Congratulations to Mackenzie Hughes partner Brad Hunt and former partner Christian P. Jones on their recent success on an appeal of important significance to public transit providers across our nation: Woods v. Centro of Oneida, Inc., et al.,103 F.4th 933 (2d Cir. 2024) [decision]
The plaintiff, an individual who is paralyzed from the waist down, asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the “Rehabilitation Act”) against a regional transit authority and its subsidiary, alleging the public transit operator discriminated against him in violation of these federal statutes and their implementing regulations by failing to provide wheelchair-accessible bus stops in the City of Utica.
The lawsuit ensued after the plaintiff sent an April 2020 letter alleging the bus stops in the City were inaccessible to wheelchair users and demanding the public transit operator “remedy the ADA violations and bring the [bus stop] landing pads into compliance with the requirements, provisions, and regulations of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act within thirty (30) days.” The transit operator responded to the plaintiff’s demand letter, noting the availability of accessible alternate pick-up and drop-off locations its bus stops, as well as its policy of allowing courtesy stops anywhere along a bus route.
The vast majority of the bus stops are “unimproved,” meaning ordinary bus stops that were not specifically constructed as bus stops, but rather are merely locations where a sign in the ground marks the general area in which a bus will stop. Essentially, the plaintiff argued the public transit operator was required to make significant modifications to its existing bus stops by constructing concrete wheelchair landing pads with sizes and slopes that meet current federal specifications applicable only to newly altered or constructed bus stops.
The federal district court dismissed the plaintiff’s complaint, finding the operator’s paratransit service (a transportation service for individuals who are unable to use a fixed route transportation system along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule) and its flexible pick-up and drop-off policy were each reasonable accommodations providing meaningful access to the transit authority’s bus service.
In the appeal that followed, the Second Circuit discussed the statutory framework governing the plaintiff’s claims under Title II of the ADA, particularly Part B pertaining to the provision of public transportation services by public entities (the Court noted the Rehabilitation Act claims were treated identically). Considering the fixed route bus service in its entirety, the Second Circuit concluded the service is readily accessible to individuals with disabilities. Importantly, the Court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that structural changes were required to the many preexisting, unimproved bus stops that comprise the public transportation system merely because the public transit operator had installed new signs at bus stops — a result sought by the plaintiff that would have proven impractical and burdensome to transit providers throughout New York and beyond.
Written by W. Bradley Hunt and Nicole Marlow-Jones