Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus
644 F.3d 110
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Paratransit under the ADA must be comparable to non-disabled service; DOT/FHWA regulations implement this for paratransit (Able-Ride) in Nassau County.
- Able-Ride initially exceeded ADA area, providing door-to-door service county-wide; FTA approved plan in 2004 as fully compliant.
- Around 2010 Nassau County faced budget shortfalls leading to reductions in paratransit beyond ADA requirements.
- In Jan–Mar 2010, MTA notified an impending service cut; public hearing notice disclosed changes in Able-Ride, with later March 9 meeting explaining cuts.
- Plaintiffs, disabled Able-Ride users, challenged reductions as violating public participation requirements and reasonable modifications; district court dismissed the suit; appeal followed; court affirms.
- Public participation rules require ongoing involvement in paratransit planning and service assessment, not just initial plan submissions; central dispute is whether ongoing participation and reasonable modifications apply to reductions in “additional services.”
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a private right of action exists to enforce §37.137(c). | Plaintiffs rely on §12143 to imply a private right to ongoing participation. | Defendants contend no private right exists to enforce §37.137(c). | No private right of action for §37.137(c). |
| Whether public-participation requirements apply to modifications/additional services beyond ADA area. | Cruz argues on outside-area services, DOJ regulation applies. | DOT regulations govern paratransit; DOJ mods do not apply to additional services. | §37.137(c) does not create private enforcement for additional services; DOJ reasonable-modifications do not apply to paratransit outside ADA area. |
| Whether 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7) reasonable-modifications regulation applies to paratransit services. | Cruz contends modifications required beyond ADA area. | DOJ regulation does not govern paratransit outside Secretary of Transportation’s purview. | DOJ §35.130(b)(7) does not apply to paratransit; the regulation is inapplicable to additional services. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the claims on the merits given the above. | Claims rely on §12143 and §37.137(c) violations. | No private right of action and no applicable modifications duty. | Affirmed dismissal; no private rights or applicable modification duties found. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandoval v. Departamento de Justicia, 532 U.S. 275 (2001) (private rights depend on congressional intent; regulations may not create rights not in statute)
- Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U.S. 181 (2002) (private remedies under Title II coextensive with Rehabilitation Act/Title VI remedies)
- George v. N.Y.C. Dep’t of City Planning, 436 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2006) (look to text and structure to determine private rights)
- Olmstead v. Pruco Life Ins. Co. of N.J., 283 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2002) (line of cases on private rights and ADA interpretation)
- Lonberg v. City of Riverside, 571 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2009) (no private right to enforce regulations expanding statute beyond text)
- Iverson v. City of Boston, 452 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2006) ( Sandoval-like approach to enforceability of ADA regulations)
- Boose v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, 587 F.3d 997 (9th Cir. 2009) (similar holding on treatment of paratransit regulations)
- American Ass’n of People with Disabilities v. Harris, 605 F.3d 1124 (11th Cir. 2010) (discusses private enforcement of DOJ/ADA regulations)