Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 34
34
on alleged violations of the ADA. One agency had re- individuals with disabilities.)496 However, the station
ceived a complaint regarding a reduction in transit ser- that was closed was not a "key station." The court held
vice that still was being processed at the time of this that it could not conclude,
digest. A second agency reported that a USDOT "in- [B]ased on the record currently before it, ...that the selec-
quiry" had been resolved. A third agency received com- tion of the key stations, or the exclusion of Center
plaints from the elderly and the disabled regarding ser- Moriches from designation as a key station, was violative
vice reductions and fare increases that were resolved in of the ADA. It does not appear that the ADA requires the
the manner described in Section IX, infra, discussing MTA defendants to keep all of its stations open, or even
transit agencies' best practices. to make all of its stations fully accessible to people with
Lastly, one agency stated that it had had one fare in- disabilities. Rather, the ADA only requires that they
make new stations and its designated key stations readily
crease in the last 10 years and received ADA complaints 497
accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
that focused on the elimination of deeply discounted
fare media. A majority of the complaints had to do with As seen in the Hassan case, the touchstone is even-
the elimination of the most heavily discounted fare me- handedness whereby transit service is reduced for all
dia of all, an Annual $52 Disabled Pass. According to commuters, including the disabled. "Hassan has not
the agency, its revenue department researched the ADA shown, or even adequately alleged, that the MTA de-
claims and concluded that the new fare structure was fendants excluded him, or any other disabled person,
not discriminatory in its implementation or intent. No from the benefit of services on the basis of disability. On
complaints were lodged at the FTA against the agency. this record, it appears that the Station closing affects all
potential users, not merely disabled users."498
F. Judicial Claims Under the ADA for Reduction in With respect to fares, in Weinreich v. Los Angeles
499
Transit Service or Increase in Fares County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the
Ninth Circuit held that a public transit system was not
One of the few cases having to do with the ADA and
required under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to
a reduction in transit service is Hassan v. Slater,492 in
make reasonable modifications to its reduced fare pro-
which a pro se plaintiff contested the decisions by the
gram's eligibility requirements for a disabled partici-
Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and the MTA to close a
pant or to reasonably accommodate a participant's fi-
train station that was more convenient to the plaintiff
nancial inability to provide recertification of his
than alternative stations. The court held that the plain-
disability as required by a transit system policy. The
tiff's complaint failed as a matter of law to state a
court held that "[a] plaintiff proceeding under Title II of
claim.
the ADA must, similar to a Section 504 plaintiff, prove
First, the court held that "[t]he blind, visually im-
that the exclusion from participation in the program
paired and otherwise disabled can still avail themselves
was `solely by reason of disability.'"500 The court af-
of train service at other LIRR stations" and that, al-
firmed the district court's ruling that the agency had no
though there was inconvenience to the plaintiff, the
obligation under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to
extra inconvenience did not rise "`to the level of irrepa-
reasonably accommodate plaintiff's financial inability to
rable harm such that the LIRR must be stopped from
493 provide updated recertification of his disability.
implementing its plan.'"
Hassan is not prevented from using any of the other LIRR G. Whether State Transit Agencies Have
stations by reason of a disability. Nor has he adequately Sovereign Immunity
alleged that he was discriminated against or prevented
from participating in any mode of transportation because Under the ADA the issue has arisen whether a state
of his disability. The fact that Hassan lives four and a agency such as a transportation department has sover-
half miles away from the next closest train station, and eign immunity. In Everybody Counts, Inc. v. Northern
that closure of the Center Moriches Station makes it Indiana Regional Planning Commission,501 a federal
more difficult for him to travel to Manhattan, is not tan- district court in Indiana held that Congress had not
tamount to stating a claim of exclusion or discrimination. properly abrogated Indiana's Eleventh Amendment
The plaintiff's conclusory allegations that his rights un- immunity in a Title II ADA action that included the
der the ADA were violated are thus insufficient to state a
494 Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT) as a
claim under the statute.
defendant. The court held that, based on an analysis of
Second, as the court noted, under the ADA, stations the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Tennessee v.
that are designated as key stations must be made ac- Lane,502 INDOT had sovereign immunity. The district
cessible to individuals with disabilities.495 (For train
stations constructed prior to the ADA, the Act requires
only that designated key stations be made accessible to 496
Id. at 350 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 12147(b)).
497
Id. at 351 (citation omitted).
498
492
41 F. Supp. 2d 343 (E.D. N.Y. 1999). Id. (emphasis supplied).
499
493
Id. at 348 (quoting Molloy v. Metro. Trans. Auth., 94 F.3d 114 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 1997).
500
808, 811 (2d Cir. 1996)). Id. at 97879 (citations omitted).
494 501
Id. at 35051 (emphasis supplied) (citation omitted). 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39607, at *1, 34 (N.D. Ind. 2006).
495 502
Id. at 345 (citing 49 C.F.R. § 37.47(a), (c)(1)). 541 U.S. 509, 124 S. Ct. 1978, 158 L. Ed. 2d 820 (2004).
