Fiorito v. Metropolitan Council

Background

Michael Fiorito moved for an emergency preliminary injunction against the Metropolitan Council. He asked the court to require the Council to immediately repair all elevators and escalators at the Lake Street Midtown transit station, provide accessible transportation while repairs were being made, and retain an independent elevator and escalator contractor under court supervision.

Fiorito alleged that the station’s elevators and escalators were not operating on March 19, March 20, and March 24, 2025. He alleged that this prevented him—whom he described as a disabled individual—from accessing public transportation, caused him to miss appointments, and caused $48 in ride-share costs. He also referred to an inspection report that he said showed the elevators were inoperable 42% of the time in 2024, but he did not provide that report to the court. He further alleged physical injuries from forced stair use on May 28, 2024, and August 25, 2024, but the court noted that the affidavit he cited was not on file.

Court’s analysis

A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary order issued before the final resolution of a case. The court considers four factors: the likelihood that the requesting party will ultimately succeed, the threat of irreparable harm without an injunction, the balance of harms between the parties, and the public interest.

The court focused first on the likelihood of success. It stated that Fiorito’s claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act required him to show that he had a statutory disability, was otherwise qualified for the benefit at issue, and was excluded from that benefit because of disability-based discrimination. The court found that he had not provided evidence establishing a qualifying disability or evidence showing discrimination based on his claimed disability.

The court also noted that Fiorito had not filed documents supporting his allegations about the station’s elevators and escalators. By contrast, the Metropolitan Council submitted evidence disputing that the equipment was inoperable on May 28, 2024; August 25, 2024; and March 19, 20, and 24, 2025. The court therefore could not conclude that Fiorito was likely to succeed on his claims.

On irreparable harm, the court explained that the harm must be certain, great, and imminent, and that a mere possibility is insufficient. It found that Fiorito’s alleged past injuries did not establish irreparable harm because monetary damages could adequately compensate for them. The court also found that he had not shown ongoing barriers to using transit services. Because he failed to establish the two most important factors—likelihood of success and irreparable harm—the court did not address the remaining factors.

Disposition

The court denied Fiorito’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The order did not state that the motion was denied with or without prejudice, and it did not enter a final ruling on the underlying disability-discrimination claims.