44 A.3d 601
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2012Background
- Linda Vandeusen, a wheelchair user with dystonia and a service dog, travels to New Jersey and acts as a disability access tester.
- She visited Maple Shade Township facilities (municipal building bathrooms, park, sidewalks, curb cuts) and found barriers including heavy doors, low toilets, steep cross-slopes, and insufficient parking aisle width.
- Plaintiff alleged denial of access under Title II of the ADA and the LAD, seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief.
- A jury found discrimination in the park and municipal building bathrooms but not in Main Street sidewalks or the police station, with no compensatory damages awarded.
- The trial court denied injunctive relief for the park, and later denied nomal injunctive relief despite a jury finding of discrimination; it awarded counsel fees but limited relief for park access.
- On appeal, the court addresses injunctive relief standards under ADA/LAD, evaluates whether repaving constitutes an alteration, remands for proper balancing, and vacates the attorney-fee award pending remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper standard for injunctive relief after ADA/LAD finding | Stoney/Vandeusen argues injunctive relief must be granted after a finding of discrimination. | Maple Shade contends trial court may exercise discretion after a finding of violation. | Balancing test applies; abuse of discretion if relief denied without proper factors. |
| Whether park repaving constitutes an alteration triggering stricter ADA requirements | Recent repaving may constitute an alteration requiring compliance. | Pre-1992 treatment or flexibility may apply; not automatic alteration. | Remand to determine if repaving is an alteration and adjust injunctive-analysis accordingly. |
| Whether denial of park access constitutes irreparable harm and public interest favors relief | Continued denial constitutes irreparable harm; public interest supports accessibility. | Taxpayer costs and feasibility may negate comprehensive relief. | Requires proper balancing; court abused discretion by omitting relevant factors. |
| Attorney-fee award adequacy in light of limited success | Fees should reflect successful injunctive relief and broader relief obtained. | Fees should be reduced given limited success and partial relief. | Remand to reconsider fee award consistent with actual relief and success on remand. |
| Impact of remand on other cross-issues | Remand may yield different results, potentially affecting on-fee enhancements. | Preserve current rulings unless remand changes outcome. | Remand appropriate for full, proper application of injunctive-standard and fee considerations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Layton v. Elder, 143 F.3d 469 (8th Cir. 1998) (three-factor injunctive relief balancing; public interest favors accessibility)
- Midgett v. Tri-County Metro. Transp. Dist., 254 F.3d 846 (9th Cir. 2001) (requires real or immediate threat of irreparable harm for injunction)
- Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 614 F.3d 971 (9th Cir. 2010) (Title III injunctive relief framework; discusses equitable discretion)
- Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc., 267 F.3d 918 (9th Cir. 2001) (alterations/alteration vs. de minimis standards; applicability to access)
- Kinney v. Yerusalim, 9 F.3d 1067 (3d Cir. 1993) (definition of alteration under ADA regulations; pre/post-1992 distinction)