Case: Reynoldson v. City of Seattle

On October 8, 2015, Plaintiffs, a group of individuals with mobility disabilities filed this lawsuit, on behalf of themselves and a class, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. Represented by Disability Rights Washington, Plaintiffs alleged that the City of Seattle unlawfully discriminated against those with mobility disabilities by failing to comply with state and federal regulations addressing accessibility for people with disabilities in its construction, and maintenance, of curb ramps, making a substantial portion of the city’s sidewalks and street crossings inaccessible for those who used mobility aids. The plaintiffs sued the City of Seattle under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973(“Section 504”); the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), and Wash. Rev. Code §49.60.010 (Washington Law Against Discrimination). Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs, and any other relief that the Court deemed just and proper. This case was assigned to Judge Marsha J. Pechman.  

 Plaintiffs argued that they, and those similarly situated to themselves, were being discriminated against by the City of Seattle due to the unlawful and hazardous conditions caused by the lack of meaningful access to accessible curb ramps for pedestrians.  Without these ramps, they argued, they were excluded from equal access to public life, and all the benefits of access to the goods, services, and activities that pedestrians without mobility challenges enjoy. Plaintiffs sought certification of their class as all persons with mobility disabilities who live, work or visit Seattle. 

Plaintiffs brought three claims. First, they argued, Seattle, a public entity violated the ADA, under which qualified individuals with disabilities may not be excluded from participation in or denied the benefits of a public entity (here pedestrian rights). Second, plaintiffs argued that Seattle had violated Section 504, which states that no otherwise qualified individual may be excluded from any program receiving federal financial assistance solely due to his or her disability. Additionally, recipients of federal financial assistance have been required to install ADAAG or UFAS compliant ramps at intersections of any newly constructed or altered rights of way any time after June 3, 1977 per Section 504. Finally, plaintiffs brought a third cause of action for violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination, a state law providing individuals the right to be free from discrimination in access to public accommodations, facilities or privileges of any place of public resort, including pedestrian rights. Plaintiffs' complaint suffered clear harm from not having access to such public accommodations, and dealt with hardships, difficulties, anxieties, and physical danger from the lack of access. 

Plaintiffs' requested relief included:

• A declaratory judgment that the Defendant’s conduct violated the ADA, Section 504, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, and their regulations.
• A permanent injunction, enjoining the Defendant to at minimum (with the court monitoring):
  • Ensure the installation, repair and maintenance of curb ramps so that Seattle was entirely accessible to and useable by individuals with mobility disabilities;
  • Ensure fast solutions to fix past violations of the City’s obligations to alter curb ramps to meet new construction and design standards;
  • Ensure future compliance with the most stringent state and federal disability access design standards of all future construction and alterations to curb ramps;
  • Ensure that Seattle adopted and implemented methods, policies and practices to maintain accessible curb ramps; and
• Attorney’s fees and costs. 

On May 2, 2016, the court granted the stipulated motion for class certification. The class was defined as any residents of and/or visitors to Seattle with a mobility disability who at any time prior to the action was denied full and equal access to pedestrian right of way due to a lack of, or poor or insufficient maintenance of a curb ramp.  

The case was reassigned to Judge Barbara J. Rothstein on September 1, 2016.  The parties prepared for trial, but continued to negotiate, and eventually came to an agreement. On July 17, 2017, a joint motion to approve a Consent Judgment by the plaintiff was filed. The amended final judgment and class action settlement were signed on November 1, 2017. Additionally on November 1, 2017, class representatives were awarded $5,000.  

The terms of the order were as follows:

• Installation and Remediation of Curb Ramps (in order to meet the following requirements, Seattle was required to create a transition plan):
  • Seattle agreed to install missing curb ramps or upgrade non-compliant ramps in all locations associated with roadway or pedestrian facility projects to the maximum structurally practicable and technically feasible standards. 
  • Seattle agreed to prioritize new and remediated ramps based on their proximity to government businesses, transportation corridors, hospitals and medical facilities, places of public accommodation (commercial or business zones, for example), facilities containing employers and residential neighborhoods. 
  • Maintain an easily accessible procedure for residents to request installation, remediation and maintenance of curb ramps throughout the 18 year compliance period.   
• Employment of an ADA Coordinator to develop the Transition Plan, implement the Consent Decree, and file a yearly report with the parties regarding Seattle’s compliance with the consent decree.
• Additionally, throughout the 18-year compliance period of the consent decree, Plaintiffs and their Counsel were to conduct periodic monitoring and discussions with the city.
• Plaintiffs’ Counsel was to be paid reasonable attorney’s fees and costs up to $40,000 in the year ending December 31, 2018, $40,000 in the year ending December 31, 2019, and up to $20,000 per year in each of the additional 16 years.  

The court maintained jurisdiction over enforcement of the consent decree, and Seattle remained liable for Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses with a cap of $50,000 per dispute throughout the enforcement period.  

Finally, the court awarded the plaintiffs $1,388,729 in attorneys’ fees, expenses and costs.  

The court maintains jurisdiction over compliance, and as of May 2023, monitoring is ongoing through 2035.