Plaintiffs CMT. The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) promulgates regulations to implement the ADA, 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149-.151, and the DOJ’s interpretation of the regulations must be given controlling weight unless the interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations, Alhambra Hosp. v. Thompson, 259 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.2001). The regulations require a public entity to “operate each service, program or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a) (emphasis added). When access to pathways and classrooms are obstructed, a public entity violates the ADA. See Huezo v. Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 672 F.Supp.2d 1045, 1061-64 (C.D.Cal.2008) (<HOLDING>). The DOJ has interpreted the requirement for
holding that school district policy requiring that students obtain the review and approval of school officials prior to distributing any written material violated free speech rights of students holding the university owes a landownerinvitee duty to its students to take reasonable steps to protect against foreseeable acts of violence on its campus and the harm that naturally flows therefrom holding constitutional the granting of student activity funds to the campus newspaper holding that requiring disabled students to request accommodations each semester for transportation to otherwise inaccessible parts of campus is discriminatory and enjoining defendant from charging for an elevator key holding that a school districts policy requiring fulltime attendance by all students did not establish a system of individualized exceptions that give rise to the application of a subjective test when the exceptions to the policy were confined to strict categories of students such as fifthyear seniors and special education students