|
|
MBTA Access Suit Home
|
Meet The Plaintiffs |
Newsletters |
Fixed Route Ride Log |
|
Full Complaint Text |
Full Settlement Text |
Settlement Notice |
|
Links |
Other Useful Information |
Case Timeline
|
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
____________________________________
)
JOANNE DANIELS-FINEGOLD,
)
ROGERA ROBINSON,
GENE SMITH, )
REGINALD CLARK, MADELYN
JOAN )
GOLDEN, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA,
)
MAUREEN CANCEMI,
ANDREW )
CIVIL ACTION NO: 02 CV
11504 MEL
)
FORMAN, DANFORD LARKIN,
)
ROBERT PARK, and BOSTON
CENTER )
FOR INDEPENDENT
LIVING, )
individually and as
class representatives, )
Plaintiffs )
)
AMENDED COMPLAINT
)
v. )
)
)
MASSACHUSETTS
BAY )
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY, )
Defendant
)
____________________________________)
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1.
The named plaintiffs bring this action to stop defendant’s
systemic failure to provide basic and necessary public
transportation services to plaintiffs and other persons with
disabilities. Each of the individual named plaintiffs is a person
with a disability who needs to use public transportation to travel
to work, shop, school, medical appointments, community activities,
social events and other activities. The organizational plaintiff,
Boston Center for Independent (BCIL), provides services, community
education, advocacy and employment for individuals with
disabilities All named plaintiffs live within the geographic area
served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and
use public transportation provided by the MBTA or would use such
public transportation if it were readily accessible to and usable by
persons with disabilities. On a persistent and ongoing basis,
defendant has discriminated against plaintiffs because of their
disabilities, by denying them equal access to public buses and
trains, in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities
Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§12131-12163 (ADA) and Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504).
Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction to
require the MBTA to comply with the ADA and Section 504 by among
other things: making stations accessible; providing directional
signage; providing telecommunications access; replacing or
rehabilitating passenger elevators; preventing bus drivers from
failing to stop for consumers with disabilities because of their
disabilities; keeping wheelchair lifts in working condition;
deploying lifts in locations appropriate for safe use by consumers
with a disabilities; eliminating gaps on train platforms; reporting
broken lifts or elevators; providing transportation for people with
disabilities during street renovations/construction; requiring
drivers to announce stops; preventing drivers from being rude or
discourteous to passengers with disabilities because of their
disabilities; and taking any other action required by the ADA and by
regulations enacted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the
Architectural and Transportation Construction Barriers Compliance
Board interpreting the ADA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2.
This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C. §12133. This
court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 because the
claims herein arise under federal statutes: the Americans with
Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
3.
Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28
U.S.C.§1391(b). All of the events or omissions giving rise to
plaintiffs' claims occurred here and the defendant may be found
here.
PARTIES
PLAINTIFFS
4.
Joanne Daniels-Finegold resides in Braintree, Norfolk County,
Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. Ms. Daniels-Finegold uses an electric
wheelchair for mobility.
5.
Rogera Robinson resides in Brighton, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. Ms. Robinson suffers from painful arthritis
throughout her body and uses a cane for mobility.
6.
Gene Smith resides in Dorchester, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. Ms. Smith has Multiple Sclerosis and uses an
electric scooter for mobility.
7.
Reginald Clark resides in Brookline, Norfolk County,
Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. He is legally blind and uses a white cane for
mobility.
8.
Madelyn Joan Golden resides in Malden, Middlesex County,
Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. Her left leg is amputated and she has hidden
disabilities that include arthritis of the knees and arms. She uses
a manual wheelchair for mobility.
9.
Maureen Cancemi resides in Boston, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. She has multiple sclerosis and is a triplegic.
She uses an electric wheelchair for mobility.
10.
Myrnairis Cepeda resides in Dorchester, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. She has multiple hidden disabilities that
include arthritis, spinal stenosis, and muscle degeneration.
11.
Andrew Forman resides in Kingston, Plymouth County,
Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. Mr. Forman is legally blind.
12.
Danford Larkin resides in Revere, Suffolk County,
Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the
meaning of the ADA. He is legally blind and uses a cane for
mobility.
13.
Robert Park resides in Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts. He
is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA.
He has cerebral palsy and is legally blind. He uses an electric
wheelchair for mobility.
14.
Boston Center for Independent Living Inc. (BCIL), located in
Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, is a consumer controlled
non-profit organization which has provided services, community
education, advocacy and employment for individuals with disabilities
since 1974. As mandated by BCIL's organizational articles and
overall philosophy, the majority of BCIL staff and board are people
with disabilities.
DEFENDANT
15.
The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is a
body politic and corporate and a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts established pursuant to General Laws,
Chapter 161A§2, and has a usual place of business in Boston,
Massachusetts. The MBTA is a public entity within the meaning of
Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12131(1) and is subject to the
provisions of Subpart B of Title II, 42 U.S.C. §§12141 et seq., in
that it provides public transportation services including
paratransit, bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail services.
THE PLAINTIFF CLASS
16.
Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action under Rule 23(a)
and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The class
consists of all individuals with mobility, hearing or visual
disabilities, as defined by Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131(2), who use, will use, or would
use the bus, light rail and heavy rail rapid transit services
operated by the MBTA who are, or will in the future be, denied equal
use of these services because the services are not readily
accessible to and useable by individuals with such disabilities.
17.
The plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all
members is impracticable.
18.
There are questions of law and fact common to the plaintiff
class including:
a.
Whether the defendant’s failure to make the MBTA's fixed
route bus system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and
other persons with disabilities by, among other things: (1) failure
to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the mechanical bus
lifts, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments
to board and disembark; (2) failure to adequately inspect,
maintain, and service the mechanical bus doors, which are needed to
allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark;
and/or failure to provide ramps needed to allow persons with
mobility impairments to board and disembark; (3) failure to
adequately inspect and maintain safety equipment used to secure
wheelchairs on buses; (4) failure to adequately inspect and maintain
belts and straps used to secure people with mobility impairments
inside buses; and (5) placing non-accessible buses on purportedly
accessible bus lines, violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of
1973;
b. Whether the
defendant’s failure to make the MBTA's fixed route public train
system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other
persons with disabilities by, among other things: (a) failure to
keep MBTA station elevators in operating condition; (b) failure to
adequately supervise and monitor the cleanliness of MBTA station
elevators; (c) failure to respond to calls from riders with
disabilities seeking assistance in accessing a train; (d) failure to
provide accessible paths of travel within and around the MBTA
stations (e) failure to provide adequate and accessible directional
signage; and (d) failure to provide accessible telecommunications
violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
c. Whether
defendant’s failure to provide transportation for people with
disabilities during street renovations/construction violates the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
d.
Whether defendant’s failure
to adequately train and supervise employees on MBTA buses and trains
regarding the proper and safe use of the equipment necessary to
provide equal access to persons with disabilities violates the ADA
and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
e.
Whether the defendant’s failure to monitor the actions of
employees who are disrespectful, discourteous, and unprofessional to
people with disabilities, because of their disabilities violates the
ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
19.
The interests of the named plaintiffs typify the interests of
the class members because the defendant’s practice of noncompliance
with accessibility provisions of the ADA that is being challenged,
are applicable to each member of the class.
20.
The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Attorneys for the plaintiff class are
experienced in disability law and have participated in other class
actions.
21.
The questions of law and fact common to the class predominate
over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class
action is superior to other available methods for the fair and
efficient adjudication of this case.
22.
The plaintiffs seek certification of a class pursuant to
Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) on the grounds that the defendant’s policies
and practices deny plaintiffs equal access to public transportation,
thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Joanne Daniels-Finegold
23.
