Noel v. N.Y.C. Taxi & Limousine Comm'n

• Decision Date: 23 December 2011
• Docket Number: No. 11 Civ. 237(GBD).,11 Civ. 237(GBD).
• Citation: 44 NDLR P 126,837 F.Supp.2d 268,25 A.D. Cases 1671
• Parties: Christopher NOEL, Simi Linton, United Spinal, a nonprofit organization, the Taxis for All Campaign, a nonprofit organization, Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization, Plaintiffs, v. NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency, and David Yassky, in his official capacity as chairman and commissioner of the New York City Taxi Commission, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

837 F.Supp.2d 268

25 A.D. Cases 1671

44 NDLR P 126

Christopher NOEL, Simi Linton, United Spinal, a nonprofit organization, the Taxis for All Campaign, a nonprofit organization, Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization, Plaintiffs,

v.NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency, and David Yassky, in his official capacity as chairman and commissioner of the New York City Taxi Commission, Defendants.

No. 11 Civ. 237(GBD).

United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Dec. 23, 2011.

Allegra Louise Fishel, Outten & Golden, LLP, Julia Miriam Pinover, Disability Rights Advocates, New York, NY, Kara Jane Werner, Mary–Lee Kimber Smith, Sid Wolinsky, Disability Rights Advocates, Berkeley, CA, for Plaintiffs.

Robin Binder, Michelle L. Goldberg–Cahn, NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel, New York, NY, for Defendants.

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge.

Plaintiffs Christopher Noel and Simi Linton, each disabled individuals who require the use of wheelchairs, and United Spinal, The Taxis for All Campaign, 504 Democratic Club, and Disabled in Action, each nonprofit organizations, (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) bring this civil rights class action against the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (“NYCTLC”) and David Yassky, in his official capacity as chairman and commissioner of the NYCTLC (collectively, the “TLC”). Plaintiffs allege that the TLC is violating Title II, subtitle A of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, Title II, subtitle B of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12144, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law (“NYCHRL”), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8–101 et seq. Plaintiffs claim that the lack of wheelchair accessible taxicabs are a result of the TLC's policies and regulations and thus, the TLC denies disabled persons, who use wheelchairs and scooters and reside in or visit New York City, the opportunity to use and benefit from the New York City taxicab system.

Plaintiffs move for summary judgment that the TLC is liable for violating Title II, subtitle A and subtitle B of the ADA. The United States filed a statement of interest in this litigation in support of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment that the TLC violates Title II, subtitle B of the ADA. The TLC cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it does not violate any of the applicable requirements of Title II of the ADA.

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Title II, subtitle B claim is denied. The TLC's cross-motion for summary judgment on its Title II, subtitle B claim is granted. The TLC's cross-motion for summary judgment on its Title II, subtitle A, Rehabilitation Act, and NYCHRL claims is denied.

Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Title II, subtitle A claim is granted. The TLC subjects disabled persons who must use wheelchairs and scooters to discrimination in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a direct result of the TLC's policies and regulations, those disabled persons are not provided meaningful access to the benefits of New York City taxicab service.

Background

Street hail taxicab service provides a valuable benefit to numerous individuals who visit, live or work in New York City. Declaration of Julia M. Pinover in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Pinover Decl.”), Ex. C. (Chhabra Tr.) at 169: 15–23, 222: 4–14. Taxicabs provide readily available on-demand transportation for passengers to travel to and from jobs, school, political events, doctors, recreation, and appointments. Taxicabs allow for spontaneity in door to door travel, and for unplanned or unanticipated trips. Declaration of Susan Dooha In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Dooha Decl.”) ¶¶ 11, 20, 22; Declaration of Christopher Noel In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Noel Decl.”) ¶¶ 6–7; Declaration of Simi Linton In Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Linton Decl.”) ¶¶ 5, 12, 16. Taxicabs in New York City currently may only provide street hail response taxicab service if issued a medallion by the TLC. Pinover Decl., Ex. C (Chhabra Tr.) at 53:16–54:12.

The TLC is an administrative body established by the New York City Charter which is a part of the government of the City of New York under the Deputy Mayor for Operations. 65 N.Y.C. Charter §§ 2300. Pursuant to the Charter and local law, the TLC regulates the private taxicab industry in New York City through a licensing scheme whereby taxicab owners and drivers obtain licenses from the TLC, and as a condition of licensure, must comply with applicable laws and regulations. Id. §§ 2300, 2303; New York City Administrative Code (“Admin. Code”) § 19–504.

