DRN Represents Plaintiffs in DIA v. Septa - Court Orders Transit Stations to Be Accessible
DRN Represents Plaintiffs in DIA v. Septa - Court Orders Transit Stations to Be Accessible
After six years of litigation, the federal district court in Philadelphia on September 11 held that the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA), the public transit agency in the Philadelphia area, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Rehabilitation Act (RA) by failing to install elevators when it made alterations at two main rail stations in Center City Philadelphia.
This ruling, a significant victory for individuals with mobility disabilities, came in the case Disabled in Action v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Auth. DIA is represented in the case by attorneys Rocco Iacullo of the Disability Rights Network of Pennsylvania and Stephen Gold.
To read the opinion, visit the DRN website at www.drnpa.org.
Filed in 2003, the lawsuit asserted that SEPTA violated the ADA and RA by: (1) tearing down the existing, unusable staircase at an entrance to the 15th and Market Street Station of the Market-Frankford Elevated Line and replacing it with a new staircase without making the entrance accessible; and (2) taking out the existing, inoperable escalator that provides an exit for the City Hall Station of the Broad Street Subway and replacing it with a new one without making the exit accessible. In 2006, the court dismissed the plaintiff's claims on the basis that they were barred by the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals reversed that ruling in 2008, holding that DIA had timely filed the ADA and RA claims. On remand, the parties renewed their motions for summary judgment and the court heard oral argument in June 2009.
Granting summary judgment for DIA and denying SEPTA' summary judgment motion, the court initially agreed with the plaintiff that the replacement of the staircase and escalator both constituted "alterations" under the ADA and RA. The court rejected SEPTA's "straight-faced flourish of euphemistic word-smithing" that "'replacement' is simply the ‘final act of maintenance' in the normal life of a stairway or escalator." Having concluded that the changes were "alterations," the court further held that the alterations were not "readily accessible" as required by the ADA and RA. In doing so, the court rejected SEPTA's assertions that other elevators in the Suburban Station facility that would enable patrons with disabilities to ultimately reach the location at 15th and Market Street provided sufficient access to people with mobility disabilities so that installation of an elevator at 15th and Market Streets was not necessary. The court wrote: "Requiring individuals in wheelchairs to travel more than the length of two football fields to reach the same point that everyone else can reach without such effort flies in the face of the principles promoted by the ADA." Finally, the court rejected SEPTA's assertion that it was not feasible to install elevators at the locations where the alterations were made, noting that SEPTA's own staff testified that it would be possible to install elevators at those locations.
The court ordered SEPTA to submit to the Court by October 30, 2009 a proposed schedule for compliance with the Order.