The National Academies Press

Currently Skimming:

Pages 28-34

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.

From page 28... ... a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment…."396 The provisions of the ADA are designed not only to address intentional discrimination against qualified individuals who require transportation services but also to include other types of discrimination, including benign neglect or indifference.397 As the Supreme Court 391 29 U.S.C. Read the entire page →
From page 29... ... That is, it may be considered discrimination if a public entity or other person412 fails to make alterations so that a facility is usable by individuals with disabilities.413 Subtitle B of Title II of the ADA is applicable to public transportation services and includes essentially all forms of transportation services that state and local governments provide, such as motor vehicle and intercity or commuter rail services.414 Not included under Subtitle B of Title II are transportation services by private entities, which are covered under Title III.415 Some of the key provisions of the ADA with respect to public transit are as follows. • Section 202 provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."416 • Section 222 provides that any public entity that purchases or leases a new bus, rapid rail vehicle, or light rail vehicle must make the vehicle "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs."417 • Section 223 requires that all government agencies operating fixed route systems provide paratransit service as a "safety net" for disabled individuals incapable of using conventional public transit and that the service must be "sufficient to provide to [disabled] Read the entire page →
From page 30... ... he regulations implementing Title II of the ADA require that public entities "shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity."433 In the Pruett case, the court held that the "ADA requires only accommodations that are reasonable."434 The failure to make a reasonable accommodation for the disabled under the ADA may constitute discrimination: "the statute does not provide guidance as to when a particular accommodation is or is not reasonable. The ADA does contain, however, an outer limit on the duty of reasonable accommodation in the concept of ‘undue hardship.'"435 However, as a district court stated in Pruett, [A] Read the entire page →
From page 31... ... Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District,437 the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of what relief is available for an ADA plaintiff who alleges, for example, that wheelchair lifts on several buses that the plaintiff attempted to ride all malfunctioned on the same day.438 The court held, first, with respect to injunctive relief, that the fact that a plaintiff is able to show sufficient injury to establish standing does not warrant concluding "that the plaintiff necessarily has demonstrated a sufficient fear of immediate and substantial injury to warrant an injunction."439 Second, when the defendant is a nonfederal government agency, be it state or local, a federal court will exercise restraint in granting an injunction, for instance, that requires a transit defendant to take specific, affirmative steps to make certain the agency is ADA-compliant.440 In Midgett, the court observed that "TriMet is a ‘state public entity,' a fact that cautioned against the court's use of its equitable powers in the absence of a strong factual record demonstrating the threat of future ADA violations."441 Third, it is not required, as the district court also held, "that a defendant's intent is an element of a claim for injunctive relief under the ADA."442 According to the court, it had "never held that a plaintiff must prove an intentional violation of the ADA in order to obtain an injunction mandating compliance with its provisions."443 Fourth, a plaintiff must present facts showing a threat of immediate, irreparable harm when seeking an injunction.444 However, "occasional problems do not, without more, establish a violation of the ADA."445 The evidence presented did not support an inference of a "real and immediate threat of continued, future violations of the ADA in the absence of injunctive relief."446 On the issue of compensatory damages, the court held, as did the district court, that "a showing of discriminatory intent [is] a prerequisite to obtaining compensatory damages under the ADA."447 However, the 436 Pruett, 606 F Read the entire page →
From page 32... ... he ADA addresses discrimination in public transportation by requiring public transit agencies operating fixed route systems to provide paratransit and other special service transportation to disabled persons on a comparable level to the service provided for nondisabled users."460 Thus, paratransit services must be comparable to those provided by a state or local government's fixed-route services.461 A public entity, however, does not have to provide paratransit services if doing so would cause undue financial hardship.462 For example, in one case involving the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) , a public transit agency, the court held that if the plaintiff were to make a prima facie case of discrimination, thereby shifting the burden to the STA to show a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, "[c] Read the entire page →
From page 33... ... . The court held that the DOJ regulation did not apply independently to TriMet; nor had the USDOT incorporated the DOJ regulation so as to make it applicable to public entities' paratransit service.484 E Read the entire page →
From page 34... ... Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,499 the Ninth Circuit held that a public transit system was not required under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to make reasonable modifications to its reduced fare program's eligibility requirements for a disabled participant or to reasonably accommodate a participant's financial inability to provide recertification of his disability as required by a transit system policy. The court held that "[a] Read the entire page →

From page 28...

