Access to Transportation Cases

Equal Rights Center et al. v. Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority.
Case No.: 1:04cv00498 (D.D.C. Class Settlement Approved May 22, 2008)

This critically important class action was brought by the Project and the law firm Wiley Rein to improve paratransit services for over 14,000 persons in the Washington DC metropolitan area whose disabilities are so severe that they cannot access traditional mass transit service. The class action alleged that paratransit service to these riders was so deficient that it violated the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act, by failing to provide adequately safe and reliable transportation service to customers with disabilities. Under the terms of the 2008 multi-million dollar Court approved settlement, MetroAccess will hire expert consultants to assist in its ongoing oversight of MetroAccess performance and enhance service by increasing the paratransit budget by $4 million a year over a three-year period. In addition to the service improvements required by the settlement, every MetroAccess patron received 10 free rides, valued at approximately $425,000.
 
If you are experiencing problems with MetroAccess, please contact Sharon Moore of the Equal Rights Center at smoore@equalrightscenter.org.

Equal Rights Center et al. v. Mobility, Inc. D/B/A/ "Flexcar", et al.
Case No.: 1:07CV0184 (D.D.C. Settlement September 16, 2008)
and
Equal Rights Center et al. v. Zipcar, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 1:07CV01823 (D.D.C. Settlement September 16,2008)

The Disability Rights Project and Steptoe & Johnson negotiated a ground-breaking settlement on behalf of the Equal Rights Center and a driver with disabilities with two car-sharing companies - Zipcar and Flexcar - on September, 16, 2008. This is the first settlement in the nation to address accessibility issues with the new car-sharing industry. Under the settlement, these car sharing companies are required to provide hand control vehicles in the DC area as a Pilot Program, while ensuring that such vehicles will be available upon request nationwide. In addition, assistance animals are allowed (un-caged) in vehicles and DC members with disabilities are allowed up to two additional drivers for no extra fees.
 
If you are a member of the Equal Rights Center, you can receive a Zipcar membership at a reduced rate for two years. For more information about being a member of the ERC, please contact David Ambrose at DAmbrose@equalrightscenter.org.

Access to Health Care Cases

Gillespie et al v. Laurel Regional Hospital
Case No. DKC 05-CV-71 (D.C. Md. Consent Decree July 14, 2006)

In July, 2006, the Project and Sutherland Asbill & Brennan LLP, together with the U.S. Department of Justice, negotiated a landmark Consent Decree on behalf of seven deaf individuals with Laurel Regional Hospital. The individuals had alleged in their Complaint that despite their specific and repeated requests for in-person qualified sign language interpreter services at Laurel Hospital, these requests were denied and plaintiffs were forced to communicate through cryptic notes, lip-reading, or inadequate video interpreting, or were provided with no communication at all in critical medical situations. Of particular import in this case were the allegations of inadequate video interpreting services (VIS). These services, which are becoming more frequently used in medical and other settings, provide an off-site interpreter through video conference technology over high speed internet lines. Although extremely useful in some situations, it is critical that these services be monitored in hospital settings to ensure that they meet certain performance standards and are not used with patients who have certain medical conditions or injuries compromising their ability to see the video screen or be seen by the video camera. The Consent Decree is the first ADA case resolution to include criteria for VIS. The Decree requires a communication assessment of each patient, provision of appropriate auxiliary aids and services, including where approriate use of Laurel's new, DOJ-approved VIS equipment, new policies outlining situations in which VIS is not appropriate, provision of special television equipment and telephones for deaf patients, notice to patients of their rights under the Decree, and training of staff as to its provisions.

Equal Rights Center, et al. v. Washington Hospital Center
Civil Action No. 1:03CV02434 (D.D.C. Settlement November 5, 2005)

On November 2, 2005, the Project and the law firm of Howrey LLP announced a landmark settlement with largest private hospital in the nation’s capital, Washington Hospital Center, on behalf of four former patients of Washington Hospital Center (WHC) and the Equal Rights Center (ERC). This settlement is one of the first of its kind to address a new issue in disability rights – access to hospital facilities and equipment for patients with mobility impairments and other disabilities. Under this settlement, WHC will create and improve accessible patient rooms, remove barriers throughout the hospital, procure accessible exam tables for every department that uses exam tables (after the date of the agreement, all new exam tables and chairs purchased by WHC will be accessible), survey all equipment and purchase accessible equipment where needed, review and revise its polices, implement special procedures for patients with spinal cord injuries, and provide training to its staff to ensure implementation and use of its new policies and equipment.

