Why We Need Accessible Public Transit for All People with Disabilities

See this article, which begins:

Regional Transportation Authority Chairman John Gates Jr. apologized Wednesday for referring to paratransit for the disabled as "federally mandated limousine service." 

Gates said he made the remark "without thinking" while trying to describe the difficulty of providing funding for paratransit service as required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

"My comments were inappropriate and unfortunately could be misconstrued to suggest bias against the disabled community," Gates said at a meeting of the RTA board. "Nothing can be farther from the truth."

Separate paratransit systems for people with disabilities may be a necessary accommodation to sunk investments in inaccessible public transit systems, but, as Gates's comments show, they are stigmatizing.  Universally accessible public transit is far preferable.

Why We Need A Better Law Than The Air Carrier Access Act

Read this story, watch the attached video, and explain to me why federal law should deny this family a meaningful remedy for the discrimination they seem to have experienced.  Note that the problem is both the weak remedies in the Air Carrier Access Act and the preemptive effect many courts have found that the federal laws in this area have on state laws, thus blocking effective state-law remedies for discrimination in airline service.  Maybe one of these people or these people can do something about this problem.

Disability Advocates Question Accessibility of New Metro SmarTrip Dispensers

See this article by that title in the Washington Post.  It begins:

Advocates for people with disabilities say Metro’s plans to make SmarTrip cards more accessible to riders by installing new vending machines at every rail station fall short in one crucial area: The new machines are not expected to be immediately accessible to all people with limited vision. 

The machines, which are scheduled to make their debut Sept. 1, have no audio feature. Riders who are blind or have impaired vision or those with cognitive impairments may find them difficult, if not impossible, to use, disability advocates said. 

“In this day and time I can’t imagine how. . . the Metro system [is] purchasing things and then . . . installing them and paying for them and they are not accessible to everyone,” said Denise Rush, who is blind and serves on Metro’s Accessibility Advisory Committee (AAC). “It is not acceptable. It is ludicrous.”

Starline Tours Settles ADA Suit

See this article in the LA Times.  It begins:

Amy Champlin simply wanted the classic Los Angeles experience: to gawk at movie stars' homes, the Hollywood Walk of Fame and the Sunset Strip from the comfort of a tour bus. 

What she got instead was an eight-month ordeal to get a reservation, a six-hour wait for a tour that never took off and a part in a federal lawsuit. The glitch: Starline Tours couldn't provide a working wheelchair-accessible bus for Champlin and her group, who were in town for a National Ataxia Foundation meeting. 

On Monday, federal prosecutors in Los Angeles announced a consent decree with Starline, which bills itself as the largest and oldest of the Hollywood-centric tours. To settle an Americans With Disabilities Act lawsuit brought by the U.S. attorney, the company agreed to ensure that enough of its buses are wheelchair-accessible and to train its employees.

Goren on the Second Circuit's NYC Taxi Decision

William Goren has this post on the Second Circuit's recent decision in the New York City taxi case.  The key takeaway:

What does this all mean? It means that for purposes of the Americans with Disabilities Act, there is a big difference between the regulations issued by a public entity and the people or entities subject to those regulations. Unless those regulations mandate discrimination, the Americans with Disabilities Act is not going to allow a title II claim to proceed.

Second Circuit Reverses Injunction in NYC Taxi Case

Yesterday, in Noel v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the district court's grant of an injunction.  The district court held that the City violated Title II of the ADA by failing to provide meaningful access to taxi services for persons with disabilities.  It issued an injunction ordering the City to come up with a remedial plan and, in the interim, to issue new taxi medallions only to accessible taxis.

The Second Circuit reversed the injunction. It concluded "that, though the [Taxi and Limousine Commission] exercises pervasive control over the taxi industry in New York City, defendants were not required by Title II(A) to deploy their licensing and regulatory authority to mandate that persons who need wheelchairs be afforded meaningful access to taxis. The district court therefore erred in entering the temporary injunction."

For coverage of the ruling, see this article from the Wall Street Journal, this article from the New York Times, this article from New York Magazine, and this article from the New York Daily News.

Suit Challenges Handicapped Parking Fees in Passaic, NJ

See this article, which begins:

A controversial policy of charging disabled residents for handicapped parking spaces in Passaic is based on a state statute that was made null and void by federal law 20 years ago, according to a new lawsuit that, if successful, would affect towns across New Jersey. 

DIAL Inc., a non-profit advocacy group representing disabled residents in Passaic and Essex counties that is seeking to overturn the policy, named both the city of Passaic and the state of New Jersey as defendants in the suit filed in Superior Court. 

“Particularly in these times of budget crises, it seems governments are looking for every possible avenue to stick people with charges for services that previously were free,” said Edward A. Kopelson, DIAL’s lawyer. “This lawsuit is meant to stop government from imposing those fees.”

DOJ Investigating Transit Access in Cedar Rapids

See this story, which begins:

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Cedar Rapids has opened an investigation into the city of Cedar Rapids’ compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

In a letter to Mayor Ron Corbett, the federal prosecutor’s office suggests that the probe centers on access to city buses for disabled people who use wheelchairs. 

The city is asked to produce any record of complaints against it in the last three years related to access to public transportation, “in particular, access to buses by individuals who use wheelchairs and may need additional time to board or exit from a bus.”

