Askins v. NYC Transit

Background

Delroy Askins, a wheelchair user, filed this action without a lawyer. He alleged that Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit Authority bus drivers repeatedly failed to stop for him, left him behind, or stopped without lowering the wheelchair ramp onto the sidewalk. He alleged that these actions sometimes forced him to wheel over a gutter and pavement and strain to board the bus. The complaint described eight specific incidents between September 2016 and July 2019 and stated that Askins had photographic or video evidence of some incidents.

The second amended complaint asserted claims under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, the New York State Human Rights Law, and, as construed by the court, the New York City Human Rights Law. It named the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, New York City Transit Authority, Richard Roman, and John Doe bus drivers 1 through 7. The defendants moved to dismiss.

Claims Against the Transit Authorities

The court held that Askins plausibly pleaded disability-discrimination claims against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit Authority. The defendants did not dispute that Askins qualified as a person with a disability or that the transit authorities were public entities subject to the Americans with Disabilities Act. They argued that the alleged incidents amounted to occasional service problems rather than unlawful discrimination.

The court rejected that argument at the motion-to-dismiss stage. Askins identified dates, times, locations, bus numbers, and specific conduct, including at least four occasions when he alleged that he was prevented from boarding entirely. The court concluded that these allegations were sufficient to plausibly claim that he was denied access to the transit authorities’ services because of his disability. The court also declined to dismiss the New York City Human Rights Law claims, which are analyzed separately and have a broader remedial scope than the federal and state laws.

Accordingly, the court denied the motion to dismiss Askins’s claims against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit Authority under federal, state, and city law.

Claims Against the Individual Defendants

The complaint did not specify whether the claims against Richard Roman and the John Doe bus drivers were brought against them in their individual or official capacities. The court therefore treated the complaint as asserting both types of claims.

The court dismissed the federal claims against the individual defendants in their individual capacities. It held that Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act do not permit individual-capacity suits against state officials. The court granted the dismissal without leave to replead because amendment would be futile.

The court did not dismiss the federal claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities. Askins argued that those claims could proceed under a legal doctrine allowing suits against government officials for prospective relief. The defendants did not adequately address the distinction between individual- and official-capacity claims or Askins’s argument. Because the issue was not substantively briefed, the court declined to dismiss the official-capacity claims at that time.

The court also stated that the claims against the individual defendants under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law survived because the defendants had asked to dismiss only the federal claims against those defendants.

Disposition

The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It denied dismissal of the claims against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and New York City Transit Authority. It granted dismissal of the federal claims against Richard Roman and the John Doe bus drivers in their individual capacities, without leave to replead. All other claims against the individual defendants survived, including the federal claims against them in their official capacities.