Impacts of the Americans with Disabilities Act on Transit Agency Liability (2018) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 45-55
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 46... ...
46 the regulation that was in dispute. The plaintiff, who had cerebral palsy and was wheelchair-bound, was a qualified individual with a disability under the ADA.
|
From page 47... ...
47 to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by the relief requested.696 Furthermore, "[t] he ‘injury in fact' requirement is satisfied differently depending on whether the plaintiff seeks prospective or retrospective relief."697 When a plaintiff is seeking prospective relief, the plaintiff must be suffering a continuing injury or be under a real and immediate threat of being injured in the future.… Past wrongs are evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.… The threatened injury must be "certainly impending" and not merely speculative.… A claimed injury that is contingent upon speculation or conjecture is beyond the bounds of a federal court's jurisdiction.698 When a plaintiff is seeking retrospective relief, if the plaintiff has suffered a past injury that is "concrete and particularized," the "injury in fact" requirement is satisfied.699 2.
|
From page 48... ...
48 the regulations broadly prohibit "‘[a] ny operational pattern or practice that significantly limits the availability of service.'"715 Indeed, the regulations only exclude "from the class of prohibited patterns a narrow set of ‘operational problems … attributable to causes beyond the control of the entity.'"716 F
|
From page 49... ...
49 stated that both the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act prohibit discrimination against persons with AIDS.732 The court observed that, even though having AIDS means that a person has "qualifying factors," MetroLink's Program Application made AIDS a "nonqualifying factor" for the program.733 The plaintiff belonged "to a group of individuals with AIDS who are being classified for different treatment than other disabled persons by being denied the benefits of a federally funded, public reduced fare program, and his classification utterly fail[ed] to relate to any conceivable legitimate governmental purpose."734 The court ruled that the Metro Link Reduced Fare Program, on its face, discriminated against persons with AIDS solely because they have AIDS.735 The program excluded "persons with the disability of AIDS, inter alia, from participation in the program, without even a rational explanation, let alone a ‘rational basis,' for doing so."736 Even if the program were "assessed under the least exacting standard, the rational basis test," the program failed to satisfy the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.737 Thus, it did not "require a great leap" for the court to find that Metro Link was liable under the ADA.738 3.Class Action for Failure to Provide Next-Day Service In Anderson v.
|
From page 50... ...
50 gain access to the 9-1-1 system."749 On the defendants' second motion for summary judgment, the district court concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to compensatory damages because there was no evidence of the city's intentional discrimination or deliberate indifference.750 The Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the district court's judgment, stated that the Justice Department's regulations that were applicable to the case "require that ‘telephone emergency services, including 911 services, shall provide direct access to individuals who use [telecommunication devices] and computer modems.'"751 The court found, however, that there was no evidence of any intentional discrimination, deliberate indifference, or discriminatory animus by the city toward the plaintiffs.752 Although the plaintiffs were not entitled to damages, the appellate court stated that equitable relief, i.e., the injunction, was sufficient to remedy the plaintiff 's "problem" and that, in the meantime, the city's corrective action had solved the problem.753 However, in Munson v.
|
From page 51... ...
51 several individuals with disabilities "who similarly complain[ed] of instances of lift failure and malfunction."766 A federal district court in Oregon held that "compensatory damages are not available under Title II of the ADA absent a showing of discriminatory intent or, at a minimum, deliberate indifference."767 The court concluded that occasional lift problems, when considered in the larger context of Tri-Met's entire fixed route system, did not violate the ADA.768 The plaintiff failed to provide "evidence from which a rational inference of discriminatory intent" could be drawn.769 In addition, evidence of "‘bureaucratic inertia as well as some lack of knowledge and understanding' do not satisfy the intent requirement."770 In Paulone v.
|
From page 52... ...
52 absent intentional discrimination."783 Nevertheless, courts have "held that deliberate indifference satisfies the requisite showing of intentional discrimination."784 "[A] two-part standard for deliberate indifference [requires]
|
From page 53... ...
53 However, it appears that officials may not be sued in their individual capacities under the ADA800 and that non-employer individuals may not be held personally liable under either Title I or Title II of the ADA.801 K Immunity of a State or State Agency for Damages for Violations of Title II In Miranda B
|
From page 54... ...
54 issue, therefore, was whether under § 5 there was "‘a congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that end.'"819 An Indiana federal district court held, first, that there was no "clear fundamental constitutional right to public transportation."820 Second, Title II of the ADA was not a congruent and proportional remedy in cases that "implicat[e] only the right to be free from irrational disability discrimination in the provision of public transportation."821 Title II and its implementing regulations go beyond merely protecting disabled individuals from irrational disability discrimination.
|
From page 55... ...
55 however, the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff 's retaliation claim under the ADA.834 M Attorney's Fees A court has jurisdiction under the ADA to award attorney's fees to a "‘prevailing party' other than the United States."835 In litigation against the federal government, however, the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA)
|
Key Terms
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.