Good Daily News Editorial on the NYC Taxi Case

Read it here.  The headline gives you the gist: "The MTA’s Access-A-Ride costs more than half a billion dollars for lousy service -- Wheelchair-accessible taxis will save money and improve efficiency."

Reports on the NYC Taxi Oral Argument

See this piece from Thompson Reuters and this one from DNAinfo, which report on today's oral argument in the Second Circuit in the New York City taxi case.

Second Circuit Stays NY Taxi Order

See this story, which begins:

A U.S. appeals court on Wednesday granted a New York City request to temporarily freeze a controversial order holding that the city's taxi authority was in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

The city had asked the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York to issue a stay of the December ruling, by Manhattan federal court judge George Daniels, while the city pursues its appeal.

Press on Cert Denial in Frame

See this story from the Ft. Worth Star-Telegram.

Supreme Court Denies Cert in Frame v. City of Arlington

Back in September, the en banc Fifth Circuit (in Frame v. City of Arlington, a case I argued when I was at DOJ), ruled 8-7 that newly built or altered public sidewalks are covered by Title II of the ADA, and that the statute of limitations on such a Title II violation does not begin to run until the plaintiff knows or should know that s/he is being denied the benefits of those sidewalks.  Although the Fifth Circuit's ruling on ADA coverage was in accord with the rulings of every other circuit to have decided the question, the City nonetheless filed a petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court.  Today, the Court denied that petition.

Interesting New Web Accessibility Suit Filed in Great Britain

See this press release from the Royal National Institute of Blind People.  It begins:

Leading sight loss charity the Royal National Institute of Blind People (RNIB) is taking legal action over low cost airline bmibaby's failure to ensure web access for blind and partially sighted customers. 

Bmibaby Ltd has failed to make vital changes to its website to allow customers with sight loss to use their online services instead of being forced to search for flights or make bookings via a call centre. Concerns were first raised in 2010 when RNIB was made aware of the problem through frustrated customers, no longer able to book flights through the bmibaby website. 

One of those customers is Alexandra from Loughborough, who is registered blind. She says: "I regularly need to book flights and had also wanted to book a surprise weekend away for my husband on one occasion, but was let down by the website. I didn't want to use the call centre as costs can mount up and I wanted the freedom to compare flights and prices before making a decision.

Taxi Ruling Could Set New Standard for City Services

See this Reuters piece by that title on the NYC taxi suit.

NYC Appeals to Second Circuit in Taxi Case

See this article.

NYT Op-Ed Opposing Universal Accessibility for Taxis

See this piece, by Matthew W. Daus.  The key paragraph:

My proposal is this: convert the existing van program run by the M.T.A. into a system of subsidized door-to-door taxi rides. The van system, known as paratransit or Access-a-Ride, spends more than $380 million a year. The average cost per ride is $30 to $50, which I believe could be lowered to $12 to $15 if the little-used vans were replaced with accessible cabs. The system would rely on usage patterns to determine the right number of cabs — instead of setting them by fiat. Passengers would pay $2.25 a ride (with a discount for purchasers of certain fare cards), the same cost as a subway trip.

Plaintiffs Win NYC Taxicab Suit

See this story, which begins:

A federal judge has barred New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission from issuing permits for taxicabs unless they're accessible to people with disabilities. 

Federal Judge George Daniels issued his written ruling late Friday. He says the commission can only provide taxi medallions for wheelchair-accessible vehicles until it produces a comprehensive plan to provide meaningful access to taxicab service for disabled passengers. He says such a plan must include targeted goals and standards and anticipated measurable results.

More on he New York Livery Cab Bill

Looks like it's the disability community against the world, but Gov. Cuomo appears to be holding firm.

N.D. Ill.: Having to Wait Half an Hour for a Second Cab After the First Cab Refused to Pick You Up Because of Your Disability is not Discrimination on the Basis of Disability

Two weeks ago, Judge John Darrah of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois issued an opinion granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's ADA public-accommodations claim in Poldberg v. 5 Star Flash, Inc., 2011 WL 6097990 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 1, 2011). The plaintiffs, a blind couple who use a service dog, called the defendant taxi company asking for a ride.  According to the plaintiffs' complaint as described by the court, a cab came, but "the driver refused to unlock his doors and permit the Plaintiffs to enter the cab, stating that his car, a Toyota Prius, did not have room for the Plaintiffs' seeing-eye dog."  The taxi company then dispatched a new cab about half an hour later.  The district court granted the motion to dismiss; it concluded that a half-hour delay does not illegal discrimination make:

Although Plaintiffs encountered somewhat of a delay, they were ultimately transported to their destination. Essentially, Plaintiffs' claim they had to wait for a taxicab for no more than half an hour to take them home.  The inconvenience of waiting for a taxi does not adequately plead a violation of the ADA. Plaintiffs' Complaints fails plausibly to allege that they are entitled to relief under the ADA, and any amendment to Plaintiffs' Complaint would be futile. Plaintiffs' ADA claim is dismissed with prejudice.

I get what Judge Darrah was trying to do here, but Title III forbids discrimination in the "full and equal enjoyment" of the defendant's transportation services.  Judge Darrah made no effort to explain why he thought these plaintiffs received full and equal enjoyment.  That said, I think the case may have had other problems; it's hard to get injunctive relief based on a single incident like this.  But the discussion of the issue the court actually decided is cursory.