Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Transportation Cases

Pending:

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Case No. 1:04CV00498

Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Grocery Stores Cases

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

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.  A special needs trust was developed by Hogan & Hartson to ensure that receipt of damages in this matter would not jeopardize one plaintiff’s public assistance.

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

In June of 2001, the Project and co-counsel Covington & Burling settled this suit, brought in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against the SuperValu grocery chain.  The suit had challenged access barriers at Shoppers Food Warehouse and Save-a-lot stores, including inaccessible cart corrals, which prevent passage by many people in wheelchairs.  Under the agreement, the grocery stores will be surveyed, and barriers will be removed. Attorney fees were awarded to the plaintiffs.

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Giant Food, Inc. 

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 (D.D.C. No. 94-0878)

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.

                     
Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Restaurants Cases

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Popeye’s Restaurants

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. (D.D.C. No. 95-1317)

Patricia Day, who uses a wheel chair, 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.

Pending: Equal Rights Center v. Doctor's Associates d/b/a Subway (D.D.C. No. 1:06CV00725)

Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Movie Theaters Cases 

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (D.D.C. No. 1:97CV03023)

The DRC and individual plaintiffs sued Cineplex Odeon over barriers to wheelchair access. Barriers included inaccessible restrooms, inadequate number and size of wheelchair spaces, lack of removable armrests on aisle seats, and seating that requires people with disabilities to sit apart from their companions. A comprehensive settlement resulted in broad and swift remediation. The Committee and Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen & Hamilton were co-counsel.

Isbell and the Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Cineplex Odeon Corp. (D.D.C. No. 94-0679-SS)

An earlier lawsuit by the DRC and individual plaintiffs resulted in the installation of assistive listening systems for hard of hearing patrons at every Cineplex theater in the metropolitan area, and eventually throughout the nation.


Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Financial Institutions Cases

National Federation of the Blind, Inc., et al. v. Chevy Chase Bank (D.D.C. No. 1:00CV01167)

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 will implement 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 will retrofit 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 will 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 (D.D.C. No. 1:00CV01168)

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 has 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 will also, through its website, advertise the locations of these voice guided ATMs.  This agreement also commits Diebold, over the next five years, to contribute $1 million toward the construction of NFB’s National Research & Training Institute for the Blind.  In addition, Diebold will immediately replace the current generation of ATMs in Washington, D.C. area Rite-Aids, with another model equipped with currently available voice guidance capabilities.

Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Government Services Cases


Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. District of Columbia et al. (D.D.C. No. 1:04CV00529)

This groundbreaking settlement agreement resolves a lawsuit filed by the Project and Morrison & Foerster challenging the inaccessibility of D.C. parking meters and its parking placard program for people with disabilities. Many of the District’s 17,000 meters were inaccessible at the time of this suit, because they were too high, or because wheelchair users were unable to approach the meters due to barriers. Moreover, DC was the only state-level jurisdiction which refused reciprocity for other states’ placards, and its own placard application process was fraught with discriminatory and overly invasive questions and requirements. As a result of this litigation, the District will ensure that every block face with meters has accessible meters and compliant curb cuts. All new meters will be of accessible height and orientation. In addition, legislation was passed by the DC City Council creating reciprocity for out-of-state placard-holders, and the District’s placard application process was revised to eliminate the discriminatory questions and requirements.

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. D.C. Board of Elections  (D.D.C. No. 1:01CV01884RMU)

Voting equipment that permits independent, secret voting for voters who are blind or have manual impairments is readily available. The District, however, recently chose to purchase inaccessible equipment, and for many years failed to ensure accessible polling places. In August, 2002, the Project and Hogan & Hartson negotiated a settlement that requires the District, by the 2004 Primary, to have at least one accessible voting machine in every precinct, and to ensure accessible polling places

Shorter and Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. District of Columbia (D.D.C. 98-2423)

In November of 2000, the Committee and Steptoe and Johnson reached a Settlement Agreement with the District of Columbia and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department in this action filed on behalf of a deaf man who was arrested in the District of Columbia, and the Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington.  The settlement ensures that deaf persons will be promptly provided with qualified sign language interpreters in all important communications with officers of the MPD, that district police stations will have TTYs to ensure effective telephone accessibility for deaf individuals, and that officers will be trained to ensure that they understand their obligations to the deaf public.  The settlement also awarded damages to Mr. Shorter and attorneys’ fees.  The Committee continues to monitor compliance with this important settlement.

