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

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973

29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.

77. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

78. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides in pertinent part: "[N]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance . . ." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

79. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified to participate in the services, programs, or activities that are provided to individuals in the City. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(b).

80. The City is a direct recipient of federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the coverage of Section 504, and has received such federal financial assistance at all times relevant to the claims asserted in this Complaint.

81. Defendant and its agents and employees have violated and continue to violate the Rehabilitation Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs the benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs based solely by reason of their disability to, discrimination in the benefits and services of the City's pedestrian right of way and for the reasons set forth above.

82. Additionally, under Section 504, a recipient of federal financial assistance must install ADAAG- or UFAS-compliant curb ramps at intersections whenever it newly constructs or alters sidewalks, streets, roads, and/or highways at any time after June 3, 1977. Willits v. City of Los Angeles, 925 F. Supp. 2d. 1089, 1094 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defendant has violated Section 504 by failing to construct or install such compliant curb ramps at intersections throughout the City where it has newly constructed or altered streets, roads, and/or highways since June 3, 1977.

83. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs suffered and continue to suffer difficulty, hardship, anxiety, and danger due to Defendant's failure to remediate missing, defective, Inaccessible curb ramps throughout the City's pedestrian right of way. These failures have denied Plaintiffs the full, equal, and meaningful access to the pedestrian right of way that Section 504 requires.

84. Because Defendant's discriminatory conduct presents a real and immediate threat of current and continuing violations, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.

85. Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 794a, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief, and to recover from Defendant the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.