Case: American Council of the Blind v. O'Neill

1:02-cv-00864 | U.S. District Court for the District of District of Columbia

Filed Date: May 3, 2002

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In 2002, the American Council of the Blind and two individuals with visual impairments filed this suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The plaintiffs sued the Secretary of the Treasury and the Treasurer of the United States under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Represented by private counsel, the plaintiffs challenged the Treasury Department's failure to make paper banknotes that are independently usable by persons who are blind or visually impaired and sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs alleged that the Treasury knew about the need to make banknotes accessible for blind and visually impaired people, but had failed to take any steps to make any notes accessible in line with a 1995 National Academy of Sciences report the Department had commissioned.

Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the 1995 NAS report had recommended changes to banknotes, including making bills different sizes based on value, enlarging the value of the bill to at least one-half of the height of the bill, printing in high-contrast ink, and changing the color of the bills based on value. These kinds of features are present in the banknotes of at least 120 countries. Despite the 1995 NAS report, the Treasury redesigned banknotes in the late 1990s in ways that did not address any of the recommended accessibility features. The plaintiffs advocated for changes to the size of bills to help blind people independently use U.S. bills. Color changes, high-contrast ink, and the size of the number on the bill were all supported as changes for people with visual impairments.

On August 30, 2002, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. Judge James Robertson denied the motion on March 31, 2003, noting that the court lacked a factual record on which to base a decision so early in the case. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the relief requested was inappropriate because the Secretary had total discretion over currency design, the currency did not discriminate against visually impaired people, and the plaintiffs had not exhausted administrative remedies. Judge Robertson denied the defendant’s motion on March 31, 2004, but did dismiss the Treasurer as a party. 311 F. Supp. 2d 86. On November 23, 2005, the plaintiffs amended their complaint to only list the Secretary as a defendant and to expand their claims. Under the amended complaint, the lack of each different kind of accessibility feature was an independent violation of the Rehabilitation Act.

On November 28, 2006, the court held that the U.S. Treasury Department had failed to design, produce and issue paper currency that is readily distinguishable to blind and visually impaired people, violating §504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Judge Robertson granted declaratory relief to the plaintiffs, but did not give them the requested injunction. 2006 WL 3423799 (amended on December 1, 2006, 463 F. Supp. 2d 51). The government appealed the declaratory judgment decision, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed Judge Robertson's decision and sent the case back to him for a ruling on the request for an injunction. 525 F.3d 1256.

The defendant argued that an injunction was inappropriate because the Department was already planning to make banknotes more accessible and because the design of banknotes is a matter of discretion for the Secretary. On October 3, 2008, Judge Robertson rejected both arguments and ordered the government to come up with a plan to make paper money readily accessible. 581 F. Supp. 2d 1. The judge did not give any specific instructions how to accomplish this, but ordered that appropriate changes in each type of paper bill (except the $1 bill, which is specially protected) must be made before any redesign of that denomination is approved by the Secretary of the Treasury. While Judge Robertson acknowledged the plaintiffs’ concern that the Department would use the broad language of the injunction to just give external bill readers to the visually impaired instead of redesigning currency, he did not foreclose that as an option for the Department to come into compliance with the law. On December 11, 2008, the parties settled on the question of attorneys fees and costs, with the Department agreeing to wire almost $700,000 as a one-time payment of such fees. Articles published about the injunction can be found here and here.

Beginning on February 27, 2009, the defendants began to file a status report every six months. The reports indicated that progress was ongoing as the government developed the technology necessary to create accessible bills that would also be secure against counterfeiting risks. After Judge Robertson’s retirement, the case was randomly reassigned to Judge Beryl A. Howell on March 21, 2012. On August 15, 2012, Judge Howell denied the plaintiff’s first motion to amend the injunction to require a firmer deadline on making banknotes accessible. Judge Howell required the defendant to continue making semiannual reports, but required the defendant to be specific about expected timetables for the redesigns.

The Bureau of Engraving and Printing's (BEP's) description of its accessibility program can be found here. The BEP started testing tactile features in 2015. On April 28, 2016, the National Council on Disability sent a letter to the Secretary, requesting that tactile features be incorporated into banknotes. After reports that rolling out accessible banknotes could be delayed until 2026, the American Council for the Blind sent a letter to Treasury expressing concern about the delays.

