Appendix C: Federal and Minnesota Case Law Summaries
Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Federal Transit Authority
Download 234.27 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Township of Riverside
- Pilling v. Bay Area Rapid Transit
- Reichenbach v. City of Columbus
Neighborhood Association of the Back Bay, Inc. v. Federal Transit AuthorityCitation: Neighborhood Ass'n of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 407 F. Supp. 2d 323 (D. Mass. 2005), aff'd, Neighborhood Ass'n Of The Back Bay, Inc. v. Fed. Transit Admin., 463 F.3d 50 (1st Cir. 2006). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 49 C.F.R. § 37. Fact Summary: defendants, the Federal Transit Authority and the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, sought to make certain accessibility improvements to Copley Station, one of the oldest subway stations in the country. Plaintiffs intervened, alleging that the improvement plans violated Sections 106 and 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Issue: whether defendants’ plan for improving accessibility to Copley Station as required under Title II of the ADA violated relevant sections of the National Historic Preservation Act and the Department of Transportation Act. Holding: defendant’s determination that there was no adverse effect under the National Preservation Act met the procedural requirements contained in that Act. The defendants here invested time in identifying the historic properties encompassed by the accessibility improvement project and met with and considered the suggestions of the affected parties. Additionally, the finding that there was no adverse effect was supported by appropriate documents, including a report made by the defendants’ under Section 106 of the Act. Additionally, the procedural requirements imposed by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act which mandates a consideration of the impact on the historic properties and a determination about other feasible and prudent alternatives were adequately followed. Here, the potential effects on historic properties were greatly weighed, but it was ultimately determined that no feasible and prudent alternative existed. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: This case addresses the potential conflicts between the transportation facility accessibility requirements of the ADA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act. Transportation improvement projects meant to increase accessibility will likely move forward as long as the impact on historic properties and other prudent alternatives are considered. New Jersey Protection and Advocacy, Inc. v. Township of RiversideCitation: New Jersey Prot. & Advocacy, Inc. v. Twp. of Riverside, CIV.04-5914(RBK), 2006 WL 2226332 (D. N.J. Aug. 2, 2006). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; 28 C.F.R. § 35.151. Fact Summary: the plaintiff sued the defendant township over the fact that over one hundred intersections in the city were inaccessible to disabled citizens due to structural barriers such as the lack of curb ramps or curb ramps that fail to meet accessibility specifications. Issue: whether a public entity with fewer than fifty employees is exempt from the requirements that sidewalks be accessible to all individuals with disabilities under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Holding: Both the legislative histories and implementing regulations of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act make it clear that Congress intended to require improvements to sidewalks for all public entities because of their utility for all individuals in daily life. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: a public entity with less than 50 employees must still comply with the accessibility requirements of the ADA in the provision of non-motorized transportation facilities. Pilling v. Bay Area Rapid TransitCitation: Pilling v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, C-12-02186 JCS, 2012 WL 3042479 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act; 28 C.F.R. § 35.102; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130; 49 C.F.R. § 37.9; 49 C.F.R. § 37.3, 49 C.F.R. § 37.5, 49 C.F.R. § 37.21, 49 C.F.R. § 37.167. Fact Summary: because of his colostomy, plaintiff needed an additional 2 to 8 minutes every time he went to the bathroom. Plaintiff was warned that his use of the bathroom violated the defendant’s 10 minute policy and despite plaintiff’s request for an accommodation, his membership to the defendant’s Bike Station was terminated. As a result, the plaintiff lost his position as a foreman. Plaintiff brought this action against the defendants alleging discrimination based on his disability. Issue: whether defendants were required to provide a reasonable modification or accommodation to the plaintiff in order to avoid discriminating against the plaintiff in violation of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act. Holding: defendants were required to offer the plaintiff a reasonable modification or accommodation and their failure to do so resulted in discrimination of the plaintiff based on his disability. Public entities generally are required by Department of Justice (DOJ) regulations to make reasonable modifications to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: generally, the DOJ regulations do not apply to transportation because, under Part B of Title II of the ADA, the Department of Transportation is granted the authority to issue regulations for transportation facilities. However, in cases where the DOT regulations do not apply to the facts at hand, the DOJ regulations will be applicable. This will be important for MnDOT and other transportation authorities in determining which regulations apply to transportation facilities as they are developed or altered in non-motorized transportation improvement plans. Reichenbach v. City of ColumbusCitation: Reichenbach v. City of Columbus, 2:03-CV-1132, 2006 WL 2381565 (S.D. Ohio Aug. 16, 2006). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, 28 C.F.R. § 35.149-35.151. Fact Summary: the plaintiff was injured trying to navigate a ramp on a trip to the office of a county service. As plaintiff attempted to dislodge his wheelchair from a hole on the ramp, he fell and injured himself. Subsequently the plaintiff brought action against the city for his injuries that resulted from the inaccessible conditions of the sidewalk in that area. They city had not altered the sidewalk at issue since 1979 when it was originally constructed. Issue: whether defendant, City of Columbus, violated requirements of Title II of the ADA by failing to make the sidewalk and ramp that caused injury to the plaintiff accessible for all members of the public, including individuals with disabilities. Holding: the defendant city did not violate the ADA by failing to make the sidewalk and ramp at issue accessible to individuals with disabilities. The plaintiff presented evidence that in 1996, 2000, and 2002 the city had plans to improve the parts of the sidewalk and ramp at issue. However, in 1996, no work was actually performed on the sidewalk. The work performed in 2000 was only made to isolated portions of the sidewalk and were not the kind requiring full alteration of the sidewalk. The alleged 2002 improvements were in fact only estimates for improvement or replacement which could not trigger the duty to alter. The plaintiff also claimed that repairs made in 2004 required the city to improve the entire sidewalk; however, these improvements were made after plaintiff’s injury and therefore could not raise a duty for an injury already received. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: the decision in this case reflects some of the limitations to the accessibility requirements under Title II of the ADA. Where the sidewalk at issue was constructed before the implementation of the ADA and no additional construction or alteration has been made, there may not be a claim for the plaintiff. The regulations require more than just plans to improve, estimates for the cost of improvement, or isolated improvements to certain parts of the sidewalk. Directory: planning planning -> Condominium Name Index to Map Sheets Name Address Map planning -> Guidelines for implementation of Prime Minister’s New 15 Point Programme for the Welfare of Minorities planning -> Conservation Assessment for the Rocky Mountain Tailed Frog in Oregon and Washington As planning -> Project name planning -> Toward the development of a strategic technology plan planning -> Program Review and Forecast Guideline for Getting Started on Prof background and Context planning -> Introduction Current State planning -> Plan 7012: Analysis for Community Planning Fall 2015 Analyzing New Census Data 15 points Download 234.27 Kb. Share with your friends:
|