Joanne Daniels-Finegold is woman with a disability who uses
an electric wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Daniels-Finegold has
hyper-homocystoremia, a condition that causes blood clots, and other
medical issues including joint problems and pain. Her left knee
joint does not lock all the time and her left shoulder joint has
deteriorated and may need replacement. Her left shoulder
dislocates very easily and causes constant pain. Ms. Daniels-Finegold
resides independently in Braintree, Massachusetts. She depends on
the MBTA’s public transportation services for her travel needs. As
a result of defendant’s failure to provide accessible services, Ms.
Daniels-Finegold regularly encounters many problems with trying to
access MBTA’s buses and trains, including: broken elevators and
escalators; unsanitary conditions in elevators; MBTA’s failure to
regularly update the elevator message; and large gaps between the
train and the platform.
24.
Ms. Daniels-Finegold leads an active lifestyle. She has an
Associate’s Degree in communications and will soon earn her
Bachelor's Degree. She enjoys jewelry making and is currently taking
a silver smithing course at the Brookline Adult Education Center.
25.
Ms. Daniels-Finegold teaches a jewelry making class and a
knitting class at Michael's Crafts in Braintree. In addition, she
is the sole proprietor of “Proverbs 31 Gifts,” where she displays
and sells her handmade jewelry. Ms. Daniels-Finegold is also a
volunteer at Brigham and Women's Hospital where she works in the
Kessler Library. Ms. Daniels-Finegold depends on defendant’s public
transportation services to engage in her work, teaching, social life
and volunteering.
26.
In the past she traveled about three miles a day with a
manual wheelchair. However, it has now become too much for her due
to her disability. Her home is located about three and a half miles
from the Red line train stop. When she is unable to access a bus to
take her to the train station, Ms. Daniels-Finegold uses her
wheelchair.
27.
Ms. Daniels-Finegold regularly uses the bus between Brockton
and Quincy Center, to get to the Redline stop at Braintree Station,
and to get to Ashmont. Ms. Daniels-Finegold uses buses and trains to
go to Watertown, Central Square, and Brookline Avenue to Brigham
Women's Hospital. All the bus routes traveled by Ms. Daniels-Finegold
are supposed to have lifts; however, these lifts often do not work.
28.
Ms. Daniels-Finegold has ridden on all the train lines except
for the Blue line. She most often uses the Red and Green lines.
She does not like to use the Orange line because of the large gap
between the train and platform. Her front wheels often get stuck in
the gap.
29.
In March 23, 2002. Ms. Daniels-Finegold was scheduled to work
at a craft table at the Sheraton Boston Conference of Working Women.
The closest train line was the Orange line, but the closest stop,
Downtown Crossing, did not have a functioning elevator. Ms.
Daniels-Finegold had to get out of the station and travel to the
Sheraton using her wheelchair. It was bitterly cold and she had to
travel approximately one mile in order to get to her destination.
30.
In May 8, 2002, Ms. Daniels-Finegold was supposed to meet her
business mentor at the Women's Educational and Industrial Union at
Boylston for a 2:00 p.m. appointment. Ms. Daniels-Finegold took the
bus to the Braintree station on the Red line but the elevator wasn't
working. She then tried to take the bus to the next Red line stop
but the wheelchair lift on the bus was broken. She waited for a
second bus to take her to the next Red line stop. She finally
arrived at her meeting around 3:00 p.m., about an hour late.
31.
On September 29, 2002, Ms. Daniels-Finegold tried to attend
the “Beach Show” in Providence. She called the MBTA’s elevator
update line and was informed that the elevator at South Station was
working. Ms. Daniels-Finegold relied on the information from the
elevator recording and took the Red line to South Station in order
to take the train to Providence. At South Station she soon learned
that the elevator from the subway platform to the mid-level of the
station was working, but that the elevator was broken from the mid
level to the top level where the commuter rails were. She was
trapped and could not make it to the top level to board the commuter
rail. Ms. Daniels-Finegold was forced to return home.
32.
On June 19, 2003, when Ms. Daniels-Finegold was returning
home from class, the lift on the bus she was taking was
malfunctioning. The driver eventually got it working but Ms.
Daniels-Finegold was delayed in reaching home.
33.
On July 10, 2003, Ms. Daniels-Finegold tried to get to the
Braintree station on the Red line, but the lift was broken. The bus
driver said he had to keep on schedule and would try again at Quincy
Station. When the bus stopped at Quincy station the driver could not
get the lift to work. The driver told Ms. Daniels-Finegold that the
hydraulic cylinders were broken. She had to climb out of her
wheelchair and slowly make her way down the stairs. Ms. Daniels-Finegold
found this endeavor to be very dangerous and painful. Two MBTA
workers carried her chair off the bus.
34.
On July 24, 2003, Ms. Daniels-Finegold called the lift line
and requested that a bus pick her up at approximately 10:45 a.m. so
that she could get to a 1:00 p.m. appointment at Greater Boston
Legal Services. Neither the first nor the second bus that came by
had a working lift. The third bus that was sent out by the Quincy
garage had a working lift. An MBTA supervisor who waited with Ms.
Daniels-Finegold was not aware that the second bus had a
non-functioning lift for months. By the time she was finally able
to board a bus with a functioning lift, Ms. Daniels-Finegold was
already late for her meeting.
35.
Ms. Daniels-Finegold reports the barriers she encounters so
often that the MBTA employees on her routes know her by name. The
employees tell her to complain to Greater Boston Legal Services
because they are also very frustrated with the old and
malfunctioning equipment. Ms. Daniels-Finegold has learned that
Quincy station has some of the oldest buses in the system. Some
buses are nineteen years old and are decaying.
36.
Despite all of the above, Ms. Daniels-Finegold still uses
MBTA’s buses and trains. The alternative is to stay at home and she
is simply not willing to sit at home doing nothing. The lack of
accessibility affects her ability to remain active. It takes a great
deal of time and planning to do anything involving traveling. She
finds herself planning ahead of time for the defendant’s
inaccessibility so that she is prepared for lateness. Ms. Daniels-Finegold
is a professional woman who wants her clients and customers to be
able to rely on her. She has a good reputation for being
reliable. She wants the MBTA to be readily accessible, clean, and
safe so that she can: timely get to work; timely arrive at her
appointments; and conduct her business in an efficient and effective
manner instead of worrying about functioning lifts and elevators.
Rogera Robinson
37.
Rogera Robinson is a woman with a disability. She has
arthritis all over her body. The arthritis most severely affects
her knees. Ms. Robinson sometimes relies on a cane for mobility.
She resides in Brighton, Massachusetts. Ms. Robinson relies on the
MBTA buses for her travel needs. She sometimes uses the trains, she
frequently uses the MBTA buses, and some weeks she rides the buses
up to six to eight times. Ms. Robinson is active in many
disability rights organizations. Ms. Robinson has encountered
problems with using public transportation as a result of the
defendant’s failure to provide accessible services. Ms. Robinson
has endured the MBTA bus drivers’ failure to lower buses (kneeling
bus) so that she can safely access the bus.
38.
Due to her disability, she often has problems getting on or
off buses because the steps are not lowered for her. The steps on
MBTA buses are too high for her to climb and require more
flexibility than her knees can handle.
39.
On nine out of ten bus rides that she takes, bus drivers fail
to lower the steps for her. On many occasions Ms. Robinson has
asked the driver to lower the steps for her and she has received
many different responses. She has been told that the steps were not
working; she has been ignored or the drivers are rude to her. Bus
drives fail to lower the steps even when they see Ms. Robinson
struggling to pull herself up, using the hand rails at the bus
entrance. She is simply ignored.
40.
On one particular ride, Ms. Robinson encountered a driver who
did not lower the steps and then ignored her while she was clearly
struggling to make it up the steps on her own. Finally, a passenger
who was standing in line behind her, placed his hand on her buttocks
and pushed her onto the bus. This situation embarrassed Ms.
Robinson, but she could not allow herself to be embarrassed or
offended that this stranger touched her in this manner. Instead,
she was forced to be grateful for his help.
