 01:
All right, so I'm sorry, how much time did you request?

[00:14:20] Speaker 01:
Was it two or?

[00:14:21] Speaker 03:
Five minutes, but it's okay, whatever you have there.

[00:14:24] Speaker 01:
I'll give you three, OK?

[00:14:25] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:14:32] Speaker 04:
Good morning, Your Honors, and it pleases the Court, Rodolfo Ruiz, on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, which includes Los Angeles World Airports.

[00:14:40] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I'd like to start by clarifying some of the record that I believe was perhaps misstated.

[00:14:47] Speaker 04:
In terms of the purpose of these single-user restrooms, it can be found

[00:14:54] Speaker 04:
In excerpts of record 134, quote, this room shall serve and accommodate passengers traveling with companions, passengers traveling with the opposite sex, and passengers traveling with children.

[00:15:08] Speaker 04:
It's not something that was intended to be dedicated for the

[00:15:12] Speaker 04:
the disabled particularly.

[00:15:15] Speaker 02:
Wouldn't that be problematic though?

[00:15:17] Speaker 02:
I mean, it should be accessible equally to disabled people versus others.

[00:15:20] Speaker 04:
Correct, Your Honor.

[00:15:21] Speaker 04:
But to the extent that appellant is trying to say that this was something that was specific for the disabled that was not provided by the multi-user bathrooms, that's simply incorrect.

[00:15:33] Speaker 04:
The intent behind this is simply to provide privacy for

[00:15:36] Speaker 04:
types of traveling situations, but in terms of the city's obligations to provide ADA compliant restrooms, certainly they both have to be, or at least one has to be, and that's covered with the ADA.

[00:15:51] Speaker 02:
And let me direct the same threshold question to you that I did to opposing counsel.

[00:15:54] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:15:55] Speaker 02:
To the extent that the lower court applied this intent requirement, which doesn't exist, do you agree with that?

[00:16:03] Speaker 04:
Not for a disparate

[00:16:06] Speaker 04:
impact case.

[00:16:08] Speaker 04:
I don't think the court has to remand this because I think the record is clear and I don't have to cite to your honors the multiple cases that the court is free to affirm on any other grounds that are apparent from the record and certainly arguments made by the city.

[00:16:26] Speaker 04:
But secondarily, I also think it's apparent to me from

[00:16:32] Speaker 04:
humbly to me, at least from what the district court did, your honor, that it was a discussion about meaningful access.

[00:16:38] Speaker 04:
If the court looks at the district court's opinion, it's talking about meaningful access as provided by the multi-user bathrooms.

[00:16:48] Speaker 04:
There's never really any discussion by the district court about what was the intent here by the city in doing anything.

[00:16:55] Speaker 04:
So I think- Well, that's because the court found that there was no evidence of intent, correct?

[00:16:59] Speaker 04:
Yes, but the facts referenced dealt with meaningful access, which is precisely what is covered in the disparate treatment cases.

[00:17:10] Speaker 02:
In your view, is there sufficient evidence in the record?

[00:17:13] Speaker 02:
Is it fulsome enough to be able to decide the case with respect to your alternative theories?

[00:17:19] Speaker 04:
Yes, it is.

[00:17:24] Speaker 04:
Appellant's Council just now said that there really are no disputes about what's occurring here.

[00:17:30] Speaker 04:
The reasoning provided by Mr. Ailey, which is in the record, is not only the issues with the unhoused, but there are serious security concerns.

[00:17:43] Speaker 04:
There's a knife found

[00:17:45] Speaker 04:
in one of those restrooms, the single user restroom, Your Honor.

[00:17:48] Speaker 04:
There was a fire set.

[00:17:50] Speaker 04:
There was an instance where someone, I don't think it matters if it happened to be an unhoused person, there was someone who had stolen baggage and was going through it while it was locked.

[00:18:00] Speaker 04:
The difference between the multi-user and the single user, obviously, is you can lock the single user.

[00:18:06] Speaker 04:
In essence, it's a stall.