Under the City Charter, the TLC “set[s] standards and criteria for the licensing of vehicles,” “adjudicates charges of violation of the provisions of the administrative code and rules,” and establishes “requirements of standards, safety, and design, comfort, convenience, noise, and air pollution control and efficiency.” Pinover Decl., Ex. I (City Charter) at 65 N.Y.C. Charter §§ 2300, 2303. The TLC is also charged with the “development and effectuation of a broad public policy of transportation.” Pinover Decl. Ex. I, (City Charter) 65 N.Y.C. Charter §§ 2300, 2303.

The number of medallions that the TLC can license is currently limited by law to 13,237. 65 N.Y.C. City Charter § 2303(b); Declaration of TLC Deputy Commissioner Ashwini Chhabra (“Chhabra Decl.”) ¶ 71. Of those, at least 231 must be must be wheelchair accessible. Id. at 20. The TLC thus issues that limited number of wheelchair accessible medallions, which require, as a condition of its use, that the owner of the medallion obtain and utilize a wheelchair accessible vehicle in providing taxicab service. Id. at ¶ 20; Pinover Decl., Ex. A at 2. Taxicab medallion owners can elect to purchase and utilize a wheelchair accessible taxicab even if they do not have an accessible medallion.¹ Pinover Decl., Ex. C (Chhabra Tr.) at 52:24–53:6.

The TLC does not own, lease or operate taxicab vehicles. Chhabra Decl. at ¶ 19. However, the TLC regulations establish the exact specifications for vehicles that may serve as taxicabs. Pinover Decl., Ex. J (TLC Rules) at 35 R.C.N.Y. § 67–05.1 (2011). The TLC has created an approved list vehicles which TLC has verified as meeting the relevant specifications. Id. Of those vehicles, only two are wheelchair accessible. See Transcript of November 22, 2011 Oral Argument at 44: 21–25.

Currently only 233 of the 13, 237 medallion taxicabs in New York City are wheelchair accessible. Chhabra Decl. ¶ 20. Thus, only 1.8% of the medallion taxicab fleet is wheelchair accessible and over 98% is inaccessible. Pinover Decl., Ex. E at 4; Pinover Decl., Ex. C. (Chhabra Tr.) at 70:16–22. As a result, availability is scarce, and wait times for wheelchair accessible taxicabs are much higher than wait times for non-accessible taxicabs. Declaration of Doug Kruse in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (“Kruse Decl.”) ¶ 12. A non-disabled person is over twenty-five (25) times more likely to hail a taxicab within ten minutes than is a person who uses a wheelchair. Id. The likelihood of successfully hailing any taxicab in Manhattan within 10 minutes is 87.33%, whereas the likelihood of hailing a handicap accessible cab is 3.31%. Kruse Decl. ¶ 14.

The TLC has taken no steps to require, promote, or provide a financial incentive to non-accessible medallion owners to purchase accessible vehicles. Pinover Decl., Ex. C (Chhabra Tr.) at 61:22–62:6; 63:7–13, 83:20–24. The TLC admits that there is no reason why the TLC could not effectuate an increase in wheelchair accessible taxicabs. Id. at 55:12–15. The TLC is in the process of planning a Medallion Taxicab Wheelchair Accessible Dispatch Program. Chhabra Decl. ¶ 30. Under that program, passengers will be able to call 311 and be connected to a dispatcher who will be able to determine the closest wheelchair accessible taxicab and dispatch that taxicab to the passenger's location. Id. ¶ 35. The exact date on which this program will be available, and the associated response times for taxi dispatch are not yet known. Id. ¶¶ 31, 47.

Summary Judgment Standard

Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, shows “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Vacold, L.L.C. v. Cerami, 545 F.3d 114, 121 (2d Cir.2008). The burden rests upon the moving party to show that there is no genuine issue of material fact. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). A fact is “material” only where it will affect the outcome of the suit under governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). For there to be a “genuine” issue about the fact, the evidence must be such “that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Id. In determining whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the Court is required to resolve all ambiguities and draw all inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Sec. Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Cir.2004). Where there is no evidence in the record “from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non-moving party on a material issue of fact,” summary judgment is proper. Catlin v. Sobol, 93 F.3d 1112, 1116 (2d Cir.1996).

Here, there is no material factual dispute among the parties. In fact, the TLC acknowledges that it neither ensures that all taxicabs be wheelchair accessible, nor does the TLC provide meaningful access to such services as defined by the...