Gene Smith
41.
Gene Smith is a woman who has a disability. She has Multiple
Sclerosis. Due to her disability, Ms. Smith’s use of her legs is
limited. She uses an electric scooter and a cane for mobility. Ms.
Smith resides in the Dorchester area and relies on the MBTA buses
and trains to travel. She only uses her cane when she travels on
MBTA buses and trains because of the numerous problems she has
encountered due to the defendants’ failure to provide accessible
services. The main problems encountered by Ms. Smith are broken
bus lifts and broken elevators.
42.
Even when using her cane Ms. Smith still faces great
difficulties accessing the bus. She is often unable to access the
seats reserved for persons with disabilities. Because of her
disability, her body, especially her legs, are extremely weak. It
is difficult for Ms. Smith to stand in one position for any length
of time. When the bus is in motion, it is not only difficult but
also dangerous for her to remain standing.
43.
In October 2001, while traveling on a bus from Dorchester to
the Beth Israel Hospital to see her doctor, she was unable to get a
seat on the crowded bus. Ms. Smith saw a non-disabled passenger
seated in a seat that is designated for the elderly and disabled.
She asked the passenger to please allow her to have the seat but
the passenger refused. Ms. Smith sought the help of the bus
driver. The bus driver shook his head and laughed at Ms. Smith.
44.
In the summer of 2001. Ms. Smith took the bus home from her
doctor’s office. On that day, Ms. Smith’s feet were swollen and
painful. When she boarded the bus, all of the seats were taken
including the seats designated for disabled and elderly passengers.
She asked for the bus driver’s help, but she was ignored. The other
passengers on the bus stared at Ms. Smith in such a hostile manner
that she felt humiliated.
45.
Around January 1999, Ms. Smith was seriously injured while
trying to exit a bus through the back door. Due to her disability,
it took her some time because she is only capable of going down one
step at a time. At the last step with one foot on the ground and
while in the process of removing her other foot from the step the
bus driver closed the door on her ankle. Other passengers on the
bus screamed for the driver to open the door, but he took a long
time and when he finally opened it to release her foot, Ms. Smith
had already suffered extreme pain and considerable injuries.
46.
Recently Ms. Smith attempted to go back to college. She
enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, but was devastated to
arrive at Community College Station on the Orange Line and find that
she could not leave the platform because there is no elevator or
accessible exit for her scooter. When she had a chance to confront
the former MBTA chairman Mr. Sullivan on this matter, he discounted
her inability to access an education with a smile and a trite
promise to “work on it.” After two years the station is still
inaccessible.
Reginald Clark
47.
Reginald Clark is a man with a disability. He is legally
blind and uses a white cane when he travels. Mr. Clark does not
drive and relies upon public transportation. He resides in
Brookline and travels by bus on a daily basis to attend meetings,
medical appointments, and social events. As a result of the MBTA’s
failure to provide accessible services, Mr. Clark encounters many
problems with transportation. Some problems encountered by Mr.
Clark include: drivers failing to pull next to the curb and instead
stopping in the middle of the street; drivers failing to announce
stops; and drivers failing to assist him with getting a seat
designated for the elderly and the disabled.
48.
When bus drivers fail to pull close to the curb it presents a
safety concern for Mr. Clark. He must step onto the street, without
being able to see if there is traffic approaching, in order to board
or exit the bus.
49.
MBTA bus drivers routinely fail to announce stops on the bus
lines. In October 2000, Mr. Clark asked the bus driver to let him
know when he reached his stop. The driver was talking on his
cellular phone and neglected to announce the stop. When Mr. Clark
asked him about his stop, he was told that the driver had already
passed it. Mr. Clark was ushered off the bus at the next stop and
had to find his way back to the stop he needed. This was extremely
difficult and terrifying for Mr. Clark.
50.
On Friday, December 14, 2001, the bus driver failed to
announce any of the stops.
Madelyn Joan Golden
51.
Madelyn Joan Golden is a fifty-five-year-old woman with a
disability. Her left leg was amputated and her hidden disabilities
include arthritis in the knees and arms. She has been unable to
walk since age twenty-one. She used crutches for twenty-eight years
and has been using a manual wheelchair for six years.
52.
Ms. Golden has two children and currently lives with her
eleven-year-old son. She is active in the community and has been a
member of Massachusetts Disability Commission since 2001. This
group of persons with disabilities meets and discusses many things
that affect the community of persons with disabilities, including
the barriers or discrimination people encounter while trying to
access MBTA buses and trains.
53.
Ms. Golden estimates that she uses the MBTA buses at least
once per week to shop, to visit friends, to pay bills, and to get to
social events. Ms. Golden does not rely on the MBTA to get to any
medical appointments and only uses the transportation that is
provided by the Massachusetts General Hospital due to the fact that
she has had numerous bad experiences with the MBTA. Ms. Golden has
been injured and treated disrespectfully during her encounters with
public transportation. Ms. Golden is terrified of using the trains
because of these previous bad experiences with the MBTA.
54.
Ms. Golden uses a taxi whenever she can afford one; however,
she is on a fixed income and is not able to afford a taxi for long
trips. Therefore, she is forced to rely on buses.
55.
Ms. Golden has encountered many problems trying to get buses
to stop for her instead of simply driving by. When buses do stop,
bus drivers have routinely informed her that the lifts are not
working and that she should wait for other buses.
56.
Bus drivers present a huge obstacle for Ms. Golden when she
attempts to board. Bus drivers are rude and impolite.
Additionally, the bus drivers do not even check or demonstrate those
lifts that they claim do not work.
57.
In November 1998, Ms. Golden was injured while departing from
an MBTA bus when the equipment failed. The lift malfunctioned and
disappeared from underneath her and she was only able to save
herself by grabbing the handrails at the side of the bus. Ms.
Golden grabbed the handrails and dangled from the bus with her
wheelchair hovering over her. When she looked down, she saw that
the driver had not pulled close to the curb, so if Ms. Golden did
fall, she would hit her head on the curb. The driver jumped off the
broken lift, pulled down the wheelchair, and settled Ms. Golden back
into it.
58.
Ms. Golden feels lucky to be alive after this incident. She
also recalls extreme embarrassment from that day.
59.
Due to the injuries sustained from that incident, Ms. Golden
tore the cartilage in her knee. Her leg, ankle, and shoulder were
also injured. Ms. Golden had extensive medical treatment including
an MRI, physical therapy, and medication.
60.
Ms. Golden filed a lawsuit against the MBTA for damages
suffered while riding the MBTA and has subsequently settled.
61.
In December 2002, Ms. Golden was heading home after shopping
at the mall. Ms. Golden patiently waited in the cold to get on the
bus. When the bus finally arrived, Ms. Golden knew that the driver
saw her and she knew that he had to get the lift down. She allowed
the other passengers to board before her while she waited for the
driver to lower the lift. After all the passengers got on board the
bus, the driver shut the doors and started to drive away. She
chased after the bus in her wheelchair shouting, "stop!" The driver
eventually stopped after a passenger informed the driver that Ms.
Golden wanted to get on the bus; the driver then told Ms. Golden
that his bus didn't have a lift. Ms. Golden assumed that the driver
would call for a lift bus; however, after waiting for 45 minutes, a
second bus arrived and Ms. Golden was faced with the same situation:
the bus driver closed the door and started to drive away. Again,
Ms. Golden had to be vocal to get the driver to pay attention to
her. This driver demonstrated that the lift was broken by going to
the back of the bus and pressing the buttons to activate the lift,
but it did not work. Even though this bus had the handicap
accessibility symbol stamped on it, it did not provide Ms. Golden
with means of boarding. Forty-five minutes more passed before Ms.
Golden was able to board a bus and go home. This short trip, which
should have taken twenty minutes, took hours.
62.