On June 6, 2016, the plaintiffs moved to modify the court's 2008 order to adjust the timeframe so that all bills would be made accessible by the end of 2026 and the $10 would be made accessible by the end of 2020. The defendant initially indicated that redesigns of the $5, $10, $20, and $50 bills would be complete by 2018. The defendant then revised the time estimates, saying the redesign of the $10 would take at least until 2026 and not indicating when the other denominations would be done. The Department had also distributed iBill bill readers to visually impaired people, but the plaintiffs argued that these devices should not allow the defendant to delay redesigns. The bill reader required two hands to operate and was too inconvenient to use in public settings because of how long it took to read bills. The court denied the order on Jan. 6, 2017, holding that delays in making accessible bills did not constitute a significant public interest problem to warrant the court imposing a timeframe where it had intentionally avoided one in in 2008. 2017 WL 6271264. Specifically, Judge Howell worried that decoupling anti-counterfeiting design changes from accessibility-improving design changes for the sake of meeting hard deadlines could result in inefficient double-work for the Department.

The plaintiffs appealed this order on Jan. 23, 2017. On December 26, 2017, the D.C. Circuit held that Judge Howell had not based her decision not to amend the injunction to impose hard deadlines on a sufficient factual record. 878 F.3d 360. The lack of sufficient evidence constituted an abuse of discretion, and the case was remanded for Judge Howell to expand the record on the costs of imposing strict deadlines and decide the plaintiff’s motion again. The Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that it was improper for the court to consider the projected costs of meeting the proposed deadlines at all. But the Court of Appeals also rejected the defendant’s argument that supplying bill readers like the iBill was sufficient to bring the Government into compliance with the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs renewed their motion to modify the injunction on May 4, 2018.

On January 4, 2019, Judge Howell directed the plaintiffs to submit a list of defense witnesses to testify as to the costs of meeting the proposed deadlines and what questions the plaintiffs intended to ask those witnesses. On the same day, the defendant moved to stay the proceedings due to a lapse of appropriations. On January 9, 2019, Judge Howell denied the motion to stay and, instead of requiring witnesses, directed both parties to submit written answers to a combined 28 questions proposed by the court. 2019 WL 503450.

After receiving the parties responses, Judge Howell issued a 77-page order on August 22, 2019, denying the plaintiff’s third motion to modify the injunction. 396 F. Supp. 3d 147. Judge Howell acknowledged that the Department was not in compliance with the injunction and had been significantly delayed, but said that the Department was consistently working to come into compliance. While further acknowledging that circumstances had changed since the injunction was issued in 2008, Judge Howell considered the plaintiffs’ proposed deadlines to be too short and infeasible. The Department was working to incorporate Raised Tactile Features (RTF) into banknotes, but would not be ready to debut the RTF notes by the end of 2026 because of unexpected design problems. Judge Howell found that modifying the injunction as proposed by the plaintiffs would not be in the public interest and that the proposed changes would not resolve the problems the plaintiffs identified.

On October 21, 2019, the plaintiffs appealed Judge Howell’s denial of their third motion to modify the injunction. As of December 5, 2019, the appeal is ongoing and no oral argument has been scheduled.

Summary Authors

Denise Heberle (1/11/2010)

Virginia Weeks (11/6/2017)

Olivia Wheeling (12/5/2019)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4215035/parties/american-council-of-the-blind-v-oneill/

Judge(s)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Callais, Amanda Rebecca (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Abel, Charlotte A. (District of Columbia)

Allaire, Jennifer (District of Columbia)

Auerbach, Andrew David (District of Columbia)

Azar, Henry A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Judge(s)

Garland, Merrick B. (District of Columbia)

Howell, Beryl Alaine (District of Columbia)

Robertson, James (District of Columbia)

Rogers, Judith Ann Wilson (District of Columbia)

Sentelle, David Bryan (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Callais, Amanda Rebecca (District of Columbia)

Goraya, Deepinder (District of Columbia)

Handley, Matthew K. (District of Columbia)

Kruly, Charles M. (District of Columbia)

Lovitky, Jeffrey A. (District of Columbia)

Wiener, Lewis Steven (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Abel, Charlotte A. (District of Columbia)

Allaire, Jennifer (District of Columbia)

Auerbach, Andrew David (District of Columbia)

Azar, Henry A. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Cohn, Jonathan F. (District of Columbia)

Gette, James David (District of Columbia)

Hoang, Anthony P. (District of Columbia)

Katsas, Gregory George (District of Columbia)

Lalonde, Martin J. (District of Columbia)

Lobue, Joseph W. (District of Columbia)

McCallum, Robert D. Jr. (District of Columbia)

Peterson, Benton Gregory (District of Columbia)

Roberts, Rachel K. (District of Columbia)

Shyloski, Jo-Ann Marie (District of Columbia)

Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)

Sonfield, Brian J. (District of Columbia)

Taylor, Jeff (District of Columbia)

Other

Deese, Charles Michael (District of Columbia)

Attorney Contact Information via CourtListener

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

1:02-cv-00864	Docket (PACER)	Oct. 25, 2019	Oct. 25, 2019 Docket
1 1:02-cv-00864	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	May 3, 2002	May 3, 2002 Complaint
8-1 1:02-cv-00864	Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment	Aug. 30, 2002	Aug. 30, 2002 Pleading / Motion / Brief
10 1:02-cv-00864	Reply Memorandum In Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment	Oct. 30, 2002	Oct. 30, 2002 Pleading / Motion / Brief
12 1:02-cv-00864	Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment	Nov. 12, 2002	Nov. 12, 2002 Pleading / Motion / Brief
14 1:02-cv-00864	Memorandum Order	March 31, 2003	March 31, 2003 Order/Opinion
15 1:02-cv-00864	Defendants' Motion to Dismiss	May 28, 2003	May 28, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
17 1:02-cv-00864	Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion To Dismiss	Aug. 12, 2003	Aug. 12, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
18 1:02-cv-00864	Reply Memorandum in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss	Sept. 10, 2003	Sept. 10, 2003 Pleading / Motion / Brief
19 1:02-cv-00864	Memorandum Order American Council of the Blind v. Snow	March 31, 2004	March 31, 2004 Order/Opinion 311 F.Supp.2d 86

show / hide documents

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4215035/american-council-of-the-blind-v-oneill/

Last updated July 12, 2026, 6:25 a.m.