[00:18:08] Speaker 04:
One thing I also wanted to point out before I forget, Your Honor, in the record, and the video submitted

[00:18:14] Speaker 04:
to the district court.

[00:18:16] Speaker 04:
And I want to direct the court's attention to videos marked as 1 and 11.

[00:18:20] Speaker 04:
And it's tied to the excerpts of record 151.

[00:18:26] Speaker 04:
These things are not adjacent.

[00:18:28] Speaker 04:
If you look at the videos, appellant would have to get out of the wheelchair and then walk or somehow ambulate.

[00:18:37] Speaker 04:
Obviously, you could not walk, but ambulate.

[00:18:39] Speaker 04:
to the sink.

[00:18:42] Speaker 04:
And if that requires, I mean, you have to get off the toilet and then ambulate with the wheelchair.

[00:18:47] Speaker 04:
It's the same exposure to microbes and germs when you're touching the wheelchair and going through an area of the restroom that's traveled by others.

[00:18:57] Speaker 04:
So there is nothing in this record, just no medical opinion, no doctor's note, no evidence about others

[00:19:08] Speaker 04:
suffering from infections or this problem.

[00:19:11] Speaker 04:
It's simply a lay person who's interested, obviously the appellant, saying that he has this fear.

[00:19:19] Speaker 04:
And that's not enough to establish that there's any need for an accommodation, nor was that a theory he was seeking.

[00:19:28] Speaker 04:
So the statements that this was somehow

[00:19:33] Speaker 04:
created for the disabled and adherence and adjacency next to the toilet.

[00:19:39] Speaker 04:
It's erroneous, Your Honor.

[00:19:40] Speaker 04:
I've directed the court to the record.

[00:19:42] Speaker 04:
But there's certainly enough here.

[00:19:43] Speaker 04:
There's to affirm the district court on multiple grounds.

[00:19:50] Speaker 04:
There's simply no chance of succeeding.

[00:19:54] Speaker 04:
They haven't demonstrated the likelihood of succeeding on the merits.

[00:19:58] Speaker 04:
And it's a heightened standard here, since this is

[00:20:01] Speaker 04:
a mandatory injunction here.

[00:20:04] Speaker 04:
Compelling.

[00:20:05] Speaker 04:
They're requesting that the airport leave these doors open at all times, despite all the security concerns.

[00:20:15] Speaker 04:
There was no meaningful access denied.

[00:20:19] Speaker 04:
And I think that the question asked earlier about were the multi-user restrooms ADA compliant, I think that's critical.

[00:20:30] Speaker 04:
So the meaningful access is there.

[00:20:33] Speaker 04:
What's your view of the Arroyo case that was cited by the opposing counsel?

[00:20:38] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I think if we had, like the Arroyo case, your Honor, multi-user restrooms that could not be entered and accessed by a wheelchair because it was not ADA compliant,

[00:20:51] Speaker 04:
like the Arroyo case, if the airport had these multi-user restrooms that didn't have the bars to be able to allow people who were disabled in wheelchairs to get into a toilet.

[00:21:02] Speaker 04:
And then no signage, we had signage, the airport did, no signage directing a disabled person as to what they should do when they're encountering a multi-user restroom that is not accessible.

[00:21:18] Speaker 04:
And then,

[00:21:19] Speaker 04:
no way to open it because it's always locked, then yes, there would be grounds there potentially for an injunction.

[00:21:28] Speaker 02:
That is not our case.

[00:21:29] Speaker 02:
Just later in the royal, we found it didn't matter whether or not there were these other accommodations.

[00:21:34] Speaker 02:
What mattered is that this unisex restroom was kept locked, correct?

[00:21:39] Speaker 04:
Yes, and that there was no access.

[00:21:42] Speaker 04:
I think it's distinguishable because obviously

[00:21:46] Speaker 04:
We had an accessible restroom that was ADA compliant.

[00:21:49] Speaker 04:
Secondarily, we had a system also that if someone, disabled or non-disabled alike, wanted to use a single-user restroom, they could make a request.