On April 25, 2003, Ms. Golden was trying to board a bus to
get to the mall. When she tried to board a bus the bus driver told
her that "this [was] not a wheelchair route." Ms. Golden had been
using that route for years and she knew it was supposed to be an
accessible route with lift buses. When she told him that the route
was a wheelchair route, his story changed, and he then told her that
the lift did not work.
63.
Ms. Golden is tired of being the first in line at the bus
stop and having to watch as everyone boards the bus while she waits
and is later told that she cannot get on board. She wishes she
could use the MBTA buses the same way other people do.
Myrnairis Cepeda
64.
Ms. Cepeda is a person with hidden disabilities that include
muscle degeneration, spinal stenosis, diabetes, and arthritis. Ms.
Cepeda experiences pain on a daily basis and cannot stand or walk
for long periods of time. She also has difficulty bending or
lifting her legs.
65.
Ms. Cepeda's past work includes social work through the
Department of Social Services, Department of Transitional
Assistance, employment security, and the federal prison system. She
is currently a community teacher on a volunteer basis at the
Immigrant Workers Resource Center in Jamaica Plain, Casa Iris HIV,
an AIDS program in Roxbury, and Women In Leadership Development.
66.
Ms. Cepeda has Masters Degrees in Child and Adolescent
Psychology and in Counseling Psychology. She also has Bachelors of
Sciences in Social Services Management and Legal Services.
67.
In June of 2003 Ms. Cepeda was on her way home from the
Dudley station. The bus was very crowded and she struggled to pull
herself up by the handles in order to board the bus. When she got
on the bus, she paid her fare and showed the driver her
transportation access pass (TAP card). When she asked for a
transfer, the driver said: "you only pay fifteen cents and you want
a transfer too?" Everybody on the bus stared at her; Ms. Cepeda
was extremely embarrassed. She called the MBTA the next morning to
confirm that she had a right to a transfer even though she paid a
reduced fare. The customer service person stated that she had a
right to a transfer and also told her that it was the second time
that day that they had received a complaint about that particular
transfer issue.
68.
On February 27, 2003, Ms. Cepeda was visibly struggling to
get on a bus and the driver did not lower the bus for her. Ms.
Cepeda had to say to the bus driver, "this is really high" before he
would lower the bus for her.
69.
In June or July of 2002, Ms. Cepeda was departing from a
bus. The driver had not lowered the bus for her and she expected
the bus to be pulled right up to the curb. It was not and she
tripped as she was getting off. Her foot went down into the gap
between the sidewalk and the bus. She fell onto the sidewalk and
hit her leg on the curb. Ms. Cepeda found this incident to be
painful and humiliating.
70.
One problem Ms. Cepeda often encounters is that the drivers
rarely wait for boarding passengers to sit down before they pull
away from the bus stop. This practice is particularly dangerous for
Ms. Cepeda because she has difficulty moving very quickly and
difficulty standing.
Maureen Cancemi
71.
Maureen Cancemi is a fifty-two-year-old woman with a
disability. She is a triplegic and uses an electric wheelchair for
mobility. In 1982, Ms. Cancemi was diagnosed with Multiple
Sclerosis and she began using a wheelchair in 1989. Ms. Cancemi
has no movement of her legs, and very limited movement of her left
arm and hand. Ms. Cancemi depends on the MBTA for all of her travel
needs. She has encountered many problems with MBTA buses and
trains, including broken lifts, broken and dirty elevators, and rude
and discourteous drivers.
72.
Ms. Cancemi resides independently in Boston, Massachusetts.
Ms. Cancemi has a Bachelor's degree and a two-year certificate in
Medical Records Technology. She taught English as a second language
and has a teaching degree in art. Ms. Cancemi worked in the medical
records field for 8 years. She was a substitute teacher for junior
and senior high schools and she also tutored persons studying for
the naturalization test for citizenship.
73.
Ms. Cancemi is very active in her community. She is an
advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities and
actively participates in forums where she can voice concerns for her
community. She is a former board member of the Vivienne S. Thomson
Independent Living Center (VTC) and was a member of a Multiple
Sclerosis support group held by the VTC. She is a member of the
Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, Home Care Division and is a
consumer at the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL).
74.
Ms. Cancemi began using the MBTA regularly in 1993. She uses
the MBTA in different forms at least 2-3 times per week for doctor
appointments, entertainment, meetings, food shopping, and other
activities. She prefers to use the MBTA buses (above ground
transportation) because of the barriers she encounters with train
stations. When she uses the trains, she rides the orange and red
lines. Ms. Cancemi does not use the green line because she finds
this to be inaccessible.
75.
The most common problem Ms. Cancemi faces when trying to
access the trains is that elevators are often broken, soiled with
urine or feces, or function improperly.
76.
Elevators present a chronic problem for Ms. Cancemi when she
travels by train. If she is able to take a train, she sometimes
finds that the elevators in the train stations do not descend from
the lobby to the train platform. For example, the doors will not
open and when they do, sometimes they will not shut.
77.
Ms. Cancemi can recall the several times that she has been
trapped in the MBTA’s elevators due to the placement of panels with
buttons that are too high and angled such that they are
inaccessible. Panels usually are located on the right side of the
elevator. If the door closes as soon as Ms. Cancemi boards the
elevator, she is unable to reach the panel and is stuck. This is
quite a frightening experience for Ms. Cancemi because she is not
able to push the emergency button because it is on the same
unreachable panel. She usually has to wait in the elevator for
15-20 minutes until someone comes by and presses the button on the
outside of the elevator; then the doors can open and Ms. Cancemi is
released.
78.
When Ms. Cancemi is stuck in an elevator in the heat or cold
she finds the conditions unbearable.
79.
In May 2003, Ms. Cancemi was in an elevator and the panel was
located on the right side. She was unable to reach any button and
began to call out for help. But her shouts were muffled since the
elevator doors had closed. She continued to call out to people for
over ten minutes before someone opened the doors.
80.
Many MBTA station elevators are too narrow for Ms. Cancemi to
maneuver her electric wheelchair. She is unable to turn her chair
around while inside the elevator and therefore, she is unable to
reposition it in order to exit properly.
81.
Ms. Cancemi tries to find stations that provide an elevator
that will fit her wheelchair. To find accessible elevators she
often has to travel 2-3 stops beyond her destination and then
backtrack to get to her intended destination. An additional problem
is the fact that some elevators are dangerously close to the
platform adjacent to the train tracks.
82.
In April 2003, Ms. Cancemi used the #55 bus for the first
time. She was heading from her home on Massachusetts Avenue to the
State House for a scheduled meeting with the Commissioner of the
Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commissioner. While she was trying to
board the bus she found that there were no curb cuts in order for
her to access the island where other passengers access the bus. She
had to position her electric chair as close to the island as
possible, but she was still on a main street during rush hour
traffic at 9:00 am. She was frightened by the dangerous situation.
83.
When Ms. Cancemi arrived at the State House, there were no
curb cuts on the sidewalk there either. She had to access a steep
hill and the sidewalks were cracked and torn up due to
construction. These conditions presented additional barriers.
84.
On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, Ms. Cancemi had a doctor’s
appointment at Jackson Square. She tried to use the Orange Line at
the Massachusetts Avenue station (Mass. Ave.), but the elevator was
not working. From the Mass. Ave. station, the nearest train station
is Back Bay. In order for Ms. Cancemi to get to the Back Bay
station it would have taken 15 minutes by way of the surface
streets. Considering Ms. Cancemi’s medical problems, this was a
long way to travel on her wheelchair in the heat and humidity. She
had no choice but to cancel the doctor’s appointment.
85.
Ms. Cancemi has noticed that when the weather is bad, when
the bus is crowded, or when the roads are congested, the bus drivers
claim that they do not have a key to the lifts or that the lift is
not working. They tell her to wait for the next bus, but since she
lives on a partially accessible bus route, she sometimes has to
watch more than four buses pass before an accessible one arrives.