ECF Number	Date	Description	Link
1	May 3, 2002	COMPLAINT against ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL ( Filing fee $150 ). Filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (aet, ) (Entered: 05/06/2002)	RECAP
2	May 16, 2002	ORDER establishing procedures for electronic filing. Signed by Judge James Robertson on May 16, 2002. (MT) (Entered: 05/16/2002)	RECAP
3	June 13, 2002	AFFIDAVIT of Service by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/13/2002)	RECAP
4	June 25, 2002	NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL by all defendants (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 06/25/2002)	RECAP
5	June 27, 2002	STIPULATION re 1 REQUEST FOR ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 06/27/2002)	RECAP
6	Aug. 6, 2002	STIPULATION re 1 SECOND REQUEST FOR ORDER TO EXTEND RESPONSE DATE by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 08/06/2002)	RECAP
7	Aug. 29, 2002	ENTERED IN ERROR..... MOTION for Summary Judgment by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson# 2 Defendants' Statement of Material Facts)(Simpson, W.) Modified on 8/30/2002 (bcs, ). (Entered: 08/29/2002)	RECAP
8	Aug. 30, 2002	MOTION for Summary Judgment with Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Statement of Material Facts, by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 08/30/2002) 1 Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson View on PACER	RECAP
9	Sept. 3, 2002	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 8 by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/03/2002)	RECAP
10	Oct. 30, 2002	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 8 filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/30/2002)	RECAP
11	Nov. 4, 2002	STIPULATION re 10 AND REQUEST FOR ORDER TO EXTEND REPLY DATE by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/04/2002)	RECAP
12	Nov. 12, 2002	REPLY in support of motion re 8 for Summary Judgment filed by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/12/2002)	RECAP
13	Nov. 26, 2002	NOTICE of Change of Address by W. Scott Simpson (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/26/2002)	RECAP
14	March 31, 2003	ORDER denying defendants' motion for summary judgment 8 . The Clerk is directed to set a status conference. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 31, 2003. (MT) (Entered: 03/31/2003)	RECAP
15	May 28, 2003	MOTION to Dismiss with Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 05/28/2003)	RECAP
16	June 27, 2003	STIPULATION and Request for Extension by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/27/2003)	RECAP
17	Aug. 12, 2003	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 15 Motion to Dismiss filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/12/2003)	RECAP
18	Sept. 10, 2003	REPLY in support of motion re 15 Motion to Dismiss filed by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 09/10/2003)	RECAP
19	March 31, 2004	MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 31, 2004. (MT) (Entered: 03/31/2004)	RECAP
20	March 31, 2004	ORDER denying defendants' motion to dismiss 15 except that the Treasurer of the United States is dismissed as a defendant. Signed by Judge James Robertson on March 31, 2004. (MT) (Entered: 03/31/2004)	RECAP
21	June 4, 2004	ANSWER to Complaint by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL.(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 06/04/2004)	RECAP
22	June 8, 2004	STATUS REPORT Report of Parties' Conference under Local Rule 16.3 by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 06/08/2004)	RECAP
23	June 22, 2004	Joint MOTION for Order to Cancel Status Conference by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Order to Cancel Status Conference)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 06/22/2004)	RECAP
24	June 30, 2004	ORDER granting joint motion to cancel ISC set for July 1, 2004. A status conference is set for February 16, 2005 at 4:30 p.m . Signed by Judge James Robertson on June 30, 2004. (MT) (Entered: 06/30/2004)	RECAP
25	July 22, 2004	STIPULATION AND PROTECTIVE ORDER by ROSARIO MARIN, PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 07/22/2004)	RECAP
26	Oct. 14, 2004	STIPULATION and Request for Order to Change Case Schedule by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 10/14/2004)	RECAP
27	Oct. 15, 2004	ORDER granting stipulated request to change case schedule 26 . The Clerk will reset the February 16, 2005 status conference. Signed by Judge James Robertson on October 15, 2004. (MT) (Entered: 10/15/2004)	RECAP
28	Jan. 18, 2005	STIPULATION and Request for Order to Change Case Schedule by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 01/18/2005)	RECAP
29	Feb. 3, 2005	STIPULATION Second Stipulation and Protective Order by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) Modified on 2/4/2005 (lc, ). (Entered: 02/03/2005)	RECAP
30	Feb. 18, 2005	ORDER re stipulated request for further changes in scheduling 28 . Signed by Judge James Robertson on February 18, 2005. (MT) (Entered: 02/18/2005)	RECAP
