Filed Date: March 28, 2006
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On November 10, 2004, Voices for Independence, a non-profit disability advocacy group, and a class of disabled individuals, filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, against Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). The Plaintiffs alleged that when PennDOT had resurfaced highways in the cities of Meadville and Erie, it failed to install mandatory curb cuts and otherwise comply with the accessibility mandates of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 701. On September 7, 2006, the Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint joining the cities of Meadville and Erie as defendants in the case. Voices for Independence had previously filed a suit against Meadville (see related cases) but joined the City in this case because PennDOT denied legal responsibility to retrofit non-compliant curb cuts at intersections of state and local roads.
On December 22, 2006, PennDOT, Meadville, and the Plaintiffs entered a court-approved settlement wherein Meadville and PennDOT agreed to share responsibility for the remediation of non-compliant intersections where future resurfacing work was to be performed. The Defendants agreed to retrofit existing non-compliant intersections which, under the ADA, should have been remediated as part of earlier resurfacing work performed within the two years prior to the lawsuit. A similar settlement was made between Erie, PennDOT, and the Plaintiffs on April 4, 2007, wherein PennDOT assumed responsibility for constructing ADA-compliant curb cuts in all its future road projects in Erie and to remediate non-compliant curb cuts which were constructed or should have been corrected in conjunction with prior road projects going back to March 28, 2004.
The parties could not agree as to whether a statute of limitations relieved the Defendants of responsibility to retrofit non-compliant intersections modified after January 26, 1992, when the ADA first came into effect, but more than two years prior to the date the lawsuit was filed. The Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on the issue, asking the Court to declare that they were not responsible for these retrofitting these intersections. On September 28, 2007, the Court (Judge Sean J. McLaughlin) issued a Memorandum Opinion and Order in which it denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Voices for Independence v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Dept. of Transportation, 2007 WL 2905887 (W.D. Penn, 2007).
On March 4, 2009, the plaintiffs and PennDOT agreed to a third settlement, in which PennDOT agreed to retrofit intersections where necessary on all roads it resurfaced in Erie and Meadville from January 24, 1992, to March 28, 2004, and to issue an Annual Report of Compliance on or before January 31 of each year during the life of the settlement, listing each curb cuts installed, repaired, or retrofitted, with relevant measurements. If these reports showed that PennDOT was unlikely to complete the retrofitting project by January 1, 2014, then the Plaintiffs were to follow dispute resolution measures outlined in the earlier settlements.
On March 11, 2009, the Plaintiffs, the City of Meadville, and PennDOT entered a Consent Decree, wherein Meadville and PennDOT divided responsibility for certain resurfaced roads, sidewalks, and intersections in Meadville that were still in need of retrofitting in order to be ADA-compliant.
On January 30, 2012, the Plaintiffs and PennDOT entered into a fourth settlement, clarifying the requirements of the earlier settlements and ensuring that within the cities of Erie and Meadville all newly constructed or altered State roads and highways would have curb cuts at all intersections containing curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway. In cases where PennDOT felt that this was inappropriate, it was required to provide written notice to the Plaintiffs. PennDOT also agreed to install the curb cuts that it had omitted in work performed since 2007. The settlement also addressed problems with undulating sidewalks and other obstructions. In the settlement, PennDOT agreed to pay an unspecified amount in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs.
On May 23, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Enforce Settlement, alleging that PennDOT had failed to install approximately one thousand curb cuts required by the earlier settlements, and that it failed to file with the Court the detailed annual report listing the exact number and location of each omitted curb cut. This was granted on January 29, 2013.
On April 18, 2013, the Plaintiffs and PennDOT entered into a fifth settlement, which included a list of curb cuts remaining to be installed. PennDOT agreed to install all these curb cuts by December 31, 2013, excepting certain intersections where ongoing construction would prevent them from being completed by the deadline. The fifth settlement recognized that discussions about other ADA compliance issues were still ongoing between the parties. PennDOT agreed to pay an unspecified amount in attorneys' fees and costs to the Plaintiffs. As in the previous four settlements, the court approved the terms of the agreement and retained jurisdiction concerning interpretation of and compliance with the terms of the settlement.
Since entry of the fifth settlement agreement, defendants have continued to submit status reports. On November 23, 2016, the parties submitted a joint motion to dismiss the City of Meadville. They agreed that Meadville had fulfilled its obligations under the settlement and consent decrees by, among other things, installing about 860 curb ramps. The court granted the motion to dismiss on November 28, 2016.
This case was reassigned to Judge Susan Paradise Baxter on February 5, 2019. As of May 21, 2020, the remaining defendants are still subject to the settlement agreements. The court continues to monitor their compliance and the parties file periodic status reports.
Summary Authors
Alex Colbert-Taylor (6/11/2013)
Timothy Leake (11/22/2018)
Alex Moody (5/21/2020)
Barrier Busters v. City of Erie, Western District of Pennsylvania (2002)
Voices for Independence v. Meadville, Western District of Pennsylvania (2004)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4854618/parties/voices-for-independence-vfi-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-department/
Baxter, Susan Paradise (Pennsylvania)
Cooper, Scott B. (Pennsylvania)
Adsit, Diane Putney (Pennsylvania)
Alizzeo, Gary M. (Pennsylvania)
Bradley, Scott A. (Pennsylvania)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4854618/voices-for-independence-vfi-v-commonwealth-of-pennsylvania-department/
Last updated April 7, 2025, 12:42 p.m.
State / Territory: Pennsylvania
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 28, 2006
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Voices for Independence, a non-profit disability advocacy group, and a class of disabled individuals, alleging the PennDOT and the Cities of Erie and Meadville, PA failed to provide adequate curb cuts and other crosswalk accommodations as required by the ADA.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
City of Meadville, PA (Meadville), City
Defendant Type(s):
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.
Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Goals (e.g., for hiring, admissions)
Amount Defendant Pays: Amount unspecified
Order Duration: 2006 - 2016
Issues
General/Misc.:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination Area:
Discrimination Basis: