Hip Heightened Independence an v. Port Authority of New York and
693 F.3d 345
3rd Cir.2012Background
- PATH operates Grove Street Station in Jersey City; station has three levels and two street entrances, with east mezzanine not connected to west; renovation 2002–2005 focused on east side, not full station modernization; ADA triggers due to alterations; district court ordered east entrance accessibility under Schemes 4–5 (LULA elevator) after feasibility review; interstate compact governs Authority and may shield state-law claims, leading to dismissal of New Jersey state-law claims; appeal divided between grant of relief to plaintiffs and cross-appeal affirming dismissal of state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schemes 4/5 were feasible and mandatory under ADA as of construction time | hip contends schemes feasible and required | Authority argues infeasible due to land rights, load-bearing structures | Remand for feasibility determinations as of construction time; summary judgment improper |
| Whether acquisition of subterranean land rights defeats feasibility under ADA | Acquisition not fatal to feasibility if possible | Land rights acquisition may render schemes infeasible | Remand to develop record on city’s willingness and land-right outcomes |
| Whether NFPA 130 fire-safety standard renders Schemes 4/5 infeasible | NFPA 130 may require deviations; safety standards can constrain feasibility | NFPA 130 may govern but not override ADA where applicable; weigh safety | Allows District Court to consider safety standards on remand; not resolved at summary judgment |
| Whether state-law claims are barred by the interstate compact | Plaintiffs rely on external conduct regulation by NJ law | Compact precludes unilateral state regulation of the bi-state Authority | State-law claims affirmatively dismissed; affirmed on cross-appeal |
| Whether the project classifies as alteration rather than new construction and thus which ADA rules apply | Renovation may trigger new-construction standards | Project should be treated as alteration under ADA regulations | District Court properly treated as alteration; applicable ADA alterations rules govern |
Key Cases Cited
- Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania v. SEPTA, 635 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 2011) (affecting use of 4.1.6(j) feasibility standard and land-right concerns)
- Dezaio v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J., 205 F.3d 62 (2d Cir. 2000) (internal vs external regulation discussion for bi-state agency)
- Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Comm’n v. Int'l Union of Operating Eng’rs, Local 542, 311 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 2002) (compact interpretation; express intent standard for modifying compacts)
- Hess v. Port Authority Trans-Hudson Corp., 513 U.S. 30 (1994) (compact sovereignty and surrender concepts in bi-state entities)
- Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Ass’n, Inc. v. City of Camden (EPVA), 545 A.2d 127 (N.J. 1988) (internal-external distinction discussion for regulation of bi-state agency)