31	Feb. 25, 2005	STIPULATION Third Stipulation and Protective Order by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 02/25/2005)	RECAP
32	April 14, 2005	NOTICE of Unavailability of Counsel for Defendant by PAUL H. O'NEILL (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 04/14/2005)	RECAP
33	Aug. 31, 2005	MOTION to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment (Renewed) with Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Statement of Material Facts by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Melanie Brunson# 2 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Dr. Otis Stephens# 3 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Patrick Sheehan# 4 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson# 5 Affidavit Declaration of Julia Wilson# 6 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 08/31/2005) 1 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Melanie Brunson View on PACER 2 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Dr. Otis Stephens View on PACER 3 Exhibit Deposition Excerpts of Patrick Sheehan View on PACER 4 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson View on PACER 5 Affidavit Declaration of Julia Wilson View on PACER 6 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson View on PACER	RECAP
34	Aug. 31, 2005	ERRATA by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 08/31/2005)	RECAP
35	Aug. 31, 2005	MOTION for Summary Judgment by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Index of Exhibits# 3 Exhibit P-1, 1983 Study# 4 Exhibit P-2, NAS Study Part I# 5 Exhibit P-2, NAS Study, Part II# 6 Exhibit P-3, Reproduction of $50 and $20 notes# 7 Exhibit P-4, BEP Description of Color - $20# 8 Exhibit P-5, BEP Description of Color - $50# 9 Exhibit P-6, Def. Response to Interrogatories No's 14-22# 10 Exhibit P-7, Def. Response to Interrogatories No's 1-13# 11 Exhibit P-8, Declaration of Patrick Sheehan# 12 Exhibit P-9, Declaration of Lorraine Marchi# 13 Exhibit P-10, BEP Explanation for Use of Green Ink# 14 Exhibit P-11, Declaration of Julia Wilson# 15 Exhibit P-12, Declaration of ourmoneytoo.org# 16 Exhibit P-13, RFQ Specifications# 17 Exhibit P-14, Def. Response to Document productions Request No's 17-28# 18 Exhibit P-15, Letter from Defendant's Counsel dated August 1, 2005# 19 Exhibit P-16, Tactile Feature for the Blind, Part I# 20 Exhibit P-16, Tactile Feature for the Blind, Part II# 21 Exhibit P-16, Tactile Feature for the Blind, Part III# 22 Exhibit P-17, Memorandum from Stone to Ferguson# 23 Exhibt P-18, Report by Deloitte and Touche, Part I# 24 Exhibit P-18, Report Prepared by Deloitte & Touche, Part II# 25 Exhibit P-19, Eurovision, Understanding Euro Notes, Part !# 26 Exhibit P-19, EuroVision Understanding Euro Notes, Part II# 27 Exhibit P-20, Bank of Canada, Accessibility Features# 28 Exhibit P-21, Ferguson Declaration# 29 Exhibit P-22, BEP Description of Intaglio Process# 30 Exhibit P-23, Cost Impact of Enlarged Numeral# 31 Exhibit P-24, Def. Response to Document Production Request No's 10-16# 32 Exhibit P-25, Email from Len Olijar# 33 Exhibit P-26, Cost Impact of Embossing Feature# 34 Exhibit P-27, Cost Impact of Perforation Feature# 35 Exhibit P-28, Cost Impact of Foil Stamp# 36 Exhibit P-29, Cost Impact of Offset Printing Feature# 37 Exhibit P-30, Declaration of Otis Stephens# 38 Exhibit P-31, Reserved# 39 Exhibit P-32, Bank of Japan, Description of Yen Note# 40 Exhibit P-33, Copy of Swiss Bank Note# 41 Exhibit P-34, 2004 CFO Report, Part I# 42 Exhibit P-34, 2004 CFO Report, Part II# 43 Exhibit P-35, Federal Reserve Board FAQ# 44 Exhibit P-36, Declaration of H.H. Holton# 45 Exhibit P-37, NIH Statistics on Visual Impairments)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/31/2005)	RECAP
36	Aug. 31, 2005	MOTION for Summary Judgment by PAUL H. O'NEILL (see docket entry #33 for document images). (lc, ) (Entered: 09/01/2005)	RECAP
37	Sept. 2, 2005	MOTION for Leave to File a Memorandum as an Amicus Curiae by NATIONAL AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING ASSOCIATION. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Amicus Brief)(nmw, ) (Entered: 09/06/2005)	RECAP
38	Sept. 8, 2005	MOTION to Exclude Evidence by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosure Statement# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 09/08/2005)	RECAP
39	Sept. 8, 2005	AMICUS BRIEF by NATIONAL AUTOMATIC MERCHANDISING ASSOCIATION. (lc, ) (Entered: 09/09/2005)	RECAP
40	Sept. 15, 2005	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 38 Exclusion of Evidence filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Exhibit Fedex Receipt)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2005)	RECAP
41	Sept. 16, 2005	REPLY to opposition to motion re 38 Motion to Exclude Evidence filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 09/16/2005)	RECAP
42	Sept. 23, 2005	ORDER granting in part and denying in part defendant's motion to exclude evidence 38 . Signed by Judge James Robertson on September 23, 2005. (MT) (Entered: 09/23/2005)	RECAP