Alexander v. Greater Southeast Community Hospital
Case No. 202-16-123 (DOJ Settlement June 22, 2005)

A complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice against the Greater Southeast Community Hospital was settled on June 22, 2005. The complaint had alleged that the hospital failed to provide sign language interpreter services to a patient who was deaf. The relief achieved against this important hospital includes establishment of detailed policies and procedures to ensure provision of qualified sign language interpreter services to deaf individuals, and an award of damages to the individual complainant.

Alexander v. Dr. Othman Baban and Fort Washington Medical Center
Civil Action No. 8:03-CV-7 (D.Md. Settlement June 24, 2004)

As part of its continuing effort to serve the deaf and hearing-impaired community, Fort Washington Hospital will now provide: access 24-hours per day, 7 days per week, to sign language interpreters for medical communications with deaf and hearing-impaired patients or non-patients who are responsible for hearing patients; maintenance of a contract to ensure availability to sign language interpreters; notification to deaf and hearing-impaired patients of their communication rights and the communication services provided by Fort Washington Hospital; staff training on the communication services provided to deaf and hearing-impaired patients; and a designated employee serving as an ‘ADA Communications Services Coordinator.’ The law firm of Morrison & Foerster co-counseled on this important case.

Alexander and the Disability Rights Council  v.  Howard University Hospital
Civil Action No. 1:01CV01167ESH (D.D.C. Settlement July 10, 2002) 

A settlement in July, 2002, ensures accessibility for deaf patients at Howard University Hospital, by requiring that the hospital: provide free sign language interpreters for medical communications; maintain a contract to ensure availability of interpreters; notify deaf patients of their rights; train staff; provide interpreters to deaf non-patients responsible for a hearing patient; and provide special telephones and captioned televisions to deaf patients. Yablonski, Both & Edelman served as co-counsel in this matter.

Alexander and the Disability Rights Council v. United Optical
Civil Action No. 1:01CV00760TFH (D.D.C. Settlement November 13, 2002)   

A November 13, 2002 trial resulted in a victory for a deaf man who was denied services at a vision care service.  When his wife called United Optical, she was told her husband could not be served because he is deaf, and this refusal was put in writing.  After a two-day trial, a jury awarded the deaf plaintiff $19,119 in damages, and the judge determined that the DRC had standing to seek injunctive relief.  Hunton & Williams served as co-counsel in this case.

Pending:

DRC v. Inova Fairfax Hospital  (U.S. Department of Justice)

Access to Voting Cases

American Association of People with Disabilities et al. v. Hood
Case No. 3:01-CV-1275 (M.D.Fla. March 24, 2004)

In March of 2004, the Project with the assistance of Howrey LLP won a verdict for plaintiffs, three voters with disabilities and the American Association of People with Disabilities, stating that Duval County violated the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to provide voting machines that enable people who are blind or manually-impaired to vote independently and secretly. As a result of this important verdict, on election day in November 2005, voters with disabilities in Duval County were able, for the first time, to vote without assistance in election.

In August, 2002, the Project and Hogan & Hartson negotiated a settlement that required the District, by the 2004 Primary, to have at least one accessible voting machine in every precinct, and to ensure accessible polling places

Access to Government Services Cases

This complaint filed on behalf of deaf inmates resulted in a March 20, 2003 settlement agreement under which the Department of Corrections must provide interpreters, allow access to TTYs, add visual alarms for emergencies, provide closed captioning for televisions, inform inmates of the availability of auxiliary aids, and train staff about the new policies.

Pending:

Equal Rights Center et al. v. District of Columbia Lottery Board
Case No.: 1:06cv01942 - pending litigation

The Project and the law firm of McDermott, Will & Emery filed a lawsuit in November 2006 on behalf of the Equal Rights Center and two DC residents against the DC Lottery Board for selling lottery tickets in stores and businesses that are not accessible to persons with disabilities, thereby denying these persons with disabilities equal opportunity to play the D.C. Lottery. Almost half (49%) of the lottery agents that were surveyed had entrance barriers, and one-third of them had one or more steps at the entry of their store. If more stringent accessibility requirements are implemented from this case, not only will people with disabilities have access to the D.C. Lottery, but there will also be more accessible stores in the D.C. area.

Equal Rights Center et al. v. District of Columbia
Case No.: 1:07cv01838 - pending litigation

This case was filed by the Washington Lawyer's Committee and Steptoe & Johnson LLP on behalf of the Equal Rights Center, its members and a class of deaf individuals using District services. The named plaintiffs include a deaf resident in DC who did not receive adequate interpreting service at a hearing before the District of Columbia Zoning Board, and another deaf resident who did not receive an interpreter service at his ANC meetings and other events hosted by the District of Columbia. The Council recently approved a $400,000 budget, proposed by the DC Office on Disability Rights, that will include funding for a sign language interpreter contract.

