Wright v. Bd. of Comm'rs of the Capital Area Transit Sys.

551 F.Supp.3d 607

Gene WRIGHT, Jr.

v.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the CAPITAL AREA TRANSIT SYSTEM; and the City/Parish of East Baton Rouge

CIVIL ACTION 20-644-SDD-RLB

United States District Court, M.D. Louisiana.

Signed July 29, 2021

Andrew David Bizer, Emily Anne Westermeier, Garret Scott DeReus, Bizer & DeReus, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Gene Wright, Jr.

Arthur Howell Andrews, Michael Paul Schillage, Office of the East Baton Rouge Parish Attorney, Baton Rouge, LA, for The City/Parish of East Baton Rouge.

Creighton Brooks Abadie, Abadie Law Firm, APLC, Dedrick Arvell Moore, Dedrick A. Moore & Assoc., Seth M. Dornier, The Dornier Law Firm, LLC, Baton Rouge, LA, for Board of Commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System.

RULING

SHELLY D. DICK, CHIEF JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the Motion to Dismiss¹ filed by Defendant, the City of Baton Rouge/Parish of East Baton Rouge ("City/Parish") and the Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP Rule 12(b)(6)² filed by Defendant, Board of Commissioners of the Capital Area Transit System ("CATS"), or collectively ("Defendants"). Plaintiff, Gene Wright, Jr. ("Plaintiff") filed Oppositions³ to these motions, and the City/Parish filed a Reply.⁴ For the following reasons, the City/Parish's motion will be granted, and CATS's motion will be denied.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On September 29, 2020, Plaintiff, a qualified individual with a disability who is confined to a wheelchair, filed a Complaint against CATS and the City/Parish seeking injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, and attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA")⁵ and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("RA").⁶ On December 14, 2020, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint ,⁷ which is the operative pleading before the Court. Plaintiff alleges that CATS and the City/Parish have violated the ADA and the RA by providing inadequate transportation services and by failing to provide accessible bus stops.⁸ Plaintiff further alleges that the City/Parish owns a pedestrian right of way program in the form of an extensive network of sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, bus stops, and other pedestrian paths of travel throughout the City of Baton Rouge.⁹ Plaintiff asserts his claims against the City/Parish "to the extent it owns and/or is legally responsible for the segment of the landing pad that overlaps with the public sidewalk."¹⁰ As to CATS, Plaintiff alleges, generally, that since 2012, CATS has added new routes and expanded existing routes which created new stops, and the new stops on the new or expanded routes constitute "new construction," requiring compliance with the ADA; and since the passage of the ADA, CATS has modified and/or altered bus stops that are not accessible. The modifications specified in the Amended Complaint are the addition of bus benches that he claims were placed at stops by CATS.¹¹

Specifically, Plaintiff contends he has used the fixed route public transportation system offered by Defendants, including the buses and bus stops.¹² Plaintiff alleges he is "currently deterred from using the fixed route public transportation system offered by Defendants because the bus stops are inaccessible."¹³ Because of this, Plaintiff contends he must rely on paratransit to travel,¹⁴ which is not ideal because reservations must be made for such travel at least twenty-four (24) hours in advance.¹⁵ Plaintiff alleges that he "intends on using the bus stops for travel and transportation purposes once said system is made meaningfully accessible and usable."¹⁶ However, Plaintiff claims that the bus stops nearest his home "lack landing pads and accessible routes to access the bus stops" and "merely consist of poles stuck in the dirt."¹⁷ Plaintiff alleges that "[t]he complete inaccessibility of these bus stops serves as a ‘threshold barrier’ which actively and continuously deters [him] from attempting to utilize the overall bus stop system."¹⁸ Plaintiff further alleges that, each time he attempted "to embark or disembark from his home using the inaccessible bus stops, he would be placing himself in physical danger because he would have to navigate his wheelchair into the street or try to traverse over uneven grass in order to enter and exit the bus."¹⁹

Both the City/Parish and CATS now move to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint , arguing that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The City/Parish maintains that it is not responsible for the public transit system or its bus stops; CATS is responsible for the maintenance of the landing pads whether or not they overlay City/Parish property; the benches it has placed in bus stops are not alterations within the meaning of the ADA; and Plaintiff has not been denied meaningful access to services because he is free to utilize paratransit. CATS maintains it has no control or ownership over sidewalks and, thus, has no liability for the accessibility of any sidewalks; CATS is not responsible for the placement of benches at bus stops; the addition of benches at bus stops does not constitute alterations under the ADA; new bus stop poles are not "new constructions" within the meaning of the ADA; and CATS has provided reasonable accommodations for Plaintiff's disability through the availability of paratransit.

Plaintiff opposes the Defendants’ motions, arguing that there is overlap between the ownership and responsibilities for the bus stops/sidewalks at issue that cannot be resolved without discovery; the City/Parish remains liable for CATS's conduct when installing and maintaining bus stops under the ADA; whether newly constructed bus stops and the addition of benches are alterations, modifications, or new constructions under the ADA requires evidence and should not be resolved at the Rule 12 stage; and the availability of paratransit does not obviate the Defendants’ obligations under the ADA to maintain accessible bus stops/sidewalks.

II. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6)

When deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, "[t]he ‘court accepts all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’ "²⁰ The Court may consider "the complaint, its proper attachments, documents incorporated into the complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial notice."²¹ "To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead ‘enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ "²² In Twombly , the United States Supreme Court set forth the basic criteria necessary for a complaint to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. "While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do."²³ A complaint is also insufficient if it merely "tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’ "²⁴ However, "[a] claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads the factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged."²⁵ In order to satisfy the plausibility standard, the plaintiff must show "more than a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully."²⁶ "Furthermore, while the court must accept well-pleaded facts as true, it will not ‘strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiff.’ "²⁷ On a motion to dismiss, courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation."²⁸

Both Defendants attached Affidavits to support their motions. However, as Plaintiff correctly notes, the Court cannot consider such evidence at the Rule 12(b)(6) stage.²⁹ However, both Parties acknowledge that the Court may consider the Operating Agreement. While the Court has discretion to convert the motions to motions for summary judgment, the Court declines to do so because it would be premature at this procedural posture. If Defendants wish the Court to consider such evidence, they are free to later file the appropriate motion.

B. Public Facilities/ Services and the ADA

The ADA "is a broad mandate of comprehensive character and sweeping purpose intended to eliminate discrimination against disabled individuals, and to integrate them into the economic and social mainstream of American life."³⁰ "To effectuate its sweeping purpose, the ADA forbids discrimination against disabled individuals in major areas of public life, among them employment (Title I of the Act), public services (Title II), and public accommodations (Title III)."³¹ "Title II of the ADA focuses on disability discrimination in the provision of public services."³² Specifically, Title II provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."³³ A "public entity" includes "any department, agency, special purpose district, or other instrumentality of a State or States or local government."³⁴

Similarly, "Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits disability discrimination by recipients of federal funding."³⁵ Section 504 provides that no qualified individual with a disability "shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."³⁶ The ADA and the Rehabilitation Act are generally interpreted in pari materia.³⁷ "Indeed, Congress has instructed courts that ‘nothing in [the ADA] shall be construed to apply a lesser standard than the standards applied under title V [i.e., § 504] of the Rehabilitation Act ... or the...