43	Oct. 26, 2005	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 35 and Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Rule 7.1 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Thomas A. Ferguson in Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment# 2 Exhibit Defendant's Response to Plaintiffs' Second Request for Production of Documents# 3 Exhibit Defendant's Initial Disclosures)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 10/26/2005)	RECAP
44	Oct. 26, 2005	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 33 and Plaintiff's response to Defendant's Rule 7.1 Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit P-38, DOJ Guide to Disability Rights Laws# 2 Exhibit Exhibit P-39, Treasury organization chart# 3 Exhibit Exhibit P-40, ACB Resolutions# 4 Exhibit Exhibit P-41, email from Scott Simpson, dated August 8, 2005# 5 Exhibit Exhibit P-42, 2005 Annual Budget Review# 6 Exhibit Exhibit P-43, House Res. No. 122# 7 Exhibit Exhibit P-44, NAS Project Description# 8 Exhibit Exhibit P-45, email dated Oct. 21, 2005)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/26/2005)	RECAP
45	Nov. 2, 2005	MOTION To Suspend Briefing on the Merits Pending Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of W. Scott Simpson# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/02/2005)	RECAP
46	Nov. 7, 2005	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 45 filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit P-46; Def. Response to Document Production Request No's 1-7)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/07/2005)	RECAP
47	Nov. 7, 2005	MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/07/2005)	RECAP
48	Nov. 8, 2005	REPLY to opposition to motion re 45 to Suspend Briefing on the Merits Pending Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/08/2005)	RECAP
49	Nov. 9, 2005	STIPULATION and Modified Protective Order by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/09/2005)	RECAP
50	Nov. 14, 2005	MOTION to Amend/Correct 1 Complaint Modified Motion for Leave to Amend by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Revised Amended Complaint# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/14/2005)	RECAP
51	Nov. 21, 2005	Memorandum in opposition to motion re 50 and 47 Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint and Modified Motion for Leave to Amend filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/21/2005)	RECAP
52	Nov. 21, 2005	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 44 Memorandum in Opposition,, to Defendant's Renewed Motion to Dismiss or for Summary Judgment by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 11/21/2005)	RECAP
53	Nov. 23, 2005	AMENDED COMPLAINT against PAUL H. O'NEILL, ROSARIO MARINfiled by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS.(lc, ) (Entered: 11/28/2005)	RECAP
54	Nov. 29, 2005	STIPULATION and Request for Order to Set Schedule by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/29/2005)	RECAP
55	Jan. 5, 2006	MOTION for Order Setting Briefing Schedule and Enforcement of Stipulation by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/05/2006)	RECAP
56	Jan. 5, 2006	RESPONSE to 55 55 Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Setting Briefing Schedule and Enforcement of Stipulation filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit)(Simpson, W.) Modified on 1/6/2006 (nmw, ). (Entered: 01/05/2006)	RECAP
57	Jan. 6, 2006	REPLY to opposition to motion re 55 Setting Briefing Schedule filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/06/2006)	RECAP
58	Jan. 13, 2006	Unopposed MOTION to Seal Document by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/13/2006)	RECAP
59	Jan. 13, 2006	NOTICE of Filing by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Note: The document attached to this notice is housed in the vault). Modified on 2/15/2017 (tg). (Entered: 01/13/2006)	RECAP
60	Jan. 23, 2006	REPLY to opposition to motion re 35 Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit P-47 - The Euro - Our Money# 2 Exhibit Exhibit P-48, ECB Security Features# 3 Exhibit Exhibit P-49, Swiss National Bank Security Features# 4 Exhibit Exhibit P-50, Counterfeit Deterrence Banknote Feature# 5 Exhibit Exhibit P-51, Transcript of Hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services, April 28, 2004, Part I, pp. 1-68# 6 Exhibit Exhibit P-51, Transcript of Hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services, April 28, 2004, Part II, pp. 69 - end# 7 Exhibit Exhibit P-52, Transcript of Hearing before the House Committee on Financial Services, July 24, 2001# 8 Exhibit Exhibit P-53, Transcript of News Conference, May 20, 1998# 9 Exhibit Exhibit P-54, 2005 Federal Reserve Board New Currency Budget# 10 Exhibit Exhibit P-55, Testimony of BEP Director before House Appropriations Subcommittee, March 5, 1998# 11 Exhibit Exhibit P-56, Federal Reserve Budget Review 1999# 12 Exhibit Exhibit P-57, e-mail from Def. counsel dated October 24, 2005# 13 Exhibit Exhibit P-58, Federal Reserve ECI Program# 14 Exhibit Exhibit P-59, Testimony of BEP Director before House Subcommittee, March 28, 2000, Part I, pp. 1-17# 15 Exhibit Exhibit P-59, Testimony of BEP Director before House Subcommittee, March 28, 2000, Part II, pp. 18-end)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 01/23/2006)	RECAP