Equal Rights Center et al. v. District of Columbia
Case No.: 1:07cv00221 - pending litigation

In January, 2007, the Disability Rights Project with Cleary, Steen & Hamilton filed a complaint against the District of Columbia for failing to provide accessible government buildings, including the John A. Wilson building. These ADA violation not only include entrance ways, but also evacuation routes and procedures. The individual plaintiff was stranded on the fourth floor of the DC Building at 825 North Capital Street NE during an emergency evacuation.
 

Access to Restaurants Cases

Equal Rights Center, et al. v. Doctor's Associates, Inc.,d/b/a Subway, et al.
Case No: 1:06cv00725 (D.D.C. Settlement December 31, 2007)

The Project and the law firm of Crowell and Moring LLP filed a lawsuit on behalf of plaintiffs Equal Rights Center and an individual wheelchair user against Subway for allegedly violating the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the D.C. Humans Rights Act. On, December 31, 2007, the case was settled and Subway agreed to eliminate significant barriers in more than fifty restaurants in the DC area. Some of the changes included widening entrances and installing ramps for people who use wheelchairs, and making sure entrance doors can be opened by people with disabilities. Subway also agreed to revise its policies and procedures nationwide, including its process for selecting restaurant sites, to be in compliance with the ADA.  

Equal Rights Center et al. v. Potbelly Sandwich Works
Case No. 1:07CV00283 (D.D.C. Settlement November 21, 2007)

On November 21, 2007, the Disability Project and Bingham McCutchen negotiated an agreement for the Equal Rights Center and an individual wheelchair user with Potbelly Sandwich Works, affirming that the restaurant chain would improve their existing restaurants, incorporate designs for new restaurants nationwide and have district managers inspect all restaurants annually to ensure that they are following the ADA guidelines. Potbelly was sued for inaccessible seating areas, service counters being too high and non-compliant bathrooms.  

Marc Fiedler, Equal Rights Center v. MHG CAFÉ DUPONT, LLC., trading as CIRCA AT DUPONT
Case No. 1:08CV00225 (D.D.C. Settlement July 7, 2008)

On July 7, 2008, the DC District Court accepted Circa at Dupont's Offer of Judgment which requires the restaurant to fix all of its ADA violations (lack of accessible tables, ordering counter, outdoor eating area and entrance-way) and permit inspections of the restaurant.  

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Popeye’s Restaurants
(Settlement September 20, 2001)

This settlement of access complaints achieved with Popeye’s by the Project and co-counsel, Crowell & Moring, is of great importance in that it reaches not only our local restaurants, but every Popeye’s restaurant in the country. Moreover, the agreement reached in September 2001, presents a means to remedy access barriers in franchised restaurants as well as company-owned ones. 

Under this agreement, at its company owned restaurants, Popeye’s will make all the structural changes needed to ensure access on a rolling basis, to be completed by December 31, 2003.  All new company owned Popeye’s will be ADA compliant. New franchised restaurants will also be required to be ADA compliant.  If violations are found, the franchisee will have a limited amount of time to bring the restaurant into compliance, and will be inspected again. 

In addition to the meaningful accessibility actions taken by Popeye’s, a payment was made to plaintiffs of $200,000.

Day and Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Republic Foods, et al.
Case No. 95-1317 (D.D.C. Settlement July 7, 1997)

An individual wheelchair user and the DRC sued the Burger King Corporation for architectural barriers that violate the ADA. The Committee and Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering were co-counsel. Under a broad settlement in 1997, Burger King agreed that plans for future restaurants will provide full access for individuals with disabilities, and modified its specifications for queue lines to bring them into compliance with the ADA. It also agreed to survey all its company-owned restaurants and to resolve any access problems identified in the survey.
 

Access to Hotels Cases

Equal Rights Center et al. v. Carlyle Suites Hotel
Case No.: 1:05cv02227 (D.D.C. Settlement December 21, 2006)

In December 2006, the Disability Rights Project and the law firm of Clifford Chance settled a case against the historic Carlyle Suites Hotel for not having an accessible entrance for persons who use wheelchairs. The case was filed on behalf of the Equal Rights Center and individuals who had been assured the hotel was accessible, but, upon arrival, realized the entrance was not accessible, requiring that they be lifted in their wheelchair over several steps. This settlement is a huge success, in that the hotel has installed a state of the art ramp which exceeds the standards for new construction, while not compromising the historical architectural features of the hotel lobby.

