Disabled in Action v. City Of New York

Background

Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York and the Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, along with individual plaintiffs with mobility disabilities, brought a putative class action against the City of New York, the New York City Police Department, and James O’Neill in his official capacity as Commissioner of the New York City Police Department. The plaintiffs alleged that physical barriers at precinct stations denied people with mobility disabilities meaningful access to police services and programs.

The claims arose under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs sought partial summary judgment on liability under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Summary judgment is a decision without a trial when the material facts are not genuinely disputed and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law.

Facts Considered by the Court

The court described New York City Police Department programs and services connected to precinct stations, including Community Council meetings, “Build the Block” meetings, permit applications, the Cash for Guns Program, the Anonymous Prescription Drop Box Program, crime reports, complaints, requests for physical security, police-report pickups, and other public-safety services.

The plaintiffs’ accessibility survey covered 25 of the 77 precinct stations. The court stated that every surveyed station had architectural barriers. Nine surveyed stations could be entered only by stairs, while other stations had problems involving side or rear entrances, locked access points, missing signs, narrow or obstructed paths, broken pavement, steep slopes, missing handrails, doors, thresholds, bathrooms, seating, and interior paths of travel. The opinion also stated that these barriers had prevented or deterred plaintiffs and other people with mobility disabilities from using police services and participating in police programs.

The New York City Police Department relied on efforts to provide services at accessible locations, by phone or video, at people’s homes, or through personal assistance. It also relied on “AccessibleNYPD,” a strategic plan that contemplated making 16 stations fully accessible. The plan’s projected completion date for those hub stations was December 31, 2021. The court found that the plan was an aspiration and did not establish that the Police Department was currently providing meaningful access to the affected programs and services.

Legal Standard and Analysis

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits a public entity from excluding qualified people with disabilities from its services, programs, or activities, or otherwise discriminating against them because of disability. The Rehabilitation Act uses nearly identical standards, and the court stated that the federal statutes provide the baseline for the New York City Human Rights Law claims.

The court said the plaintiffs had to show that they were qualified people with disabilities, that the defendants were covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act, and that they were denied an opportunity to participate in or benefit from services, programs, or activities because of their disabilities. The defendants did not dispute the first two elements. The dispute concerned whether the station barriers denied meaningful access and whether the defendants had provided reasonable accommodations.

The court held that the plaintiffs established barriers to meaningful access. It determined that precinct stations were important points of service and that at least a substantial portion of the stations had barriers that actually prevented people with mobility disabilities from using services available there. The court rejected the argument that the Police Department could avoid liability merely by showing that services could theoretically be provided somewhere other than a station. The relevant question was whether the Police Department was providing meaningful access to services that were currently provided at stations.

The court also held that the defendants had not shown a factual dispute about reasonable accommodations. The evidence showed that some services could be provided at homes, accessible locations, or through remote methods, but the record did not establish the effectiveness, reliability, or frequency of those alternatives. The court noted that some alternatives could cause people with disabilities to lose benefits available to others, such as anonymity in the prescription drop-box program, the option to go to a local station for public-safety services, or privacy associated with not inviting officers into their homes.

The court considered only portions of Deputy Chief Thomas Taffe’s declaration that were supported by citations to New York City Police Department documents because the declaration combined personal knowledge with information from other sources and contained vague or conclusory statements. The court also treated the proposed 16-station hub plan as insufficient to establish current access, particularly because it could require people with mobility disabilities to travel farther and could limit access to local community programs and services.

Ruling and Next Steps

The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment on liability. It did not decide the specific remedy. The court explained that the plaintiffs would later need to identify a plausible accommodation whose apparent costs did not clearly exceed its benefits, while the defendants could argue that proposed accommodations were unreasonable because they would fundamentally change the programs or impose an excessive financial or administrative burden.

The parties were ordered to meet and confer in good faith and submit a joint letter by March 12, 2020, describing their efforts to reach a remedial solution and proposing next steps. The court scheduled a status conference for March 20, 2020, at 10:00 a.m. The opinion directed the Clerk to close open docket entries 127 and 128.