Reynoldson, Pixley, Whedbee v. City of Seattle - Class Action Complaint Regarding the Pedestrian Right of Way

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

51. Plaintiffs bring this action individually, and on behalf of all persons with mobility disabilities who use or will use the pedestrian right of way in the City of Seattle, as a class action under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

52. Each member of the class is a "qualified person with a disability" and/or a person with a "disability" pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code §§ 49.60.010 et seq. The persons in the class are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and that the disposition of their claims in a class action rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties and the Court. The class consists of tens of thousands of persons with mobility disabilities.

53. Defendant has failed and continues to fail to comply with the ADA, Section 504, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination in its implementation of the City's administrative methods, policies, procedures, and practices with regard to the construction, remediation, and maintenance of curb ramps that provide access to the City's pedestrian right of way.

54. Defendant has not adopted and does not enforce appropriate administrative methods, policies, procedures, and/or practices to ensure that it is in compliance with the ADA, Section 504, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination to ensure nondiscrimination against persons with mobility disabilities and equal access to facilities, programs, services, and activities for persons with mobility disabilities.

55. The violations of the ADA, Section 504, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination set forth in detail herein have injured all members of the proposed class and violated their rights in a similar way.

56. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive or declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole. Class claims are brought for the purposes of obtaining declaratory and injunctive relief only.

57. The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of those of the class in that they arise from the same course of conduct engaged in by Defendant. The relief sought herein will benefit all class members alike.

58. Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. They have no interests adverse to the interests of other members of the class and have retained counsel who are competent and experienced in litigating complex class actions, including large-scale disability rights class action cases.

59. The requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are met with regard to the proposed class in that:

a. The class is so numerous that it would be impractical to bring all class members before the Court;

b. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the class;

c. The Named Plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are typical of the claims of the class;

d. The Named Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent common class interests and are represented by counsel who are experienced in law reform class actions and the disability rights issues in this case; and

e. Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class.

60. The common questions of law and fact, shared by the Named Plaintiffs and all class members, include but are not limited to:

a. Whether Defendant is violating Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. sections 12131, et seq., by failing to install or remediate curb ramps that make the City's pedestrian right of way program, service, or activity accessible to and useable by persons with mobility disabilities, and otherwise discriminating against persons with mobility disabilities, as set forth above;

b. Whether Defendant is violating Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. section 794 et seq., by failing to install or remediate curb ramps that make the City's pedestrian right of way program, service, or activity accessible to and useable by persons with mobility disabilities, and otherwise discriminating against people with mobility disabilities, as set forth above;

c. Whether Defendant is violating the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.010 et seq., by failing to install or remediate curb ramps that make the City's pedestrian right of way program, service, or activity accessible to and useable by persons with mobility disabilities, and otherwise discriminating against persons with mobility disabilities, as set forth above;

d. Whether Defendant has performed "new construction" and/or "alterations" to the City's pedestrian right of way within the meaning of 28 C.F.R. § 35.151, triggering an obligation to construct or retrofit curb ramps;

e. Whether Defendant has performed "new construction" and/or "alterations" to the City's pedestrian right of way within the meaning of 45 C.F.R. § 84.23, triggering an obligation to construct or retrofit curb ramps;

f. Whether Defendant has "built" and/or "remolded" any portion or portions of the City's pedestrian right of way, within the meaning of Wash. Admin. Code § 162-26-100(3), triggering an obligation to construct or retrofit curb ramps;

g. Whether Defendant, by its actions and omissions alleged herein, has engaged in a pattern or practice of discriminating against Plaintiffs and other persons with mobility disabilities in violation of applicable federal and state disability access laws.