Case: Denny v. City & County of Denver

This was a class action settlement between the City of Denver and an individual plaintiff who used a wheelchair for mobility; she filed suit on behalf of similarly situated individuals with mobility disabilities. A Colorado state court formally approved the settlement agreement.

Background:

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”) requires state and local governments to provide equal access to programs, services, and activities for individuals with disabilities; public “programs” the ADA covers include pedestrian rights of way such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and paved paths. Likewise, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”) requires public entities that receive federal funding to ensure that their sidewalks, crosswalks, and paved paths are accessible to individuals with disabilities. Both the ADA and Section 504 require city’s conducting street construction or alteration to install and/or upgrade curb ramps, accessible to people with disabilities.

In 2013, the Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (“CREEC”) began investigating whether Denver’s street sidewalks complied with the ADA and Section 504; CREEC was concerned that Denver’s sidewalks and intersections did not include a sufficient number of curb ramps for individuals with mobility disabilities. CREEC alleged its investigation found “hundreds of violations “ of ADA and Section 504 “curb ramp requirements” throughout Denver, including (1) a lack of curb ramps where the ADA and Section 504 required curb ramps, and (2) curb ramps with excessively sleep slopes.

Negotiations and settlement:

In late 2013, CREEC partnered with the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (“CCDC”) to present its investigatory findings to Denver. Upon presenting their findings, CREEC and CCDC began a structured negotiation process with Denver to resolve Denver’s alleged Section 504 and ADA curb ramp violations. (A “structured negotiation” in the context of an ADA or Section 504 legal dispute is a collaborative, pre-litigation process in which parties work together to resolve accessibility issues without going to court.)

Formally, CREEC and CCDC negotiated with Denver on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was named the "class representative" for a larger "class" of individuals: “All persons with disabilities who use wheelchairs or scooters for mobility who . . . use or will use the pedestrian right of way in the City and County of Denver.” Proposed Order Granting Certification of a Class at 8. As the class representative, the plaintiff represented the interests of the entire class.

On January 20, 2016, Denver entered into a class action settlement agreement with the plaintiff, individually and on behalf of the class. Denver formally denied all allegations against it, but agreed to the following terms:

• Denver agreed to perform a comprehensive survey of all city corners at street segments with sidewalks, identifying every curb ramp missing or otherwise not complying with the ADA and Section 504. Denver agreed to complete this survey by the end of 2017.
• Denver agreed to install a minimum of 1,500 curb ramps per calendar year until all locations within the city complied with ADA and Section 504 requirements.
• Denver agreed to provide CREEC and CCDC with an annual report, identifying all curb ramps the city installed, replaced, and/or altered in the preceding calendar year.
• Denver agreed to retain and pay an independent inspector to annually survey a random sampling of 10% of locations on which curb ramps were or should have been installed during the preceding year to ensure that compliant curb ramps were, in fact, installed.
• Denver agreed to implement a yearly training program for its employees responsible for road and sidewalk planning.
• Denver agreed to maintain its curb ramps in operable working condition.
• Denver agreed to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees to CREEC and CCDC.

The settlement agreement provided that the above terms would remain effective until the independent inspector submitted a final report confirming that Denver modified or installed all compliant ramps.

Because a court needed to formally approve the settlement agreement, the plaintiff filed a class action complaint in Colorado state court on January 26, 2016. The court granted final approval of the settlement agreement on September 9, 2016. In its order granting final approval, the court awarded the plaintiff $681.50 in costs and $122,000 in attorneys’ fees (the plaintiff was to pay these fees to CREEC and CCDC), as well as future reasonable attorneys’ fees regarding the monitoring of the settlement agreement.

In its order on September 9, 2016, the Colorado court administratively closed the case, but reserved jurisdiction over the matter until the term of the settlement expires.

As of February 2025, the Clearinghouse could not confirm whether or not Denver had completed its obligations under the settlement and thus whether the case was ongoing.