61	Jan. 23, 2006	REPLY to opposition to motion re 33 and Supplemental Memorandum filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Kit Regone)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 01/23/2006)	RECAP
62	Feb. 15, 2006	MOTION for Extension of Time to File Surreply by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit # 2 Exhibit # 3 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 02/15/2006)	RECAP
63	Feb. 16, 2006	Memorandum in opposition to re 62 filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A# 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 02/16/2006)	RECAP
64	Feb. 20, 2006	REPLY to opposition to motion re 63 Memorandum in Opposition, 62 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Surreply filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 02/20/2006)	RECAP
65	March 9, 2006	NOTICE of Filing Exhibits (FILED IN VAULT) by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Lovitky, Jeffrey) Modified on 3/13/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 03/09/2006)	RECAP
66	April 10, 2006	SURREPLY to re 60 Reply to opposition to Motion,,,,, for Summary Judgment filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Supplemental Declaration of Kit Regone)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 04/10/2006)	RECAP
67	April 10, 2006	SURREPLY to re 61 Reply to opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit P-60, BEP Lesson Plan)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 04/10/2006)	RECAP
68	May 9, 2006	SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Lovitky, Jeffrey) Modified on 5/10/2006 (lc, ). (Entered: 05/09/2006)	RECAP
69	May 15, 2006	RESPONSE re 68 Memorandum filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 05/15/2006)	RECAP
70	Oct. 29, 2006	NOTIFICATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 10/29/2006)	RECAP
71	Nov. 28, 2006	MEMORANDUM ORDER denying defendant's renewed motion to dismiss or for summary judgment 33 36 , granting in part plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment 35 and the Clerk is directed to set a status conference for approximately 30 days after the date of this memorandum order. Signed by Judge James Robertson on November 28, 2006. (MT)	RECAP
72	Dec. 1, 2006	AMENDED MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Judge James Robertson on December 1, 2006. (MT)	RECAP
73	Dec. 5, 2006	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Attorney Fee Application by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/05/2006)	RECAP
74	Dec. 19, 2006	Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Petition for Permission to Take Interlocutory Appeal# 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 12/19/2006)	RECAP
76	July 22, 2008	Civil Statement from Interested Party, GEORGE FRACEK, regarding making money for the blind. (tg, ) "Let this be filed" by Judge James Robertson. (Entered: 07/23/2008)	RECAP
75	July 23, 2008	MANDATE Judgment of USCA (certified copy) Ordered that the grant of partial summary judgment on the Secretary's liability under section 504 is affirmed and the case is remanded to the District Court to address the Council's request for injunctive relief, in accordance with the opinion of the Court filed herein this date. USCA No. 07-5063 (ks) (Entered: 07/23/2008)	RECAP
77	July 28, 2008	Joint MOTION to Defer Further Proceedings by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS, PAUL H. O'NEILL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 07/28/2008)	RECAP
78	July 28, 2008	Civil Statement from Interested Party, GEORGE FRACEK regarding system of marking money for the blind. (tg, ) "Let this be filed" by Judge James Robertson. (Entered: 07/29/2008)	RECAP
79	Aug. 25, 2008	NOTICE of Withdrawal of Consent by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 08/25/2008)	RECAP
80	Aug. 29, 2008	STATUS REPORT "Status Conference Statement" by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Larry R. Felix)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 08/29/2008)	RECAP
81	Sept. 3, 2008	STATUS REPORT by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/03/2008)	RECAP
82	Sept. 8, 2008	MOTION for Protective Order and Expedited Document Production by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2008)	RECAP
83	Sept. 8, 2008	Memorandum in opposition to re 82 MOTION for Protective Order and Expedited Document Production filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment 1)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 09/08/2008)	RECAP
84	Sept. 8, 2008	REPLY to opposition to motion re 82 MOTION for Protective Order and Expedited Document Production filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/08/2008)	RECAP
