McGarry v. Director, Dept. of Revenue, State of Mo.

• Decision Date: 20 May 1998
• Docket Number: No. 96-4249-CV-C-66BA.,96-4249-CV-C-66BA.
• Citation: 7 F.Supp.2d 1022
• Parties: Vicki L. McGARRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

7 F.Supp.2d 1022

Vicki L. McGARRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, STATE OF MISSOURI, Defendant.

No. 96-4249-CV-C-66BA.

United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, Central Division.

May 20, 1998.

Frederick M. Switzer, III, Danna, McNary, Stockenberg & Soraghan, Clayton, MO, Stephen R. Senn, Peterson & Myers, J. Davis Connor, Lakeland, FL, for Plaintiffs.

Tina M. Crow Halcomb, Missouri Attorney General's Office, Jefferson City, MO, for Defendant.

AMENDED ORDER

KNOX, United States Magistrate Judge.

Parking is reserved for disabled persons near an entrance to most commercial and public facilities. One of the main goals of providing preferred parking is to eliminate some of the difficulties encountered by disabled persons in gaining access to facilities and services. Legislation which eliminates physical barriers and places disabled people on a more equal footing with the nondisabled is a permissible component of the concept of equal protection of the law. The reserved spaces provide disabled persons with easier access to the facilities and accommodate the space requirements of special equipment.

A special license plate or a windshield parking placard issued by a state is required to lawfully park in these reserved parking spaces. Missouri charges disabled persons $2.00 for a windshield parking placard, but imposes no additional fee for a special license plate. The windshield placard provides better access to reserved places because it can be used if the disabled person does not own a car, is using a friend's car or rented vehicle, or is being driven by someone else who is not disabled. The license plate is not useful in those situations.

The State, by its licensing and law enforcement activities, controls access to disabled person parking places. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq. (ADA), requires the State to provide the disabled with access to public services and facilities under its control and it prohibits the State from charging disabled persons for the costs of special accommodations or access. Accordingly, the $2.00 fee, imposed on the three plaintiffs in this case who do not choose to have a specially designated license plate or who cannot effectively use one, violates the provisions of the ADA.

Background

In a complaint filed on July 5, 1996, plaintiffs challenge the State's practice of charging disabled persons $2.00 fees for the issuance of removable windshield parking placards. Plaintiffs request the court to declare that the fees violate the ADA. They also seek certification of a class, reimbursement of fees previously paid, injunctive relief prohibiting future charges for the placards, and an award of attorney fees and expenses.

On September 22, 1997, the parties filed motions for summary judgment. Defendant asserts it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law because the ADA does not apply. Defendant also states that even if the ADA applies, the placards are an optional substitute which persons with qualifying disabilities may use in lieu of obtaining distinguishing license plates, and that the Department of Revenue, as a state entity, is entitled to judgment based on Eleventh Amendment immunity.

Plaintiffs also seek summary judgment. They assert there are no genuine issues of material fact and they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law. They claim disabled persons may not be lawfully charged for measures required under the ADA and that the windshield parking placard is required by the ADA.

Summary Judgment Standard

Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c) requires `the entry of summary judgment ... against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.' Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). The burden on the party moving for summary judgment "is only to demonstrate ... that the record does not disclose a genuine dispute on a material fact." City of Mt. Pleasant, Iowa v. Associated Elec. Co-op., 838 F.2d 268, 273 (8th Cir.1988).

Once the moving party has done so, the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to go beyond his pleadings and show, by affidavit or by "depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file," that there is a genuine issue of fact to be resolved at trial. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548. Evidence of a disputed factual issue which is merely colorable or not significantly probative, however, will not prevent entry of summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

Summary judgment, however, "is an extreme remedy, to be granted only if no genuine issue exists as to any material fact." Haas v. Weiner, 765 F.2d 123, 124 (8th Cir. 1985). In ruling on a motion for summary judgment, this court must view all facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, and that party must receive the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn from the facts. Robinson v. Monaghan, 864 F.2d 622, 624 (8th Cir.1989).

If "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law," the court must grant summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

Statement of Facts

A Missouri statute authorizes the issuance of special license plates and removable parking placards to qualified individuals with disabilities and to those who transport the disabled. Mo.Ann.Stat. § 301.142 (West 1994 & Supp.1998). Persons with these special license plates or removable parking placards may park their vehicles in parking places designated as reserved for disabled individuals. It is unlawful to park in the reserved spaces without a special license plate or removable parking placard.

The annual fees for special license plates are the same as fees for regular license plates. No fees are assessed for the disability insignia on the plates. The fees for removable parking placards are $2.00 annually. See Mo.Ann.Stat. § 301.142 (West 1994 & Supp.1998).

Plaintiffs Vicki McGarry, Charlotte Klingler and Charles Wehner are residents of St. Louis County, Missouri, who have qualified for and obtained windshield parking placards to allow them to park in spaces reserved for handicapped individuals. In August of 1997, plaintiffs were 41, 65 and 75 years of age, respectively.

Plaintiff McGarry has multiple sclerosis, is limited in her ability to walk and utilizes a wheelchair. She obtained her first permanent placard¹ from the Missouri Department of Revenue in 1992. She and her husband own a motor vehicle, but do not have a disabled person license plate. Her husband, friends, and other family members provide her with transportation.

Plaintiff Klingler is permanently disabled because of foot ulcers. She has diabetes mellitus and is limited in her ability to walk. She uses a wheelchair when shopping or walking any distance. At times, she is unable to walk. She obtained her first permanent parking placard in 1993. She does not own or operate a motor vehicle. Her husband has an automobile but does not have a disabled person license plate. Plaintiff's husband works three days a week and cannot provide all of plaintiff's transportation needs.

Plaintiff Wehner owns and operates a motor vehicle. He obtained his first permanent parking placard in 1993, because he is mobility impaired. He has arthritis in his knees and can walk only very short distances. He does not have a disabled person license plate and frequently relies upon friends and family for transportation.

The ADA covers individuals who have a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of life's major activities. "Major life activities" includes walking. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(i). "Substantially limits" is defined as being unable to perform a major life activity that the average person in the general population can perform or being significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which he or she can perform a major life activity. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j)(1).

The named plaintiffs in this case suffer from medical conditions which substantially limit their ability to walk. For purposes of the motions under consideration, defendant does not challenge whether the three plaintiffs fall within the protections of the ADA or are entitled to obtain disabled person license plates or parking placards.

Under the provisions of Mo.Ann.Stat. § 301.142, individuals who obtain a disabled person license plate may also obtain one removable placard. Individuals who do not obtain a disabled person license plate may purchase two placards. Upon a proper showing, windshield parking placards are available to organizations or individuals who provide transportation services to persons with disabilities.

Discussion

The Eleventh Amendment Defense

Defendant claims it is immune from this action based on the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. In a recent opinion, the Eighth Circuit analyzed the issue and held that the "ADA represents a proper exercise of Congress's Section 5 enforcement power under the Fourteenth Amendment. As a result, Minnesota is not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from actions brought pursuant to the ADA." Autio v. AFSCME, Local 3139, 140 F.3d 802, (8th Cir.1998). The reasoning set forth in that case applies to Missouri in this case. Accordingly, defendant's Eleventh Amendment immunity defense fails.

The Tenth Amendment Defense

Defendant argues that the ADA violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because it requires the states to "administer and enforce a comprehensive federal program relating to access and services for the disabled. It is an unfunded federal mandate and, as such, it is unconstitutional." Doc. 63 at 24. Defendant bases its argument on the decision in Printz v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 117 S.Ct. 2365,...