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Capital Hotels, LLC
Case No. 1:03CV01876 (D.D.C. Settlement December 3, 2004)

In December, 2004, a settlement of this case ensured major access improvements to the St. Gregory and Governors’ House Hotels. The changes include improving accessibility in guestrooms, common areas of the hotels, including conference and meeting rooms, and in paths of travel throughout the hotels. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart co-counseled with the Disability Project on this important matter.

Pending:

Equal Rights Center et al. v. Hilton Hotels Corporation
Case No.: 1:07cv01528 - pending litigation 

Represented by the Washington Lawyer's Committee and Gilbert Randolph LLP, the Equal Rights Center, the American Association of People with Disabilities and several wheelchair users, filed a lawsuit against Hilton Hotels for allegedly violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The lawsuit alleges that Hilton Hotels are operated in violation of the ADA, including barriers in rooms designated as accessible, as well as barriers throughout the common areas of the hotel. In addition, the plaintiffs argue that Hilton is not dispersing its accessible rooms among various classes of hotel rooms.
 
If you have experienced these or other acts of discrimination on the basis of disability at a Hilton Hotel, please contact the Washington Lawyers' Committee. Hilton operates hotels under the following brand names: Hilton, Hilton Garden, Doubletree, Conrad, Embassy Suites, Hampton Inn and Homewood Suites.
 

Access to Retail Stores Cases

Stephen J. Rosen, et al. v. RadioShack Corporation
Civil Action No. 1:03CV02596 (D.D.C. Settlement Jun 22, 2005)

On June 22, 2005, the Project and Hogan & Hartson reached a historic settlement against RadioShack. The settlement applies to the more than 5,000 RadioShack stores nationwide, and is the first settlement of its kind to address a crucial new issue in disability rights – access to interactive electronic displays, such as displays for camcorders, PDAs, music keyboards, wireless phones, internet centers, digital cameras and laptop and desktop computers. The settlement also addresses aisle width, point of sale accessibility, training, and barrier removal in the Washington, D.C. stores. The landmark settlement will go far to ensure that individuals with disabilities can enjoy all of RadioShack’s products and services nationwide.

Disability Rights Council, et al. v. National Wholesale Liquidators of West Hempstead, Inc. d/b/a National Wholesale Liquidators
Civil Action No. 1:04CV00999 (D.D.C. Settlement March 11, 2005)

In March, 2005, the Project and Hunton & Williams settled a lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals who had complained of serious access problems to NWL stores, specifically barriers at the entry and impassible, cluttered aisles. The settlement achieves company-wide relief, including: surveys of all stores, readily achievable barrier removal, removal of all cart corrals that block access at the entrances, new policies, 36“ primary paths of travel, at least one 32” path to at least 50% of the merchandise on every fixture, training of staff, appointment of an ADA Coordinator, compliance reports, and fully compliant new stores.

Disability Rights Council, et al. v. The May Department Store Company
Civil Action 01-1076 RBW (D.D.C. Settlement January 24, 2005)

The Project, together with Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton, settled this important department store lawsuit in January, 2005. The suit had alleged barriers to access in the local Hecht and Lord & Taylor stores of this major retail corporation. Under this far-reaching settlement, the company will address inaccessibility of its display racks and other features in fifteen local stores. The agreement provides for frequent monitoring and compliance reports on the maintenance of accessible aisles in the stores. The agreement also addresses barrier removal at these stores, including removal of barriers in restrooms and fitting rooms.

Disability Rights Council, et al. v. CVS
Civil Action No. 1:01CV01621ESH (D.D.C. Settlement September 16, 2002)           

In September, 2002, the Project and Covington & Burling settled a lawsuit brought on behalf of individuals who had complained of serious access problems at CVS, including both architectural barriers and impassible, cluttered aisles. The agreement binds all D.C. regional stores to install accessible pull-out shelves at the sales counters, to maintain clear aisles, to lower the pharmacy and photo counters, to ensure accessible parking and entrances, and to train employees on accessibility policies. 

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Family Dollar
(Settlement March 12, 2003)

Equal Rights Center et al. v. Filene's Basement, Inc.
Case No.: 1:08cv02007 - pending litigation

November 21, 2008 - The Disability Rights Project and the law firm of Kirkland & Ellis filed a federal lawsuit against the regional clothing store, Filene's Basement, for allegedly violating both the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the DC Humans Rights Act. The clothing store failed to provide people with disabilities equal access to its stores in DC, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York and New Jersey. The violations varied in each store, but mostly resulted in bathrooms, aisles, fitting rooms, elevators and lifts being inaccessible.