86.
Ms. Cancemi has also been on the lift of a bus when the
equipment failed and the lift malfunctioned. She has been forced to
remain on the lift until a mechanic comes to fix the problem. This
humiliating wait can be anywhere from 30-45 minutes for someone to
arrive to fix the problem.
87.
Another problem Ms. Cancemi experienced with the MBTA is that
the bus drivers are not often able to secure her chair properly.
Without being properly secured, Ms. Cancemi dangerously slides
around during the trip.
88.
In the summer of 2001, Ms. Cancemi was returning home from
the South Bay Mall. After she boarded the bus, her chair was not
strapped in and the chair began to skid across the aisle when the
driver stopped abruptly. A passenger grabbed the arm of her chair
and prevented her from further skidding. Had that passenger not
stopped Ms. Cancemi from skidding, she would have tipped over into
the stairwell due to her heavy chair. For Ms. Cancemi to be in
situations where she often has little control and is susceptible to
circumstances is not only frustrating, it is also terrifying. Ms.
Cancemi reported this horrifying experience to the MBTA and never
heard back.
89.
Ms. Cancemi complains to the MBTA about the barriers she
encounters. She finds that the employees who answer the complaint
line are sympathetic and listen, but that nothing happens. She is
usually told, "We will look into this," or "We will make a note of
it." Ms. Cancemi has given the MBTA detailed information such as:
the time, date, or number of bus, but she does not get a reply or
report or anything to tell her that something was done to address
the problems she encountered.
90.
Ms. Cancemi’s experiences using MBTA trains and buses have
been frustrating because she is forced to plan well ahead of any
trip to compensate for likely delays in transportation. If the MBTA
trains and buses were more accessible and safer for people with
disabilities, Ms. Cancemi would feel more confident in using these
services.
Andrew Forman
91.
Andrew Forman is a 39-year-old man with a disability. He has
been legally blind since birth. Mr. Forman resides independently in
Malden, Massachusetts. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in
communications and is currently employed as a disability advocate
for the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL). Prior to
working for BCIL Mr. Forman was self-employed as an entrepreneur.
He published his own magazine for eight years; operated his
employment agency for two years; and later was an assistant
telemarketing manager. Mr. Forman has always relied on the public
transportation services provided by the MBTA. He uses the MBTA’s
buses and trains daily. Mr. Forman encounters many problems when
trying to access the MBTA’s buses and trains, including: failure to
make stop announcements; improper signage; poor lighting; and bus
drivers who do not provide assistance upon request.
92.
Mr. Forman often encounters MBTA’s dirty signs on buses and
bus drivers who are not helpful in providing answers to simple
questions such as the number of the bus or where it is heading. He
is afraid of getting on the wrong bus because he is often unable to
see the signs on the bus. He commonly asks the bus driver if the
bus is the specific one is he was waiting for and the driver usually
nods. The problem is that Mr. Forman is unable to see the drivers
nodding. When he asks again about the bus, the drivers become
annoyed before they deliver a verbal response.
93.
Mr. Forman’s blindness is not readily noticeable. He does
not wear dark glasses and he does not carry a white cane.
94.
When going out to visit friends or clients, Mr. Forman uses
the MBTA’s trains and avoids having to use the buses. He would
rather use the trains and walk up to a mile than use a bus that will
drop him off closer to his appointment. Mr. Forman fears using the
buses because the drivers fail to announce stops. Also, the drivers
are rude to him for asking about the direction the bus is heading,
and he generally is left feeling embarrassed about having to ask for
assistance from drivers who do not want to help him.
95.
When Mr. Forman uses the Red line, many of the stops look the
same and he is unable to read the signs. If the train operators
fail to announce the stops, he risks missing his destinations.
96.
On June 3rd, 2003 around 8:30 a.m. Mr. Forman was traveling
to work. He was taking the Red line to Downtown Crossing and
intended to switch to the Orange line. The stops were not announced
on the Red line; therefore, he missed his stop. He got off at a
station that he was not familiar with and he had to backtrack to
Downtown Crossing.
97.
Mr. Forman would use the MBTA’s buses more often if the signs
were larger; then they would be easier to see. He has to use his
telescope to see the bus route or number. He would be confident in
using the buses if all stops were announced and the numbers of the
bus, as well as the bus routes, were announced when the bus stops to
pick up passengers. Mr. Forman would also like bus drivers and train
operators to make vocal announcements when there is no automated
stop announcement.
Danford Larkin
98.
Danford Larkin is blind and uses a cane for assistance.
Although he does not use the MBTA’s public transportation services
regularly at this time, he used it regularly in the past to get to
and from work. When he worked at Perkins School for the Blind in
Watertown from approximately 1987 through 1995 he used the MBTA
subways and buses regularly.
99.
Mr. Larkin recalls a horrifying experience from 1990 when he
was riding the MBTA’s Red line. He attempted to get off the train
at the Central Square stop but the conductor closed the door too
fast and closed it on Mr. Larkin’s left foot and left arm. The
conductor then pulled away from the station and continued on to
Harvard Square, all the while, Mr. Larkin’s foot and arm were stuck
in the door of the train. Mr. Larkin was too far back in the train
to be heard if he had tried to yell to the conductor. When the
train arrived at Harvard Square an MBTA inspector tried to open the
door that Mr. Larkin’s foot and arm were stuck in. The inspector
asked him to move his foot so they could open the door. Mr. Larkin
told him that if he could move his foot then he wouldn't be stuck.
They were eventually able to get the door open and free Mr. Larkin’s
foot and arm.
100.
After the train incident Mr. Larkin called the main number
for the MBTA and reported it. A week later, an MBTA employee called
Mr. Larkin and asked him if he wanted to file a suit against the
MBTA. Mr. Larkin informed the employee that he did not want to
files a lawsuit because, although the incident was upsetting and
frightening to him, he was not physically hurt in the incident.
101.
In the fall of 1987 an incident occurred while Mr. Larkin was
riding a bus from Revere to Maverick Train station. Mr. Larkin
encountered a bus driver who insisted that he see a pass and then
the driver turned to another passenger on the bus and said, "These
handicap people think they can get away with anything." Mr. Larkin
was very embarrassed by the driver’s statement. He reported the
incident to the MBTA inspector at the Maverick Station.
102.
On May 1987 Mr. Larkin was waiting for a bus at Maverick
Station and a young man, who was there with friends, came up to Mr.
Larkin and kicked his cane out of his hand. Although there was a
MBTA inspector at the Maverick Station, he was inside the train
station. Mr. Larkin felt vulnerable in that public area with no
MBTA personnel to protect passengers, particularly passengers with
disabilities, from harm.
103.
In 1994 an incident occurred while Mr. Larkin was riding the
bus to work. He asked the bus driver to let him off the bus about
20 to 30 feet before the bus stop because that was where he needed
to cross the street. It was winter at the time; therefore, there
were piles of snow on the sidewalk, making it difficult for Mr.
Larkin to get from the actual bus stop to the intersection at which
he needed to cross. He had to cross at the intersection because it
had a stoplight and a button that he could press to indicate that he
needed to cross the street. The bus driver refused to let him off
the bus 20 to 30 feet before the bus stop. A passenger on the bus
told the driver that he should let Mr. Larkin off. The driver
responded by telling the passenger, "if I have to make allowances
for him then I have to make allowances for everyone."
104.
One problem, which Mr. Larkin views as very dangerous, is the
lack of tactile tape at the Park Street Station. This heavily
traveled station is not safe for blind persons or persons with
visual impairments; a person who is blind could step over the edge
and fall into the pit where the train tracks are due to the lack of
tactile tape. Once, Mr. Larkin had to step backwards because of
construction in the Park Street station. Mr. Larkin almost fell
onto the tracks because there was no tactile tape indicating a ledge
or drop off.
105.
