Appendix C: Federal and Minnesota Case Law Summaries
Schonfeld v. City of Carlsbad
Download 234.27 Kb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Uttilla v. Tennessee Highway Department
- Weinrich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
- Federal Authority Cases
Schonfeld v. City of CarlsbadCitation: Schonfeld v. City of Carlsbad, 978 F. Supp. 1329 (S.D. Cal. 1997), aff'd, 172 F.3d 876 (9th Cir. 1999). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: the Americans with Disabilities Act, section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 28 C.F.R. § 35.105, 28 C.F.R. § 35.150, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151. Fact Summary: plaintiffs are residents of the city of Carlsbad and qualify under the statutory language of the ADA as individuals with disabilities. The plaintiffs allege that, on multiple occasions in 1996, they were unable to access certain services and facilities offered by the defendant, the city of Carlsbad, due to their status as individuals with disabilities. Plaintiffs also alleged that the defendant had failed to improve existing city curb ramps under the required standards. Issues: whether plaintiffs had standing to challenge defendant’s actions regarding the steps undertaken to reach ADA compliance; whether the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant were time barred by a statute of limitations; and whether the defendant had complied with the requirements of the ADA under which plaintiffs sought to challenge defendant’s actions. Holdings: plaintiffs were able to show that they suffered from such disabilities and were entitled to the services offered under the ADA; the ADA does not have a specific statute of limitations, so therefore it must be determined which statute of limitations period best applies. Here, the court determined that ADA discrimination proceedings were closest to actions for “fundamental injury to the individual rights of a person” for the purposes of setting a statute of limitations. Finally, the defendant was able to show that they had completed a self-evaluation, altered existing facilities so that viewed in their entirety they are accessible to individuals with disabilities, and had satisfied the requirements of the ADA Standards for Accessible Design (ADAAG) in doing so. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: this case provides guidance for some initial procedural issues in ADA cases regarding standing and statutes of limitations. These issues may be helpful in providing insight regarding who may have standing in cases that might arise from an ADA challenge. Uttilla v. Tennessee Highway DepartmentCitation: Uttilla v. Tennessee Highway Dept., 208 F.3d 216 (6th Cir. 2000). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: the 11th Amendment to the U. S. Constitution; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Rehabilitation Act. Fact Summary: plaintiffs, individuals with disabilities, filed a class action against the cities of Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, and Chattanooga, and the Highway Department of Tennessee, a state entity. In their complaint, plaintiffs alleges that the defendants violated the ADA in failing to conduct self-evaluations, install curb ramps, and accommodate individuals with disabilities needs during construction projects. Issue: whether 11th Amendment immunity applies to the state entities charged as defendants in this proceeding. Holding: no, 11th Amendment immunity does not apply if the state official or entity has performed his or her duties in a way that contravenes either the Constitution or a federal law, putting the official or entity outside of the cloak of state immunity. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: a properly pled ADA case will defeat 11th Amendment state immunity. Therefore, any transportation authority creating a non-motorized transportation improvement plan should take care to comply with ADA accessibility requirements. Weinrich v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation AuthorityCitation: Weinreich v. Los Angeles County Metro. Transp. Auth., 114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997). Law Interpreted/ Governing Law: Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act; section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130. Fact Summary: the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the defendant, offered a reduced fare program for elderly and disabled transit users. The plaintiff qualified for the program due to his disability. In 1992, the policy was altered, requiring individuals with disabilities to provide medical information every three years to confirm their disabled status. The plaintiff sought an exemption from this requirement because of his inability to pay. The defendant denied the plaintiff’s request, and the plaintiff responded by filing a claim against the defendant for violating the ADA. Issue: whether the defendant transit authority violated the reasonable accommodation requirement of the ADA by failing to grant the plaintiff an exemption to its medical evidence requirement. Holding: the defendant was not required to provide the plaintiff with an exemption under the ADA. The ADA only requires accommodations for individuals to prevent discrimination based on disability. The plaintiff sought an exemption based on his economic status, not his disabled status. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: under the ADA, not all requests for accommodations made by individuals with disabilities must be provided. Only those accommodations that are reasonable and required to prevent discrimination on the basis of disability are necessary. MnDOT and other transportation authorities will not be required to provide an accommodation for individuals with disabilities if the reason for doing so is not based on the individual’s disabled status. Federal Authority CasesFriends of Potter Marsh v. PetersCitation: Friends of Potter Marsh v. Peters, 371 F. Supp. 2d 1115 (D. Alaska 2005) Law Interpreted/Governing Law: deference to the FWHA. Fact Summary: plaintiffs sued on the grounds that an environmental impact statement conducted by the Federal Highway Administration did not adequately assess environmental impacts of a highway construction. Issue: whether the FHWA’s action was reviewable by the court. Holding: the issue was not ripe for review. Relevance to Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Other Non-Motorized Transportation: this case demonstrates that courts give the FHWA deference in determining whether a facility is to be used for recreation or transportation. The choice to designate a facility as for recreation or transportation can affect how federal funds can be used to fund the project. 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:
|