Falls v. Board of Commissioners of the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority
2:16-cv-02499
E.D. La.Jun 26, 2017Background
- Plaintiffs Falls, Miraglia, and Tatum sued the City of New Orleans and the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority under Title II of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging ~94% of city bus stops were noncompliant and denied program access.
- Parties settled injunctive/declaratory relief in a Court‑approved settlement; reserved damages and attorneys’ fees for the magistrate to decide.
- Plaintiffs moved for $10,000 each in compensatory damages; Defendants opposed, arguing no intentional discrimination and that Tatum is not a qualified individual.
- Plaintiffs also sought $50,840.50 in attorneys’ fees and $7,573.96 in costs; Defendants disputed prevailing‑party status, hourly rates, billed hours, and certain costs.
- The court found all three plaintiffs qualified under the ADA, determined the systemwide and post‑1992 noncompliance demonstrated discrimination, adopted the "deliberate indifference" standard for intent, and found deliberate indifference.
- Rulings: Plaintiffs awarded $1,500 each in damages; attorneys’ fees of $48,176.75 and costs $7,573.96 (total $55,750.71).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Entitlement to compensatory damages under Title II (intent) | ADA violations and failure to provide access show intentional discrimination; damages appropriate | No showing of intentional discrimination or animus; insufficient prima facie proof (Tatum not qualified) | Plaintiffs established prima facie discrimination and intentional discrimination under a deliberate‑indifference standard; awarded $1,500 each |
| Whether plaintiffs are "qualified individuals" | Miraglia, Falls, and Tatum are disabled and substantially limited in major life activities | Tatum not shown to be substantially limited | Court found Tatum (C‑7 paraplegic) and the others are qualified individuals |
| Prevailing‑party status for fee recovery | Settlement approved and enforceable by court creates material alteration—prevailing party | Settlement is not a consent decree; Buckhannon bars fees absent judgment or consent decree | Court held settlement approval and retained jurisdiction sufficed; plaintiffs are prevailing parties entitled to fees |
| Reasonableness of fees, hours, and costs | Requested rates/hours reasonable; provided billing records; sought specific experts and costs | Objected to rates/hours, block billing, pre‑suit/unrecoverable entries, and some costs | Court approved hourly rates, reduced certain hours for specific entries, calculated lodestar $48,176.75, and awarded requested costs $7,573.96 |
Key Cases Cited
- Melton v. Dallas Area Rapid Transit, 391 F.3d 669 (5th Cir.) (elements of a Title II prima facie case)
- Delano‑Pyle v. Victoria County, 302 F.3d 567 (5th Cir.) (compensatory damages under ADA require intentional discrimination)
- Frame v. City of Arlington, 657 F.3d 215 (5th Cir.) (broad remedial purpose of Title II and accessibility of altered/constructed facilities)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health, 532 U.S. 598 (U.S.) (criteria for prevailing‑party status)
- Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (U.S.) (lodestar method for attorney’s fees)
- Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488 F.2d 714 (5th Cir.) (factors for fee adjustments)
- S.H. ex rel. Durrell v. Lower Merion Sch. Dist., 729 F.3d 248 (3d Cir.) (adopting deliberate indifference standard and rationale)
- Liese v. Indian River County Hosp. Dist., 701 F.3d 334 (11th Cir.) (deliberate indifference sufficient to show intent under ADA/RA)
- Duvall v. County of Kitsap, 260 F.3d 1124 (9th Cir.) (deliberate indifference standard applied to Title II damages)