Mr. Larkin also had negative experiences when using MBTA
elevators. He only used them a few times, but when he did, the
elevators were unclean and smelled of urine.
106.
Despite these incidents, Mr. Larkin did not stop using public
transportation while he was working.
Robert Park
107.
Robert Park is a 29-year-old man with a disability. He has
cerebral palsy and is legally blind. Mr. Park uses an electric
wheelchair for mobility. He resides independently in Lynn,
Massachusetts. He receives Personal Care Assistants (PCA's)
services but his PCA’s rarely accompany him outside of his home.
Mr. Park works fulltime as an advocate at the Boston Center for
Independent Living (BCIL). He previously worked at the Independent
Living Center of the North Shore as an independent living skills
specialist. He is pursuing a degree in criminal justice at Salem
State College in Salem, MA. Mr. Park relies on the MBTA’s buses and
trains for most of his travel needs; he prefers these modes over the
RIDE because the RIDE is typically late and makes him tardy for
work. Mr. Park encounters many problems with trying to access MBTA
buses and trains. Problems include broken elevators and escalators
as well as unsanitary conditions in elevators.
108.
Mr. Park uses public transportation, provided by the MBTA,
almost everyday. When the elevators in Lynn are working, he use the
commuter rail from Lynn to North Station, then takes the Orange line
train from North station to Back Bay. From there he uses his
wheelchair to get work. If the elevators in Lynn are broken, he uses
the buses from Central Square in Lynn to the Wonderland train
station for the Blue line. He uses the Blue line from the
Wonderland station to the State Street station where he transfers to
the Orange line and travels from State Street to Back Bay.
109.
Mr. Park commonly encounters broken lifts. Mr. Park usually
has to wait, while two or three buses pass him by, before a bus
arrives with a working lift. About a third of the buses that pass
him by fail to stop.
110.
On April 2, 2003, Mr. Park had a terrifying incident with a
broken lift. Mr. Park was being raised into the bus on the lift and
the restraint collapsed. Mr. Park almost fell off the lift
platform. The back wheels were on the platform and his feet were on
the ground and he was falling forward. Fortunately the driver was
able to catch him before his head hit the cement curb.
111.
Twice in 2003, the drivers did not have the key to the lift.
The only reason Mr. Park was able to use the lift on those two
occasions was because he had a key.
112.
Mr. Park noticed many dangerous problems with the MBTA’s
buses such as the restraint mechanism, which almost never works. He
usually has to grab a pole or grab the back of a seat to stabilize
himself and to keep his chair from falling over or rolling around.
113.
On June 12, 2003, the station elevator at Back Bay was
broken, so he had to take the subway train back to New England
Medical Center station and then used his wheelchair to travel a mile
and a half to work on the sidewalk.
114.
On June 16, 2003, at 8:30 a.m. the elevator at North Station
on the Orange Line to Oak Grove was broken. There were no signs
indicating that the elevators were not working. Mr. Park called the
elevator update number at 3:30 p.m., which said that all elevators
were functioning normally. However, at 4:15 p.m. the elevator at
North Station was still not working, and there were no signs to
indicate that the elevator was broken.
115.
On July 22, 2003, the elevator was down at Back Bay so Mr.
Park had to go back to New England Medical station and use his
wheelchair to get to work. He was half an hour late for work that
day.
116.
Another barrier that Mr. Park encounters when using the
MBTA’s trains is that the gap between the MBTA train cars and the
platforms is sometimes too wide and his front wheels get stuck. To
get on the train he has to back himself into the car and use his
larger rear wheels. Mr. Park finds this to be a very awkward way to
get onto a train. Getting into the train cars when only one half of
the two doors is open poses another barrier to boarding. The
doorway is too narrow for his electric wheelchair when only one of
the doors opens.
117.
On July 24, 2003. Mr. Park attempted to transfer from the
Blue Line at State Street to the Orange Line. The elevator at State
Street is very awkward to enter. The doors are very narrow and
anyone using a wheelchair must turn around in the elevator to fit
inside. Sometime after 8:00 a.m., Mr. Park tried to leave the
elevator but he got stuck. Before he could reposition myself to exit
the elevator, the door would close. He spent 45 minutes trying to
get out of the elevator. Eventually someone to held the door open
for him so he had time to turn and get out. He was over a half hour
late for work that morning.
118.
On July 25, 2003, at 7:50 a.m. the elevator at the commuter
rail station in Central Square, Lynn was shut down. Mr. Park waited
for the bus to Wonderland so he could get onto the Blue Line to get
to work. Five buses passed him; two had non-working lifts, and three
were non-lift buses. He could not wait any longer. Therefore, he
went back home to get a ride to Wonderland in order to access the
Blue line. On that day, the State Street station was not accessible
and again he had to find an alternative accessible route. He went
to Government Center. The doors on the train shut too quickly and
they shut on him. Mr. Park found himself hurrying to get off the
train but then his wheels got caught in the gap between the train
and the platform. He almost fell over, head first. He arrived at
work at 10:45 a.m.
119.
One chronic problem encountered by Mr. Park is the failure of
bus drivers to make stop announcements. Mr. Park has to make a
special request to the drivers to get them to call out his stops.
If he forgets to ask the drivers to make the stop announcement, they
will not do it. Mr. Park found that drivers also seem to be annoyed
when they have to lower the lift or when it takes him a while to get
on the lift and into the bus.
120.
Mr. Park has had to change his lifestyle significantly in
order to respond to accessibility problems with the MBTA. When he
needs to use a bus, he plans for waiting for two or three buses
before a bus with a working lift arrives. If the elevator is broken,
then he knows that he has to take the train back to the last stop
with a working elevator and travel to work, or to appointments,
using his wheelchair for a long distance on busy downtown streets.
The MBTA’s broken lifts and broken elevators make it difficult for
Mr. Park to get to work on time and to meet scheduled appointments.
Boston Center for Independent Living
121.
Boston Center for Independent Living Inc. (BCIL) is a private
non-profit organization, which is controlled and directed by persons
with disabilities. BCIL is a consumer-controlled organization that
has been providing services, community education, advocacy and
employment for individuals with disabilities since 1974.
122.
As mandated by BCIL's organizational articles and overall
philosophy, the majority of BCIL staff and board are people with
disabilities. BCIL's mission statement, as stated in their articles
of organization, is “We empower others and ourselves with
disabilities to advocate and take control over our lives, and become
active members of the communities in which we live. As a center we
work to promote the civil rights of all people with disabilities and
to respond to the needs of persons with many different
disabilities.”
123.
BCIL's goals are to empower people with disabilities with the
practical skills and self-confidence to freely determine their own
life choices in the community; and, to promote access and change
within society, to make full and equal participation by individuals
with disabilities a reality.
124.
At present there are approximately 25 BCIL staff providing
services to more than 7000 individuals annually. BCIL volunteers
provide an additional 100 hours or more services monthly.
125.
The BCIL Board of Directors is made up of 15 members
representing different interests in the community and is diverse in
disability, race and occupation.
126.
BCIL collaborates with many local, statewide and national
organizations including, but not limited to: The Disability Law
Center, ten independent living centers in Massachusetts,
Massachusetts Office on Disabilities, Boston Community Medical
Group, Department of Mental Retardation and The Boston Self Help
Center.
127.
Consumers set the policy and direction of BCIL, provide
assistance to other consumers as peers and represent visible role
models of successful independent living.
128.
Inherent in BCIL's philosophy of independent living is a
focus on assisting staff, consumers and members in obtaining rights,
services and full access to the many life activities that exist in
the community at large.
129.
Access to the MBTA's fixed route public transportation system
is vital to meeting BCIL's mission and goal of full access to the
many life activities that exist in the community at large.
130.
Due to the defendant’s systemic failure to provide basic and
necessary public transportation services to BCIL’s employees,
consumers, and members, BCIL as an organization is harmed.
