United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York
882 F. Supp. 2d 615
S.D.N.Y.2012Background
- Plaintiffs unite United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under Title II of the ADA and Section 504 to remedy barriers at NYC Board of Elections poll sites.
- Court previously denied a preliminary injunction in October 2010 after finding no substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
- CIDNY conducted ADA-based polling-place accessibility surveys from 2008–2011, documenting barriers such as unusable ramps, poor signage, and misplacements of voting equipment.
- BOE used a mix of public schools and private sites as polling locations; several sites were found to be non-ADA compliant or only partially accessible.
- BOE acknowledged some inaccessible sites and lack of an ADA coordinator or formal Accessibility Plan; it also relied on transfers to accessible sites and on addressing barriers as they were reported.
- Evidence showed recurring barriers at multiple sites (ramps, signage, BMD placements) and inconsistent remedial responses, raising questions about meaningful access.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do barriers at poll sites violate Title II and Section 504? | DIA/United Spinal argue barriers deny meaningful access to voting programs. | BOE contends barriers exist but are not irreparable and not all sites must be perfect; accommodations possible. | Yes; plaintiffs show pervasive barriers and failure to provide meaningful access. |
| Is there a genuine dispute of material fact on reasonable accommodations? | Accommodations like pre-identified on-site monitors or third-party assessments are plausible and cost-benefit favorable. | Defendants offered transfers to accessible sites and argue ongoing monitoring suffices. | No genuine dispute; accommodations proposed by plaintiffs are feasible and not shown to be clearly burdensome. |
| Were the BOE's remedial measures adequate under 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(a)-(b)? | BOE failed to undertake feasible measures to improve accessibility beyond passive responses. | BOE claims to mitigate barriers as they are reported and uses temporary measures when needed. | Inadequate; recurring barriers and lack of a comprehensive plan indicate insufficient compliance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Westchester Disabled on the Move, Inc. v. County of Westchester, 346 F.Supp.2d 473 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (meaningful access required; not mere equal access)
- Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261 (2d Cir. 2003) (meaningful access standard; accommodations contemplated)
- New York v. County of Delaware, 82 F. Supp. 2d 12 (N.D.N.Y. 2000) (feasibility and administrative considerations in accessibility)
- Weinstock v. Columbia Univ., 224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000) (summary judgment standard and burden to adduce specific evidence)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (U.S. 1986) (clear burden on movant to show absence of genuine dispute)
- Liberty Resources Inc. v. Philadelphia Hous. Auth., 528 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (reasonableness of accommodations and burdens)