Disabled in Action v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority
635 F.3d 87
3rd Cir.2011Background
- DIA sued SEPTA under the ADA and RA for failing to make certain facilities accessible after construction.
- Two SEPTA projects are at issue: the 15th Street Courtyard (connected to 15th and Market Station) and City Hall Courtyard.
- SEPTA replaced a stairway at the 15th Street Courtyard without adding an elevator; cost implications were discussed but feasibility was not denied.
- City Hall Courtyard involved escalator repairs; SEPTA estimated elevator costs but did not claim infeasibility to install one.
- Suburban Station and its connection via the Penn Center Concourse affect access to the 15th Street Courtyard; City Hall Station is not directly connected.
- The district court granted summary judgment for DIA on remaining claims after prior rulings; SEPTA appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alterations trigger accessibility requirements | DIA argues alterations to courtyards must be accessible | SEPTA contends alterations need not require accessibility unless major structural changes occur | Alterations can require accessibility even without major structural changes |
| Meaning of 'alterations' under regulations | Broad 'usability' standard includes substantial changes like stair replacement | Regulations limit alterations, relying on ADAAG 4.1.6(1)(f) for major structural mods | Alterations include changes affecting usability, not limited to major structural mods |
| "Maximum extent feasible" meaning | Feasibility refers to technical, not cost, considerations | Feasibility should include cost considerations | Feasibility is primarily technical; cost alone not controlling |
| "Readily accessible" standard for courtyards | 15th Street Courtyard must be accessible regardless of station it serves | If alternate entrances serve different routes, at least one must be accessible | Neither courtyard is readily accessible; accessibility required |
| City of Philadelphia as a necessary party | City ownership implicates City Hall Courtyard; City should be joined | Rule 19 may be satisfied without joinder due to settlement and feasibility | City is a necessary party; joinder required for complete relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993) (alterations affect facility usability; broad interpretation)
- Roberts v. Royal Atlantic Corp., 542 F.3d 363 (2d Cir. 2008) (maximum extent feasible does not consider only costs)
- Luxliner P.L. Export, Co. v. RDI/Luxliner, Inc., 13 F.3d 69 (3d Cir. 1993) (Rule 19 joinder considerations and property interests)