85	Sept. 9, 2008	ORDER granting plaintiff's motion for protective order 82 . The agreed protective order attached to its reply 84 is approved and so ordered. Signed by Judge James Robertson on September 9, 2008. (MT) (Entered: 09/09/2008)	RECAP
86	Sept. 15, 2008	NOTICE of Filing under Seal by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2008)	RECAP
87	Sept. 15, 2008	Unopposed MOTION for Order to Seal Documents by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/15/2008)	RECAP
88	Sept. 15, 2008	MEMORANDUM re Status Conference, by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 09/15/2008)	RECAP
90	Sept. 19, 2008	MOTION to Require that Defendant Submit a Plan to Mitigate Deficiencies by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (tg, ) (FILED UNDER SEAL - housed in the vault) Modified on 2/15/2017 (tg). (Entered: 09/22/2008)	RECAP
89	Sept. 21, 2008	RESPONSE re 88 Memorandum of Points and Authorities filed by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/21/2008)	RECAP
91	Sept. 26, 2008	Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/26/2008)	RECAP
92	Sept. 26, 2008	NOTICE of Filing under Seal by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS re 91 Unopposed MOTION for Leave to File Under Seal (Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 09/26/2008)	RECAP
93	Sept. 26, 2008	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 90 MOTION to Require that Defendant Submit a Plan to Mitigate Deficiencies by PAUL H. O'NEILL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 09/26/2008)	RECAP
94	Oct. 2, 2008	MOTION for Leave to Supplement Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Points and Authorities to Require that the Defendant Submit a Plan to Mitigate Deficiencies. by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (tg, ) (FILED UNDER SEAL - housed in the vault) Modified on 2/15/2017 (tg). (Entered: 10/02/2008)	RECAP
95	Oct. 3, 2008	MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge James Robertson on October 3, 2008. (MT)	RECAP
96	Oct. 3, 2008	ORDER AND JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge James Robertson on October 3, 2008. (MT) (Entered: 10/03/2008)	RECAP
97	Oct. 7, 2008	Memorandum in opposition to re 90 MOTION to Require Submission of a Plan to Mitigate "Deficiencies" in ARINC Contract filed by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Larry W. McCain)(Simpson, W.) (Entered: 10/07/2008)	RECAP
98	Nov. 28, 2008	Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to submit application for attorneys fees and costs by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 11/28/2008)	RECAP
99	Dec. 1, 2008	MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, PATRICK SHEEHAN, OTIS STEPHENS (Attachments: # 1 Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Exhibit List of Exhibits, # 4 Exhibit No. 1 Counsel declaration, # 5 Exhibit No. 2 Docket Sheets, # 6 Exhibit No. 3 Billing records, # 7 Exhibit No. 5 Representation Agreement, # 8 Exhibit No. 6 USAO Matrix rates, # 9 Exhibit No. 7 NLJ survey, # 10 Exhibit No. 8 NLJ associate survey, # 11 Exhibit No. 9 representative engagements, # 12 Exhibit No. 10 CV, # 13 Exhibit No. 11 Fla Bar Certification, # 14 Exhibit No. 12 Martindale-Hubbell ratings, # 15 Exhibit No. 13 Heard time and expense reports, # 16 Exhibit No. 14 Defendant's disclosures, # 17 Exhibit No. 15 Expense documentation)(Lovitky, Jeffrey) (Entered: 12/01/2008)	RECAP
100	Dec. 10, 2008	STIPULATION re 99 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs by PAUL H. O'NEILL. (Simpson, W.) (Entered: 12/10/2008)	RECAP

show / hide docket entries

Case Details

State / Territory:

District of Columbia

Case Type(s):

Disability Rights

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 3, 2002

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

A national membership organization of people who are blind or have vision impairments and two individuals who are blind or have vision impairments.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

Department of the Treasury

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Other Dockets:

District of District of Columbia 1:02-cv-00864

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 06-08003

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 07-05063

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Granted:

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Content of Injunction:

Discrimination Prohibition

Reasonable Accommodation

Reporting

Required disclosure

Amount Defendant Pays: 672,675.00

Issues

General/Misc.:

Currency

Government services

Disability and Disability Rights:

Screen readers and similar accessibility devices

Visual impairment

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Recommended Citation

Case Summary of American Council of the Blind v. O'Neill, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/5519/ (last updated 12/5/2019).