Miller v. District of Columbia (D.D.C. No. 96-2833) 

Deaf plaintiffs in emergency situations were unable to reach the District of Columbia's 911 emergency telephone service when they called using their telecommunications devices for the deaf (TDDs). The Committee, with Yablonski, Both & Edelman, filed a complaint, and due to the severity of the violations, the U.S. Department of Justice was granted leave to intervene. In November, 1997, the District Court issued an Opinion and Order, finding that the District violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, and ordering extensive improvements to services and equipment, training of personnel, monitoring of performance, compensatory damages, and attorneys' fees.

Banks v. D.C. Department of Human Services/Department of Health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Docket No. 03913052)

This complaint demanded that the D.C. Medicaid system reimburse medical providers for sign language interpreter services for deaf patients. Under the settlement, D.C. Medicaid will contract with a sign language interpreter service, and will provide interpreter services for any private medical provider whose deaf Medicaid patient requires them. This important settlement represents the first time any state Medicaid system has been required to provide this type of access.

DRC v. D.C. Department of Corrections (U.S .Department of Justice Complaint No. 204-16-83)

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:

DRC v. City of Baltimore, Baltimore Police Department, City Correctional Center, et al. (U.S .Department of Justice)  

American Association of People with Disabilities, et al., v. Katherine Harris  
(M.D. Fla. No. 3:01-CV-1275-J-21TJC)

Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Retail Stores Cases

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

On June 22, 2005, the Project 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.)

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.)

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.)            

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          

Pending:

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington v. Lowest Price, et al.
U.S. Department of Justice


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

Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Health Care Cases

Gillespie et al v. Laurel Regional Hospital No. DKC 05-CV-71 (D.C. Md. Consent Decree 7/14, 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 outline 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.)

On November 2, 2005, the Project 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
(No. 202-16-123) (DOJ)

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 (Civ. Action No. 8:03-CV-7) (D.Md.)

Settled 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.’

Alexander and the Disability Rights Council  v.  Howard University Hospital  (Civ. Action No. 1:01CV01167ESH) (D.D.C.) 

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 (Civ. Action No. 1:01CV00760TFH) (D.D.C.)   

A November 13, 2002 trial resulted in a victory for Mr. Alexander, 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 Mr. Alexander $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)

Notable Disability Rights Project Access to Hotels Cases

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Capital Hotels, LLC
Case No. 1:03CV01876 D.D.C.

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. Carlyle Suites Hotel, (D.D.C. No. 1:05CV02227)

Disability Rights Council of Greater Washington, et al. v. Omni Richmond Hotel (DOJ)

Emergency Evacuation Procedures

Katie Savage and DRC v. Marshalls, Inc., et al. (Civil Action No. 240306)
(Circuit Court for Montgomery County, Maryland)

Following a landmark decision in this case on the applicability of Title III of the ADA to emergency evacuation procedures, the Project and the law firm of Hogan & Hartson settled this ground breaking case. The settlement ensures accessible emergency exits or areas of rescue assistance in all Marshalls stores in the U.S. and Puerto Rico, the adoption of nationwide policies for the evacuation of people with disabilities from these stores, training of store personnel on these policies, oversight by an approved ADA consultant and designated employee, and compliance reporting.

Other Notable Disability Rights Project Cases

Pending:

Hubbard, et al. v. Potter, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (D.D.C. No. 03-1062; EEOC)

Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners (E.D. Pa. 99-4532)