[00:22:01] Speaker 02:
Could you address the DOJ regulations addressing this issue?

[00:22:05] Speaker 04:
And, Your Honor, if it's at all important, we'd request

[00:22:10] Speaker 04:
an opportunity to brief the Loper case.

[00:22:13] Speaker 04:
But I think Loper makes clear that this court is, or courts in general, Your Honor, under the APA, simply apply rules of statutory construction.

[00:22:27] Speaker 04:
And I think the TAM is not something that's

[00:22:34] Speaker 04:
you would refer to.

[00:22:36] Speaker 04:
I know there was case law cited to you about maybe certain circumstances where there could be instances where DOJ regulations, because they're highly informed and lots of experience, but none of those things have been established in this record.

[00:22:53] Speaker 02:
So I think- Would you respond to the idea that Congress, in enacting Title II, mandated DOJ to

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
create these regulations and that given that mandate that we should give them express weight.

[00:23:07] Speaker 04:
I think the regulations themselves certainly can be looked at but the technical manual no under Loper but in terms of the regulations if in terms of the regulations being cited by appellant they're dealing with access and access here was there for all the arguments I've already made about the multi-user but also

[00:23:30] Speaker 04:
And Your Honor, I actually had.

[00:23:35] Speaker 04:
Sorry, there's just so much paper.

[00:23:37] Speaker 04:
But Your Honor, in terms of the actual part that's being referenced, it's, from my memory, that particular

[00:23:48] Speaker 04:
that the section that says accessible doors must be unlocked when the public entity is open for business correct your honor and that is in the area I think there's a heading called routes or it's about routes really and related to maintenance people could there's no blockage to the single user and I think it's not specifically saying to me for that to make sense

[00:24:16] Speaker 04:
in terms of the context of businesses, because you could have problems where the usage of restrooms is denied because people are in there locking them so much.

[00:24:27] Speaker 04:
If you have a system whereby you can make sure people can get in there, but it's not being misused, then I think in essence, it's ensuring access.

[00:24:39] Speaker 04:
So one, I don't think that regulation is really applicable to this situation.

[00:24:44] Speaker 04:
And two, even if the court did consider that that regulation has application here, I think the way the airport was doing this, it was actually enhancing access to prevent people from just camping out and denying access to people who really needed to use the restroom.

[00:25:02] Speaker 04:
And third, the public safety component still is an overwrite, even if the court thought

[00:25:09] Speaker 04:
that those sorts of things were not persuasive, the previous arguments.

[00:25:15] Speaker 04:
Because at a certain point, I mean, at what point does, obviously Los Angeles International Airport, it's a known concern for multiple law enforcement agencies, Your Honor.

[00:25:31] Speaker 04:
in terms of prevention of crime, terrorist activity.

[00:25:35] Speaker 04:
If there were violent crimes and thefts happening every day, would it then be allowed to lock those restrooms so as to ensure that wasn't happening and to ensure access?

[00:25:48] Speaker 04:
At a certain point, I don't think, I think it would have to be acknowledged, and I think we've shown enough in terms of the legitimate concerns that

[00:26:01] Speaker 04:
And an airport like Los Angeles International Airport, you can't wait for things to deteriorate.

[00:26:06] Speaker 04:
It was bad enough.

[00:26:09] Speaker 04:
It was a reasonable step.

[00:26:11] Speaker 04:
And there was meaningful access to a multi-user restroom.

[00:26:14] Speaker 04:
So I think the district court got it right.

[00:26:16] Speaker 04:
From reading that opinion, I just feel like the word intentionality was not trying to, either it was just a poor choice of words or it was referring to intentionality in the sense of,

[00:26:28] Speaker 04:
Does this affect a denial somehow of access?

[00:26:31] Speaker 02:
Does the district court rely upon this public safety consideration and its determination?

[00:26:39] Speaker 04:
Your Honor, I'm in not that long of an order, and I can just quickly take a look.

[00:26:48] Speaker 02:
And I guess to the extent that it didn't, at this point, would we benefit from some fact-finding by the lower court?

