Filed Date: April 25, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On April 25, 2017, six organizations focused on disability and senior citizens rights filed this lawsuit in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. Three individual plaintiffs served as the representatives of a prospective class of people discriminated against based on their lack of mobility. The plaintiffs sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) and its interim director, New York City Transit Authority and its acting president, and the city of New York. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated New York City discrimination laws and sought declaratory judgment, attorneys’ fees, and to enjoin the defendants to make the subway more accessible. The case was initially assigned to Judge Benjamin Cohen, but it was transferred to Judge Shlomo Hagler after Judge Cohen recused himself.
The plaintiffs claimed that defendants discriminated against plaintiffs by failing to install elevators or similar vertical accommodations at 360 subway stations (80% of subway stations in New York City). Plaintiffs alleged that people who use wheelchairs, walkers, or other mobility devices, or who are unable to use stairs due to disabilities related to muscle, joint, heart or lung function, were prevented from using the subway. The individual representatives alleged that the inaccessibility of the subway system affected their choice in housing and everyday ability to commute to work. They sought to represent a class of people whose mobility or other disabilities affect their capacity to use stairs, and who were thusly discriminated against due to the lack of accessible vertical access at the vast majority of New York City subway stations.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on July 14, 2017, based on four arguments. First, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The New York City Human Rights Law has a three-year statute of limitations. The defendants argued that they did not do anything to worsen the accessibility of the transit system in the past three years, so the complaint is not timely since the Transit Authority has existed since 1953. Second, the defendants contended that the claim was nonjusticiable because any injunctive relief would embroil the court in a years-long project to oversee the allocation of public funds. Third, the defendants argued that state laws preempted the local statutes, and that the Transit Authority and the MTA were in compliance with the state laws.
Judge Hagler held oral hearings to adjudicate the issues pertaining to the motion to dismiss on June 5, 2019. The Court denied the statute of limitations argument, finding that each day there is a violation, there is a cognizable injury and thus the statute of limitations resets. The Court also denied the nonjusticiability argument; it is the Court’s role to intervene when discrimination occurs in violation of the New York City Human Rights Law. Finally, the court also denied the defendant’s argument that the federal and state laws preempted the New York City Human Rights Law, since the state and local statutes have concurrent jurisdiction.
The defendants appealed the Court’s denial of their motion to dismiss. Meanwhile, the parties engaged in limited discovery. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Justin Hill (3/1/2020)
Atkinson, Torie Alisa (New York)
Brown, Daniel L (New York)
Caiola, Michelle Anne (New York)
Arffa, Allan J. (New York)
Bowe, Martin John (New York)
Last updated April 18, 2024, 1:47 p.m.
State / Territory: New York
Case Type(s):
Public Accommodations/Contracting
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 25, 2017
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Six disability-focused non-profit organizations.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
Metropolitan Transit Authority ( New York City, New York), State
New York Transit Authority (New York City, New York), State
City of New York (New York City, New York), City
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General:
Access to public accommodations - governmental
Disability and Disability Rights:
Discrimination-area:
Type of Facility: