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

FACTS APPLICABLE TO ALL CLAIMS

24. As a result of Defendant's policies and practices with regard to curb ramps in the City's pedestrian right of way, people with mobility disabilities have been discriminated against and denied full and equal access to the benefits of the City's pedestrian right of way program or service.

25. Hereafter, an "Inaccessible" curb ramp shall refer to a curb ramp that did not comply with applicable standards for accessible design (i.e., the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards ("UFAS"), 1991 ADA Standards for Accessible Design ("ADAAG") or the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design ("2010 ADAAG")), at the time it was constructed or altered.

26. Defendant has failed and is failing to install, remediate, repair, and maintain curb ramps as required by law. For example, thousands of intersections in the City have no curb ramps or an inadequate number of curb ramps. Even where curb ramps exist, many are improperly installed and/or maintained, lack a flush transition to the street, have excessively steep running, cross, and side slopes, are too narrow, and/or are otherwise noncompliant. Many other curb ramps are not maintained; they are broken, cracked, crumbled, sunken, and/or caved.

27. As a result of Defendant's policies and practices with regard to curb ramps, large segments of the City's pedestrian right of way do not comply with new construction or alteration accessibility requirements. For example, the City has consistently failed to install curb ramps and remediate existing curb ramps when it alters or constructs sidewalks and streets.

28. As a result of the many missing and noncompliant curb ramps at intersections throughout the City, the pedestrian right of way, viewed in its entirety, is inaccessible to persons with mobility disabilities. Plaintiffs and others with mobility disabilities are therefore denied meaningful access to the City's pedestrian right of way, public buildings, parks, transportation, and/or places of employment and public accommodation, either through complete denials of access or through delay of travel or unsafe conditions.

29. This lack of accessible curb ramps is not isolated or limited. Rather, these barriers to full and equal access to the pedestrian right of way exist throughout the City, thus denying individuals with mobility disabilities full, equal, and meaningful access to the pedestrian right of way City-wide. Persons with mobility disabilities encounter missing or Inaccessible curb ramps throughout the City, including in such areas as Downtown Seattle, Pioneer Square, the University District, Wallingford, Fremont, Columbia City, Hillman City, Rainier Beach, Central District, Queen Anne, Capitol Hill, Ballard, Crown Hill, Magnolia, West Seattle, and Mount Baker. As a result, persons with mobility disabilities have been denied access to the accommodations and services available to the general public. Furthermore, these barriers deter persons with mobility disabilities from exploring or visiting areas of the City. Missing and Inaccessible curb ramps also delay travel and cause persons with mobility disabilities to fear for their safety, as these conditions often create dangerous situations.

30. Defendant has not provided and does not provide persons with mobility disabilities with any map (whether paper or electronic), signage or other form of notice of any routes, or parts of routes, in the City's pedestrian right of way that are accessible to persons with mobility disabilities. Notice of completed accessibility improvements and plans for scheduled accessibility improvements are not posted on the City websites, and notice of such information is not made otherwise available to persons with mobility disabilities. As a result of the lack of any notice, maps, or signage regarding the location of accessible routes within the City's pedestrian right of way, persons with mobility disabilities have been and continue to be deterred from and impeded in travelling to various parts of the City, thus denying them meaningful and equal access to the City's pedestrian right of way and its other facilities, programs, services, and activities.

31. Defendant failed to prepare and implement a timely Self Evaluation relating to the construction and maintenance of curb ramps as required by federal law. The federal regulations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA require that public entities create a Self Evaluation by June 3, 1978 and July 26, 1992, respectively. 45 C.F.R § 84.6; 28 C.F.R. § 35.105. A Self Evaluation must include an evaluation of whether current services, policies, and practices discriminate on the basis of disability. The City made no efforts to evaluate its pedestrian right of way for accessibility until 2008 when it undertook a survey to determine the existence of curb ramps at intersections within the City. This initial evaluation occurred approximately thirty-years after the deadline established by Section 504, and sixteen years after the deadline established by the ADA.

32. Defendant has failed and is failing to prepare and implement a Transition Plan relating to the construction and maintenance of curb ramps in the pedestrian right of way as required by federal law. The regulations implementing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act required public entities that receive federal financial assistance to create a Transition Plans by June 3, 1978. See 45 C.F.R. § 84.22(e). The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA required local governmental entities to create Transition Plans by July 26, 1992. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d). A Transition Plan must include, among other things, an up-to-date schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where the pedestrian right of way crosses streets. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(3); 45 C.F.R. § 84.22(e). To date, Defendant has not prepared a compliant Transition Plan pursuant to either Section 504 or the ADA.

33. Defendant's failure to conduct a timely Self Evaluation and prepare and implement a compliant Transition Plan relating to the pedestrian right of way, including curb ramps, as required by Section 504 and the ADA, is further evidence of Defendant's failure to comply with the "program access" requirements of both statutes.

34. This discrimination and continuing systemic inaccessibility cause a real and immediate threat of current and continuing harm to persons with mobility disabilities within the City as represented by the experiences of the Named Plaintiffs.