[00:26:59] Speaker 04:
Um, certainly if, well, I would say the record on the, the,

[00:27:09] Speaker 04:
The record on past incidents is already here.

[00:27:13] Speaker 04:
It's in the record, but it wasn't cited by the district court.

[00:27:15] Speaker 04:
No, that's correct, Your Honor.

[00:27:18] Speaker 04:
Correct.

[00:27:18] Speaker 04:
So if the court wanted to affirm on a different ground, it would rely on the authority that there's sufficient record here to affirm on other grounds with that case law that I don't need to repeat to Your Honors.

[00:27:29] Speaker 04:
And I believe it would be appropriate given that

[00:27:32] Speaker 04:
One, it's appropriate because it's apparent from the record, and two, appellate counsels just hearing oral argument seems to concede at that point that the record is fully developed in this case.

[00:27:46] Speaker 04:
I suppose maybe perhaps you would hire experts to talk about terrorist threats and criminal activity potentially at airports, but I'm not sure

[00:27:59] Speaker 02:
Well at this point I'm not so concerned about the state of the record versus what the district court did with that.

[00:28:06] Speaker 04:
I don't think the district court really entered into that analysis to answer the court's question.

[00:28:10] Speaker 04:
I think the district court talked about the elements for this, the heightened standard for preliminary injunction to be entered against the City of Los Angeles and then focused on

[00:28:25] Speaker 04:
a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and concluding there was meaningful access here.

[00:28:30] Speaker 04:
So you're not going to prevail on that basis.

[00:28:32] Speaker 04:
I don't recall.

[00:28:39] Speaker 04:
So I think that, to answer the court's question, I think that is what the court did.

[00:28:42] Speaker 04:
But I think that the court is here is free to affirm on the additional grounds.

[00:28:48] Speaker 04:
On the other elements, there really was no showing at the district court.

[00:28:52] Speaker 04:
balancing of the equities, those other elements, nor was there much argument here.

[00:29:00] Speaker 04:
So, I mean, I think it's essentially conceded and the Court can affirm on those grounds alone.

[00:29:07] Speaker 04:
With regards to cutting open or cutting off half of the

[00:29:12] Speaker 04:
bathroom door for the single user stall, that's completely unworkable.

[00:29:17] Speaker 04:
It's a single user stall, so it's sort of like its own, I mean, it's a single user restroom, so it's sort of like its own stall, and you're talking about no privacy then for people who are handling their business, and there's literally tens of thousands of people walking by those areas every day.

[00:29:34] Speaker 04:
That's just simply not workable or serious.

[00:29:38] Speaker 04:
And the reason you wouldn't walk

[00:29:41] Speaker 04:
No one's talking about locking the multi-user restrooms because they don't need to be locked.

[00:29:45] Speaker 04:
They're multi-user.

[00:29:47] Speaker 04:
So if anyone is trying to like set fires or steal from baggage that they've stolen and rummaging through it or sneaking weapons or knives in there somehow, law enforcement can just go into the multi-user restroom.

[00:30:03] Speaker 04:
It's not locked.

[00:30:04] Speaker 04:
So I think all of those

[00:30:09] Speaker 04:
but experiments by the appellant here in argument, I don't think hold water.

[00:30:14] Speaker 04:
So for those reasons, unless the court has further questions for, well, I do have 43 seconds, but.

[00:30:19] Speaker 01:
Actually, you're over.

[00:30:20] Speaker 01:
I'm sorry.

[00:30:20] Speaker 01:
When it starts going up, it means you've gone over.

[00:30:23] Speaker 04:
I'm sorry.

[00:30:24] Speaker 01:
All right, thank you.

[00:30:25] Speaker 04:
Thank you so much.

[00:30:31] Speaker 03:
Thank you, honors.

[00:30:32] Speaker 03:
I just want to respond to a few points.

[00:30:35] Speaker 03:
First, this idea that you can make a request for the restroom is nowhere in the record.

[00:30:40] Speaker 03:
But even if it were, and that were the policy, we saw how that worked out in the videos for plaintiff.

