Dial, Inc., a New Jersey Nonprofit Corporation v. City Of
129 A.3d 369
| N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. | 2016Background
- In 1977 the NJ Legislature authorized municipalities to create restricted on-street residential parking for handicapped persons and expressly allowed municipalities to "establish a fee for such permits" (N.J.S.A. 39:4-197.6–197.7).
- City of Passaic enacted an ordinance allowing either (1) a generic handicapped space usable by any disabled driver or (2) a personally-assigned (personalized) space identified by license plate, charging annual fees (Passaic initially charged $50 annual for personalized spaces after adoption).
- DIAL, Inc., a disability-advocacy org, challenged the statute and Passaic ordinance arguing the permit fees for personalized spaces are discriminatory surcharges in violation of the ADA, RA, FHAA, NJLAD, and equal protection.
- The City conceded that charging for generic handicapped spaces was improper but defended fees for personalized spaces as lawful, optional, cost‑defraying measures not required by federal/state disability laws.
- The trial court invalidated the fee for unrestricted/generic spaces but upheld the statutory fee-authority and Passaic’s fees for personalized spaces; the Appellate Division affirmed with two caveats allowing future as-applied or exorbitant-fee challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fees for personally-assigned residential on-street handicapped parking are an unlawful "surcharge" under the ADA/related federal law | Fees single out disabled people for a charge to obtain reliable street access and thus constitute a prohibited surcharge | Personalized spaces are not "required" accommodations under ADA; fees fund an optional, non-mandatory benefit and are therefore permissible | Fees for personalized spaces are not an unlawful federal surcharge because such spaces are not required by ADA; upheld |
| Whether N.J.S.A. 39:4-197.7 and Passaic ordinance conflict with NJLAD or its regulation banning surcharges for required measures | NJLAD forbids surcharges on disability accommodations; the statute/ordinance conflicts and is preempted by state anti-discrimination law | NJLAD and Title 39 can be harmonized: NJLAD prohibits surcharges for required measures, but personalized spaces are not required, so no conflict exists | No conflict; because personalized spaces are not required by law, NJLAD's surcharge prohibition does not invalidate the statute/ordinance |
| Whether plaintiff met burden to facially invalidate the statute and ordinance | The fee provisions facially discriminate and must be struck down | Statute and ordinance are presumptively valid; plaintiff failed to show facial invalidity | Facial challenge rejected; statute and ordinance upheld except as to conceded invalid fee for generic spaces |
| Remedies and future challenges | Sought invalidation and refunds for collected fees | City conceded refund/invalidity only for generic-space fees; defended personalized-space fees | Court affirmed but left open as-applied challenges if generic spaces are inadequate in practice or fees are exorbitant |
Key Cases Cited
- Roman Check Cashing v. N.J. Dep't of Banking & Ins., 169 N.J. 105 (statute presumed valid) (2001) (presumption of validity for legislation)
- Gade v. Nat'l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass'n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992) (framework for field and conflict preemption)
- Dare v. California, 191 F.3d 1167 (9th Cir. 1999) (two‑part test for ADA surcharge: whether measure is "required" and whether nondisabled pay equivalent)
- Meagley v. City of Little Rock, 639 F.3d 384 (8th Cir. 2011) (optional services beyond ADA may be charged without constituting surcharge)
- Klinger v. Dir., Dep't of Revenue, Mo., 433 F.3d 1078 (8th Cir. 2006) (placards/parking identifiers can be "required" and thus fee‑sensitive under ADA)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir. 2011) (ADA and Rehabilitation Act interpreted in pari materia)
- Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 823 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (failure to provide any generic on‑street accessible parking can support ADA claims)