131.
BCIL staff members Andrew Forman and Robert Park are persons
with disabilities. Both men are members of BCIL as defined under
BCIL’s bylaws. Both men are regular consumers of the services
provided by the MBTA. As a result of the MBTA’s failure to provide
accessible buses and trains Mr. Forman and Mr. Park have been harmed
by being late to work, missing business appointments, and spending
time documenting for their employer the incidents of accessibility
failures caused by the MBTA. This results in delays in visiting
clients and performing other work for BCIL.
132.
The difficulties encountered by staff members using the MBTA
directly harm the operational services of BCIL. BCIL employees have
missed work appointments, have been late to work, and have
experienced difficulty meeting clients because of broken wheelchair
lifts, the lack of stop announcements and broken elevators.
133.
BCIL suffers real and ongoing harm because employees are
unable to engage in BCIL’s work as a result of the MBTA’s
accessibility failures.
134.
The harm to BCIL is visible when BCIL expends resources in
the form of mentoring services to consumers harmed by the MBTA.
BCIL must also reschedule appointments for clients who are unable to
attend skills training sessions due to an inability to access the
MBTA.
135.
Due to the barriers encountered by BCIL’s staff, consumers
and members as a result of defendant’s failure to provide readily
accessible to and usable transportation services to persons with
disabilities, the organization is prevented from meeting its goals
and mission to: empower people with disabilities with the practical
skills and self-confidence to freely determine their own life
choices in the community; to promote access and change within
society; and to make full and equal participation by individuals
with disabilities a reality.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE MBTA
136.
The MBTA is the fourth largest transit system in the United
States. It boasts the oldest subway transit system in the nation.
The MBTA's service district includes seventy-eight communities in
Eastern Massachusetts, providing approximately 819,700 one-way
passenger trips per day with a daily ridership of over 1,052,750.
The MBTA employs a workforce of approximately 6,500 persons and
operates 365 days a year. In 2001 the MBTA reported to the Federal
Transit Administration revenue from fares totaling $250,311,545;
funds from federal assistance totaling $91,125,876; and total
operating funds from fares, local, state, federal and other sources
totaling $898,950,623. By the MBTA's own figures at least ten
percent of the MBTA's total operating funds are derived from the
federal government.
137.
The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in the year 1991 over
49 million Americans had a disability. The presence of a disability
creates an increased likelihood of poverty. For this reason it is
more likely that persons with disabilities will require accessible
public transportation for daily travel. The U.S. census conducted
in the year 2000 demonstrates that there are approximately 1,084,746
persons with disabilities (age five and over) residing in
Massachusetts. In the Boston area and nearby suburbs, there are
145,514 persons with disabilities in Suffolk County, 217,049 in
Middlesex County, 125,438 in Essex County, and 89,792 in Norfolk
County.
138.
The MBTA runs buses
and trains in the city and nearby suburbs that are regularly used by
plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs are
regularly prevented from readily using the MBTA. Some plaintiffs
cannot access the MBTA at all, others are not able to use it in a
manner equal to the non-disabled population when they need to do so.
139.
The MBTA operates fixed route transit lines along prescribed
routes according to a fixed route schedule as these terms are used
in the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §12141(3).
140.
The MBTA advertises and holds itself out to the public as
offering routes on its buses and trains that are accessible to
riders with disabilities.
141.
On a persistent, ongoing, and systemic basis the defendant
has failed to provide the plaintiffs with equal access to the fixed
route public bus and train lines that it operates. Through its acts
and omissions, set out more fully in the paragraphs that follow, the
defendant has denied the plaintiffs equal access to the buses and
trains that it operates.
Bus Lines
142.
Defendant has failed to make the MBTA's fixed route public
bus system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other
persons with disabilities by, among other things:
a. Failing to
adequately inspect, maintain, and service mechanical assistive
devices such as bus lifts, which are needed to allow persons with
mobility impairments to board and disembark. Lifts on defendant’s
buses, marked in the schedule and on the bus itself as accessible,
are frequently malfunctioning or non-functioning, thereby denying
basic public transportation services to plaintiffs and other people
with disabilities;
b. Failing to
adequately inspect, maintain, and service the bus doors through
which persons with mobility impairments board and disembark. The
doors and steps on defendant’s buses, marked in the schedule and on
the bus itself as accessible, are frequently malfunctioning or
non-functioning, thereby denying basic public transportation
services to plaintiffs and other individuals with disabilities;
c. Failing to
adequately inspect and maintain the safety equipment such as clamps
used to secure the wheelchairs of persons with mobility impairments
on buses, and the belts and straps used to secure people with
mobility impairments inside buses. These vital safety devices are
frequently missing, malfunctioning, or non-functioning;
d. Failing to
adequately train and supervise its employees, including drivers,
regarding the proper and safe use of the accessibility and safety
devices necessary to provide equal access to persons with
disabilities on the buses the MBTA operates, including lifts, doors,
clamps, and safety straps;
f. Frequently
and persistently placing non-accessible buses on bus lines marked in
the schedule or in other ways purported to be bus lines accessible
to people with disabilities, including people who use wheelchairs;
g. Frequently and persistently failing to provide
alternative transportation for people with disabilities during
renovations/construction of city streets.
h. Frequently and persistently failing to assign a
sufficient number, as determined by MBTA's own analysis, of buses
with working lifts to bus lines designated as accessible to persons
with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs;
i. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers' and other personnel to
properly and safely use the assistive devices needed to provide
equal access to persons with disabilities on bus lines operated by
the defendants, including lifts, doors, clamps, and safety straps.
On numerous occasions, defendant’s employees have failed to, lacked
knowledge of the proper use of, or openly refused to operate these
assistive devices, seriously endangering plaintiffs' health and
safety.
j. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers' to stop for or to pick
up plaintiffs and other riders who have clearly identifiable
disabilities and are waiting at bus stops, because of plaintiffs'
disabilities.
k. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers to allow persons with
disabilities to board buses because of their disabilities.
l. Frequent and persistent
failure of MBTA bus drivers to deploy lifts or lower the buses’
"kneeling" mechanism, when requested by plaintiffs or other
people whose disabilities are not readily apparent.
m. Frequent and
persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers to provide plaintiffs or
other persons with disabilities with adequate time to complete their
boarding or disembarking from defendant’s vehicles before continuing
en route.
n. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers to clearly announce the
bus number and make stop announcements, severely impeding the
ability of visually impaired persons to know when to disembark
defendant’s buses; and
o. Frequent
and persistent tendency of MBTA personnel to treat individuals with
disabilities in a discourteous and unprofessional manner because of
their disabilities, including MBTA employee's failure to adequately
document and address complaints about accessibility to the MBTA bus
system.
Train Lines
143.
Defendant has failed to make the MBTA's fixed route public
train system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and
other persons with disabilities by, among other things:
a. Frequent
and persistent failure to maintain elevators in MBTA stations in
operating condition;
b. Frequent
and persistent failure to adequately supervise and monitor the
cleanliness of elevators in MBTA stations;
c. Failing to
provide accurate and conspicuous information, at stations and/or
over the telephone, as to whether or not elevators in specific MBTA
stations are in service;
d. Frequent
and persistent failure to provide prompt alternative accessible
transportation to riders with mobility disabilities when a
designated accessible station is not in fact accessible to said
riders;
e. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA employees' to respond to calls from
riders with disabilities seeking assistance in accessing the public
train system;
f. Failing to eliminate
gaps between station platforms and train cars so riders with
mobility impairments can safely board or disembark trains;
h. Failing to
employ adequate numbers of personnel to ensure that riders with
disabilities have equal access to the trains and the train stations
in general;
i. Failing to
provide an adequate number of designated wheelchair spaces on trains
and to properly mark and designate those cars that do have
wheelchair spaces;
j. Failing to
implement a proper emergency evacuation program for the safe
evacuation of riders with disabilities;
k. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA employees to provide sufficient time
for persons with disabilities to board and disembark from the
trains;
l. Frequent
and persistent failure of MBTA employees, upon arriving at a given
station, to clearly announce the train line and destination and
current stop, severely impeding the ability of visually impaired
persons to know when to board or disembark from the defendant’s
trains;
m. Frequent and
persistent failure to provide accessible paths of travel for people
with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs, in and
around MBTA stations;
n. Frequent
and persistent failure to provide alternative transportation for
people with disabilities during renovations/construction of city
streets;
o. Frequent and persistent tendency of MBTA employees to
treat plaintiffs and other individuals with disabilities in a
discourteous and unprofessional manner, because of their
disabilities, including MBTA employees' failure to adequately
document and address complaints about accessibility to the MBTA
train system.
