Forsee v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Background

Lisa Forsee, Jessica De La Rosa, Jean Ryan, Bronx Independent Living Services, Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Center for Independence of the Disabled, New York, Harlem Independent Living Center, and Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), Patrick Foye in his official capacity, the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), Andy Byford in his official capacity, and the City of New York. The plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants renovated New York City subway stations without installing elevators or other stair-free routes. They claimed that this violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The City moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The MTA Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings as to claims challenging renovations completed more than three years before the action began.

City’s Motion to Dismiss

The City argued that the plaintiffs could not show that their injuries were fairly traceable to the City because the MTA and NYCTA managed and operated the subway system. It also argued that the plaintiffs had not adequately alleged that they were denied meaningful access to subway services because of their disabilities.

The court denied the City’s motion. It concluded that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged a connection between their injuries and the City’s conduct. The allegations described the City’s ownership of the subway system and its authority over funding, capital projects, approvals, and vetoes. At the pleading stage, the court found these allegations sufficient to show that the City’s actions or failures to act could contribute to the alleged lack of accessibility and that relief against the City could likely help address the injury.

The court also held that the plaintiffs adequately stated ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims. Section 12147 of the ADA requires public entities altering public transportation facilities to make the altered portions accessible and usable by people with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. The plaintiffs specifically alleged numerous station renovations that allegedly lacked accessibility features. Because the NYCHRL provides broader protection than the ADA, the court also denied the City’s motion as to the NYCHRL claims.

MTA Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The MTA Defendants relied on New York’s three-year statute of limitations. The court applied the “construction rule,” meaning that an ADA alteration claim accrues when the challenged alteration is completed. The court interpreted the ADA’s reference to accessibility “upon the completion” of alterations as making the completion date the date of the alleged discrimination.

The court therefore held that the construction rule applied and granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings. The plaintiffs’ ADA claims were dismissed to the extent they challenged station renovations completed three years before May 5, 2019. The court rejected the plaintiffs’ arguments that the continuing-violation doctrine, repeated-violations doctrine, or their challenge to an overall practice of inaccessible renovations could preserve claims based on older, completed alterations. The court treated each station alteration as a separate act with a definite beginning and end.

The court held that the same limitation applied to the Rehabilitation Act claims because that statute incorporated the ADA’s alteration requirements. It also dismissed the NYCHRL claims to the extent they concerned station alterations outside the limitations period because those claims were derivative of the federal claims.

Disposition

The court denied the City of New York’s motion to dismiss. It granted the MTA Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The opinion did not determine whether the defendants ultimately violated the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, or the NYCHRL; it resolved the City’s pleading and standing challenges and the timeliness of claims concerning older station renovations.