... a record of such an impairment; or (C) being regarded as having such an impairment…."396 The provisions of the ADA are designed not only to address intentional discrimination against qualified individuals who require transportation services but also to include other types of discrimination, including benign neglect or indifference.397 As the Supreme Court 391 29 U.S.C.

Read the entire page →

From page 29...

... That is, it may be considered discrimination if a public entity or other person412 fails to make alterations so that a facility is usable by individuals with disabilities.413 Subtitle B of Title II of the ADA is applicable to public transportation services and includes essentially all forms of transportation services that state and local governments provide, such as motor vehicle and intercity or commuter rail services.414 Not included under Subtitle B of Title II are transportation services by private entities, which are covered under Title III.415 Some of the key provisions of the ADA with respect to public transit are as follows. • Section 202 provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."416 • Section 222 provides that any public entity that purchases or leases a new bus, rapid rail vehicle, or light rail vehicle must make the vehicle "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs."417 • Section 223 requires that all government agencies operating fixed route systems provide paratransit service as a "safety net" for disabled individuals incapable of using conventional public transit and that the service must be "sufficient to provide to [disabled]

Read the entire page →

From page 30...

... he regulations implementing Title II of the ADA require that public entities "shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity."433 In the Pruett case, the court held that the "ADA requires only accommodations that are reasonable."434 The failure to make a reasonable accommodation for the disabled under the ADA may constitute discrimination: "the statute does not provide guidance as to when a particular accommodation is or is not reasonable. The ADA does contain, however, an outer limit on the duty of reasonable accommodation in the concept of ‘undue hardship.'"435 However, as a district court stated in Pruett, [A]

Read the entire page →

From page 31...

... Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District,437 the Ninth Circuit addressed the issue of what relief is available for an ADA plaintiff who alleges, for example, that wheelchair lifts on several buses that the plaintiff attempted to ride all malfunctioned on the same day.438 The court held, first, with respect to injunctive relief, that the fact that a plaintiff is able to show sufficient injury to establish standing does not warrant concluding "that the plaintiff necessarily has demonstrated a sufficient fear of immediate and substantial injury to warrant an injunction."439 Second, when the defendant is a nonfederal government agency, be it state or local, a federal court will exercise restraint in granting an injunction, for instance, that requires a transit defendant to take specific, affirmative steps to make certain the agency is ADA-compliant.440 In Midgett, the court observed that "TriMet is a ‘state public entity,' a fact that cautioned against the court's use of its equitable powers in the absence of a strong factual record demonstrating the threat of future ADA violations."441 Third, it is not required, as the district court also held, "that a defendant's intent is an element of a claim for injunctive relief under the ADA."442 According to the court, it had "never held that a plaintiff must prove an intentional violation of the ADA in order to obtain an injunction mandating compliance with its provisions."443 Fourth, a plaintiff must present facts showing a threat of immediate, irreparable harm when seeking an injunction.444 However, "occasional problems do not, without more, establish a violation of the ADA."445 The evidence presented did not support an inference of a "real and immediate threat of continued, future violations of the ADA in the absence of injunctive relief."446 On the issue of compensatory damages, the court held, as did the district court, that "a showing of discriminatory intent [is] a prerequisite to obtaining compensatory damages under the ADA."447 However, the 436 Pruett, 606 F

Read the entire page →

From page 32...

... he ADA addresses discrimination in public transportation by requiring public transit agencies operating fixed route systems to provide paratransit and other special service transportation to disabled persons on a comparable level to the service provided for nondisabled users."460 Thus, paratransit services must be comparable to those provided by a state or local government's fixed-route services.461 A public entity, however, does not have to provide paratransit services if doing so would cause undue financial hardship.462 For example, in one case involving the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) , a public transit agency, the court held that if the plaintiff were to make a prima facie case of discrimination, thereby shifting the burden to the STA to show a nondiscriminatory reason for its actions, "[c]

Read the entire page →

From page 33...

... . The court held that the DOJ regulation did not apply independently to TriMet; nor had the USDOT incorporated the DOJ regulation so as to make it applicable to public entities' paratransit service.484 E

Read the entire page →

From page 34...

... Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,499 the Ninth Circuit held that a public transit system was not required under the ADA or the Rehabilitation Act to make reasonable modifications to its reduced fare program's eligibility requirements for a disabled participant or to reasonably accommodate a participant's financial inability to provide recertification of his disability as required by a transit system policy. The court held that "[a]

Read the entire page →

← Previous Chapter Skim

Next Chapter Skim →

This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.