[00:30:46] Speaker 03:
He had a bodily functions accident because he, despite requesting many times to many different people, he was not unable to get to the restroom in time.

[00:30:53] Speaker 03:
That simply is not meaningful access.

[00:30:55] Speaker 03:
So too, you know, in

[00:30:57] Speaker 03:
The case of Tennessee versus Lane is sort of a famous Supreme Court case in which a person was denied access.

[00:31:03] Speaker 02:
Let me back up for one second.

[00:31:04] Speaker 03:
Sure.

[00:31:04] Speaker 02:
So as I understand it, your client proceeded to the LAX single use restroom on, was it four or five occasions?

[00:31:12] Speaker 02:
Correct.

[00:31:13] Speaker 02:
And so on three of the occasions, while there was some sort of delay,

[00:31:18] Speaker 02:
It was brief enough that you don't really point to it as constituting a denial of any ADA rights.

[00:31:26] Speaker 02:
Is that correct?

[00:31:28] Speaker 03:
No, Your Honor, because we view the rights as being defined by the regulations.

[00:31:33] Speaker 03:
So violations of those regulations are themselves violations of the ADA.

[00:31:37] Speaker 02:
So even if the delay had been 15 seconds, in your view, that would be a violation of the ADA?

[00:31:43] Speaker 03:
Correct, because the regulations require that it be unlocked.

[00:31:46] Speaker 03:
I guess that's our position.

[00:31:49] Speaker 03:
Um, so I just, just to look briefly, the example of Tennessee versus Atlanta, disabled person had to crawl up courtroom steps in order to get to the court.

[00:31:59] Speaker 03:
And the Supreme Court found that was not meaningful access.

[00:32:02] Speaker 03:
To do a quick hypothetical about the maintenance issue and bring this background to sort of why the maintenance regulation requires it be unlocked is similar to sort of what if there had been a, um, you know, equipment that had like a lift for a person in a wheelchair.

[00:32:17] Speaker 03:
And the lift worked properly, but the key for it was removed and, you know, available in the courthouse so that somebody would have to climb up the steps ridiculously in order to access that lift.

[00:32:28] Speaker 03:
This is analogous to the situation.

[00:32:30] Speaker 03:
The maintenance requires that the key be there or at least the access be there.

[00:32:33] Speaker 03:
And I think that the, so I would just suggest that also the point about just your honor's point about homelessness and like sort of the general,

[00:32:46] Speaker 03:
fears around security and, of course, those things were ever-present.

[00:32:50] Speaker 03:
But if you look carefully in the record genres, the bathrooms were being locked before there was a knife, before there was a fire.

[00:32:58] Speaker 03:
Those things happened.

[00:32:59] Speaker 03:
They were already being locked without the sort of asking of the FAA, a disability coordinator.

[00:33:08] Speaker 03:
These things were already being done as a janitorial concern, a ministerial concern, not a securities concern.

[00:33:15] Speaker 02:
And were those things, was it already being locked?

[00:33:22] Speaker 02:
Well, I'm sorry.

[00:33:23] Speaker 02:
So when your client used it on four or five occasions, had any of these events involving the knife or the fires occurred?

[00:33:30] Speaker 03:
I don't believe so.

[00:33:31] Speaker 03:
I could be misremembering the fire, but that would happen in the multi-storey restroom.

[00:33:34] Speaker 03:
But certainly in the single accommodation restroom, none of those security concerns had occurred.

[00:33:41] Speaker 03:
I'll let you lose my time.

[00:33:43] Speaker 03:
Thank you, Your Honor, so much.

[00:33:44] Speaker 01:
Thank you.

[00:33:44] Speaker 01:
Council, thank you both for your arguments this morning.

[00:33:47] Speaker 01:
They were helpful.

[00:33:48] Speaker 01:
And we are adjourned.

[00:33:50] Speaker 01:
This case is submitted.

[00:33:51] Speaker 00:
All rise.

[00:34:04] Speaker 00:
This court for this session stands adjourned.