Appendix C: Federal and Minnesota Case Law Summaries
Geiger v. City of Upper Arlington
Download 234.27 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- George v. Bay Area Rapid Transit
- Hassan v. Slater
- Kinney v. Yerusalim
Geiger v. City of Upper ArlingtonCitation: Geiger v. City of Upper Arlington, 2:05-CV-1042, 2006 WL 1888877 (S.D. Ohio July 7, 2006). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; 28 C.F.R. § 35.151. Fact Summary: the plaintiff alleged that the City of Upper Arlington violated the ADA because it failed to construct sidewalks throughout the municipality. The plaintiff maintained that sidewalks are “a basic public services program pursuant to the ADA.” Issue: whether the City of Upper Arlington violated the ADA by discriminating against the plaintiff and other individuals with disabilities when it failed to construct city sidewalks. Holding: the ADA only imposes a duty on municipalities to improve previously existing facilities so that they are accessible to individuals with disabilities. The City’s failure to do so does not amount to discrimination here because all visitors to and residents of the city of Upper Arlington are equally effected by the lack of sidewalks. Additionally, nowhere in the ADA is there an affirmative obligation on municipalities to construct sidewalks where none had existed previously. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: The ADA does not require city or state agencies to build sidewalks where they did not previously exist. As such, any non-motorized transportation improvement plans that transportation authorities undertake will not require the authorities to construct new sidewalks where they did not exist before. However, the authorities will be responsible for ensuring that previously existing sidewalks are accessible to everyone. George v. Bay Area Rapid TransitCitation: George v. Bay Area Rapid Transit, 577 F.3d 1005, 1007 (9th Cir. 2009). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act; 49 C.F.R. § 37.9. Fact Summary: plaintiffs were vision-impaired transit riders seeking to use the services of the defendant rapid transit system. Due to accessibility barriers like unmarked staircases and staircases without accessible handrails, plaintiffs sued defendant alleging violations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. Issue: whether sight-impaired transit riders can win a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act if a public transit service system complies with existing federal design regulations for train station accessibility. Holding: disabled transit riders may not win a lawsuit under the ADA where a public transit service system complies with existing federal design regulations for train station accessibility. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: as long as MnDOT and other transportation authorities comply with the DOT regulations in making improvements to transportation facilities and services, claims made by individuals with disabilities will likely be dismissed. Hassan v. SlaterCitation: Hassan v. Slater, 41 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D.N.Y. 1999), aff'd, 199 F.3d 1322 (2d Cir. 1999). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: the Americans with Disabilities Act; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130; 49 C.F.R. § 37.47; 49 C.F.R. § 37.49; 49 C.F.R. § 27.3. Fact Summary: the plaintiff alleged that he is a disabled person within the meaning of the ADA due to his limited vision. As a result of his disability, he had to use mass transit to travel to Manhattan for treatment at a veteran’s hospital. The plaintiff alleged that, due to the closing of the Center Moriches Station 1 ¼ mile in walking distance from his home, he could no longer attend his treatment session. Issue: whether plaintiff was improperly discriminated against because of his disability when defendants chose to close low volume transit stations utilized by the plaintiff. Holding: the plaintiff had not been improperly discriminated against. When a plaintiff seeks an injunction against a government action that was undertaken pursuant to statutory authority, the plaintiff must show irreparable harm and a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiff was unable to show that he would suffer irreparable harm if the closed station was not reopened. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: this case clarifies when a public entity’s actions will amount to discrimination based on disability. Here, the court determined that there were alternative routes of transportation available to the plaintiff. Though the plaintiff’s new route of travel would be longer than his original, it did not result in a barrier to access for the plaintiff. Kinney v. YerusalimCitation: Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993). Law Interpreted / Governing Law: the Americans with Disabilities Act; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; 28 C.F.R. § 35.151; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; 49 C.F.R. § 27.67. Fact Summary: plaintiffs, a non-profit organization and twelve individuals with disabilities living and working in Philadelphia, filed a claim arguing that the defendants established policies violating the ADA. The policy at issue required the city to install curb cuts only when the construction project affected the curb or sidewalk or when the street was being completely reconstructed. Issues: whether resurfacing a road is an alteration within the scope of the relevant sections and implementing regulations of the ADA requiring the installation of curb ramps; and whether a curb ramp is a separate, existing facility from a street. Holdings: resurfacing a road results has an effect upon the usability of the road and is integral to a road’s purpose. When integral changes are undertaken to improve the usability of streets, Congress made clear that when these changes were made to such facilities, the changes must be beneficial to all potential users. This requirement results in a determination that when roads are resurfaced, curb ramps must also be installed to make the changes beneficial to individuals with disabilities. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: the decision in this case clarifies that streets and sidewalks, especially curbs and curb ramps, are part of the same structure or facility. This requires improvements also be made to the curbs when improvements are made on the streets. 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:
|