144.
Defendant’s conduct, as set forth herein, violates clearly
established federal law.
145.
Defendant is continuing to discriminate against plaintiffs
and other persons with disabilities based on their disabilities by
denying plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities equal access
to fixed route public transit, resulting in ongoing and irreparable
injury.
CAUSES OF ACTION
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH
DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §12131 ET SEQ., BY THE MBTA
146.
In enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
("ADA"), Congress made specific findings that society tends to
isolate and segregate people with disabilities; that individuals
with disabilities continually encounter various forms of
discrimination, including not only exclusion but also the failure to
make modifications to exclusionary criteria. Congress stated that
the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities
are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such
individuals; that the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary
discrimination denies individuals with disabilities the opportunity
to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for
which our free society is justifiably famous; and that continuing
existence of discrimination and prejudice against people with
disabilities cost the United States billions of dollars in
unnecessary expenses. 42 U.S.C. §12101(a).
147.
The express purpose of the ADA is to provide a clear and
comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination
against individuals with disabilities; to provide clear, strong,
consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against
individuals with disabilities; and to ensure that the federal
government plays a central role in enforcing the standards
established in the Act on behalf of individuals with disabilities.
42 U.S.C. §12101(b).
148.
Each individual plaintiff is a "qualified individual with a
disability" under the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C.
§12131(2). The organizational plaintiff Boston Center for
Independent Living includes members and staff who are qualified
individuals with disabilities under the meaning of Title II of the
ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12131(2).
149.
The MBTA is a "public entity" within the meaning of Title II
of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §12131(1).
150.
The MBTA operates a fixed route system of public
transportation, under the meaning of Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C.
§12141(3).
151.
Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the defendant
has, by reason of plaintiffs’ disabilities; excluded plaintiffs from
participation in the MBTA programs, services and activities; denied
plaintiffs the benefits of the MBTA programs, services, and
activities; and subjected plaintiffs to discrimination in violation
of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12132.
152.
The defendant’s acts and omissions are in violation of the
equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title
II of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have
resulted in injury to plaintiffs.
153.
The defendant’s conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous
violation of Title II of the ADA and, unless restrained and enjoined
from doing so, the MBTA will continue to violate Title II of the
ADA. The defendant’s acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will
continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have
no adequate remedy under the law.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF
1973, AS AMENDED, BY THE MBTA
154.
Each individual plaintiff is an "otherwise qualified
individual with a disability" under the meaning of Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 ("Section 504"). The
organizational plaintiff Boston Center for Independent Living
includes members and staff who are otherwise qualified individuals
with a disabilities under the meaning of Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 ("Section 504").
155.
The MBTA receives a significant portion of its operating
funds from Federal sources, therefore it operates a "program or
activity receiving Federal financial assistance" as defined by
Section 504.
156.
Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the MBTA has,
by reason of plaintiffs’ disabilities: excluded the plaintiffs from
participation in the MBTA's programs, services and activities,
denied the plaintiffs the benefits of the MBTA's programs, services,
and activities, and subjected the plaintiffs to discrimination.
157.
The defendant’s acts and omissions set forth herein are in
violation of the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set
forth in Section 504, and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs.
158.
The defendant’s conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous
violation of Section 504 and, unless restrained and enjoined from
doing so, the defendant will continue to violate Section 504. The
defendant’s acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to
inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate
remedy under the law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court order
relief as follows:
1.
Certify the class described in the complaint;
2.
Declare that the defendant’s acts and omissions complained of
herein deny the plaintiffs equal access to public transportation in
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and regulations thereunder as
alleged in the complaint;
3.
Issue a permanent injunction to require defendant to comply
with the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and regulations enacted thereunder,
with respect to providing individuals with disabilities full and
equal access to its public transportation operation and system, by
among other things:
a.
Assuring that buses scheduled to be, and/or marked as,
accessible to persons with disabilities actually be accessible by
adequately inspecting, maintaining and servicing all mechanical
assistive devices such as: bus lifts, bus doors, safety clamps and
belts;
b.
Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that all
other necessary assistive devices such as: bridge plates,
telecommunication devices, LED displays, signage, and other devices
as required by law or regulation are in place, fully operational,
and can be used by consumers in a safe manner;
c.
Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that each
subway station has at least one elevator that is fully operational,
in working order, providing access to all train lines served by the
station (in both directions), well lighted both inside the cab and
in the elevator boarding areas, sanitary both inside the cab and in
the elevator boarding areas, and adequately patrolled to ensure the
safety of the consumers. If an elevator is not operational, a system
must be in place to alert consumers in transit, such as clear and
audible announcements made over the public announcement system on
the trains as well as in the station, and signs posted in
conspicuous locations on the subway trains, as well as in the
station, alerting consumers to the location of the station where the
elevator is out of service, and providing directions to the nearest
station with an operational elevator;
d.
Clear and audible announcements shall be made over the
public address system of buses and trains in a timely and consistent
manner at each stop announcing the current location of the vehicle
and its destination;
e.
The MBTA will assure that all bus and train operators are
adequately supervised and trained to provide reasonable assistance
to all individuals with disabilities assuring equal access to the
MBTA. This training must include but is not limited to operating
mechanical assistive and safety devices, sensitivity to the unique
travel needs of persons with disabilities, and ensuring that
individuals with disabilities have priority access seats that are
designated for the elderly and disabled;
f.
Each and every bus must approach all bus stops and stations
at a safe and appropriate speed, and must come to a stop at a
distance from the curb close enough to ensure reasonable safety to
disembarking passengers with disabilities;
g.
Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that each
bus stop or station shall be free and clear of all impediments,
including but is not limited to illegally parked vehicles, snow,
ice, or any other type of debris;
h.
Assuring that alternative transportation will be provided for
people with disabilities during renovations/construction of city
streets;
i.
Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance
that paths of travel within and around MBTA stations are accessible
to people with disabilities, including those who use wheelchairs,
and are free of obstructions;
j.
Establishing a monitor and system of monitoring and
reporting, independent of the MBTA's current system, accountable to
the community and responsible to track the MBTA's performance in
responding to the violations and prayers for relief listed above.
The monitor will compile data on the MBTA's progress and complaints
having to do with disability access or accommodations;
-
Issue a permanent
injunction to require the defendant to refrain from discriminating
against individuals with disabilities who use their public
transportation system;
-
Award the
plaintiffs their attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs;
and
-
Grant such further
relief as is equitable and just.
JOANNE DANIELS-FINEGOLD,
et al
Plaintiffs
Dated: February 4,
2004 BY THEIR ATTORNEYS :
______________________________
Daniel S. Manning, BBO#317860
Taramattie Doucette, BBO#555948
Greater Boston Legal Services
197 Friend Street
Boston, MA 02114
(617) 603-1603
|
MBTA Access Suit Home |
Meet The
Plaintiffs |
Newsletters |
Fixed Route Ride Log |
|
Full Complaint Text |
Full Settlement Text
|
Settlement Notice |
|
Links |
Other Useful Information
|
Case Timeline | |