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Ames Department Stores
Case No. 1:99CV02116 (D.D.C. )
 

Access to Grocery Stores Cases

Disability Rights Council et al. v. Murry’s Steaks Inc.
Civil Action No. 1:01CV02070GK (D.D.C. Settlement October 18, 2002)

When the Project and Foley, Hoag & Eliot filed suit against the Murry’s grocery chain in October, 2001, five of the six Murry’s stores in the District had inaccessible entrances due to cart corrals that kept in shopping carts, but kept out people who use wheelchairs. Under the September, 2002 settlement, Murry’s agreed to make all entrances accessible, to address parking lot violations, to reimburse the plaintiffs for their damages and pay attorney fees.

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Shoppers Food
Warehouse, Save-a-Lot Food Stores, et al.
Case No. PJM 00CV2190 (D.Md. Settlement June 27, 2001)

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Giant Food, Inc.
(Settlement August 21, 1999)

On August 12, 1999, Giant Food, Inc., and the Disability Rights Council announced an agreement to ensure greater access for persons with disabilities at Giant supermarkets. Under the agreement, negotiated without filing suit by the Committee and co-counsel, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, with the Giant grocery chain, Giant pledged to modify store entrances and checkout aisles and to retain an expert accessibility consultant to review its plans for new and remodeled stores to ensure ADA compliance.

Fox v. Safeway
Case No. 94-0878 (D.D.C. Settlement July 25, 1995)

The Committee and co-counsel, Miller, Cassidy, Larroca & Lewin, settled a lawsuit against Safeway alleging barriers to access by persons who use wheelchairs. Under the settlement, Safeway has surveyed over 800 stores nationwide to bring them into compliance with the ADA over a 5-year period. 
 

Access to Movie Theaters Cases

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Cineplex Odeon Corp.
Case No. 1:97CV03023 (D.D.C. Settlement August 19, 1999)

Pending:

Hartman et al. v. Maryland Department of Corrections
- pending

Representatives from Foley & Lardner and the Disability Rights Project have negotiated several agreements with the Maryland Correctional Institution at Jessup to assist a group of deaf and hard of hearing inmates to get hearing aids, an interpreter and a pager system that notifies the inmates about medical appointments, lunch, lock-down, etc.
 

On June 28, 2001, the Project, and co-counsel, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, achieved a settlement between the National Federation of the Blind, the Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington (DRC), and Chevy Chase Bank. The parties announced a settlement agreement under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) in which Chevy Chase Bank implemented a plan to ensure full access for blind and low-vision individuals to their more than 500 Chevy Chase Bank ATMs locations in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. Chevy Chase Bank retrofitted at least one ATM at each location with new technology which provides spoken step-by-step instructions to persons who cannot view information on ATM screens, thereby enabling them to perform standard automated banking transactions.  In order to maintain privacy and security, blind and low-vision users activate the voice-guidance feature by plugging headphones into universal audio jacks installed in the ATMs.

National Federation of the Blind, Inc., et al. v. Diebold and Rite Aid
Case No. 1:00CV01168 (D.D.C. Settlement October 31, 2000)

On October 31, 2000, the Project, and co-counsel, Brown, Goldstein & Levy, achieved an unprecedented settlement with a major ATM manufacturer, Diebold, and Rite Aid Corporation. Diebold agreed to partner with the plaintiff, NFB, to develop a new generation of voice-guided ATMs, greatly increasing the number of accessible ATMs available to blind individuals.  Diebold also, through its website, advertised the locations of these voice guided ATMs.  This agreement also committed Diebold, over five years, to contribute $1 million toward the construction of NFB’s National Research & Training Institute for the Blind.  In addition, Diebold immediately replaced the current generation of ATMs in Washington, D.C. area Rite-Aids, with another model equipped with currently available voice guidance capabilities.

Other Notable Disability Rights Project Cases

Hubbard et al. v. United States Postal Service
Case No.: 1:03cv01062 - pending litigation

The Disability Rights Project and the law firms of Covington & Burling LLP and James E. McCollum, Jr. & Associates, P.C.filed a lawsuit with nationwide class allegations against the United States Postal Services for failing to provide sign language interpreters for deaf employees at work meetings, including those meetings that addressed anthrax contamination and other safety concerns. Without interpreter service, deaf postal employees are not be able to understand vital and pertinent information.