[nfbmi-talk] long important airport ada case

[joe harcz Comcast]

For those who cannot accesss it I submit the following ADA case converted from pdf. This goes to our second resolution at our convention passed today.

Joe Harcz
AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

for the 

Eastern District of Michigan 

Michael Harris, et al., 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW 

Hon. David M. Lawson 

Wayne County Airport Authority, 

Defendant. 

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION 

To: Wayne County Airport Authority 

A lawsuit has been filed against you. 

Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 

60 days if you 

are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you 

must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff's attorney, 

whose name and address are: 

Jason M. Turkish 

20700 Civic Center Drive 

Suite 115 

Southfield, MI 

48076 

If you fail to respond, judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You 

also must file your answer or motion with the court. 

DAVID J. WEAVER, CLERK OF COURT By: s/ K Krawczyk 

Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk 

Date of Issuance: September 19, 2014 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 16AO 440 (Rev. 12/09) Summons in a Civil Action 

Summons and Complaint Return of Service 

Case No. 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW 

Hon. David M. Lawson 

A copy of the Summons and Complaint has been served in the manner indicated below: 

Name of Defendant Served: Wayne County Airport Authority 

Date of Service: 

Method of Service 

Personally served at this address: 

Left copies at defendant's usual place of abode with (name of person): 

Other (specify): 

Returned unexecuted (reason): 

Service Fees: Travel $ Service $ Total $ 

Declaration of Server 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the information contained in this Return of Service is true and correct. 

Name of Server: 

Signature of Server: 

Date: 

Server's Address: 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 2 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 17 _ _JJP2NM SMWM aa_o0hY_ssIeeAu7_oCooMll_Yiitn0Hnn_sshANe0_ v ss. AfTM_N:aa. iE _CEeu( ._. NMli 2LCTr_Tdv_ky4 OU.iH,u _ micN8MU_RsrA _)PD ChkyaKN_i Rle2mi at cen_IaTsR_nh8fS@hi_aeYNntiIH4_ gnneS (Nt_y-A ar P id_P2m&(fy nI_ 7a2fD4CR_m s anK69_48 r,Pn _ta3i38AF0_Ov.Tn I12O_0 ReNR_uT007R,L_ Tru)7ST_6 A k _T ru) HA_ ik HHis_UEtih_esUE _T.Uh _c D1EH_.oNc1S_A OSmo_IO5SO_TmR _NTEUI_ ET,_DT _RY _HS,N/))))))))))ET DRANTI SE TDSRI 2 VDI : C1I I SST 4 IT -OOcRNvFI-C M1T3I 6CC3OH0UIG RATN Attorneys for Plaintiffs ___________________________________ ______ _V_E__R__I_F_I_E__D_ _ C__O__M___P_L__A__I_N__T__ _______________________________/ 

Plaintiffs, Michael Harris and Karla Hudson, hereby sue the Wayne County Airport Authority, 

and state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority’s 

imminent plan to relocate public transportation services from the Arrivals Level of the 

McNamura Terminal to the Ground Transportation Center (“GTC”) at Detroit Metro 

Airport (“DTW”), a location posing numerous accessibility issues in violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”).  2. Defendant’s planned move of public transit services, which is to take place on Monday, 

September 22, 2014 discriminates against Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, by 

forcing the public transportation companies to load and unload their passengers in an 

inaccessible area with numerous violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

3. By ignoring the needs and dignity of Plaintiffs, and other disabled persons similarly 

situated, while traveling to and from the airport, Defendant treats them as second-class 

citizens, unjustly disregards their basic rights to equality and dignity, and causes 

embarrassment, humiliation, harassment, and emotional distress. Additionally, by 

moving transit access to an inaccessible area, Defendant’s plans will needlessly subject 

the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, to unnecessary risk of bodily injury and 

death. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating the Defendant’s announced 

course of conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and injunctive relief 

preventing Defendant from moving the current transit facilities to an inaccessible 

location to those passengers with disabilities. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because 

Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal statutes, specifically the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for 

declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

claims for injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. 

5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, because the 

Defendant is situated within the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and because the 

events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.  PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff, Michael Harris, presently the Executive Director of the Michigan Paralyzed 

Veterans of America, is an individual who uses a wheelchair, living in Westland, 

Michigan. 

7. Plaintiff, Karla Hudson, is a totally blind individual who lives in East Lansing Michigan. 

8. Plaintiffs have standing to bring the present cause of action. 

a. Plaintiffs are physically disabled according to the definition provided by the ADA 

as they are either “legally blind” or “substantially impaired in the major life 

activity of walking.” 

b. Both Plaintiffs have traveled through DTW in the past and plan to visit the facility 

in the future and wish to have equal access to public transit facilities. 

c. Defendant’s announced course of conduct will result in Plaintiffs being denied 

proper access and mobility when using Detroit Metro Airport, where they both 

travel to and from, and thus deny their rights as provided to them by the ADA. 

9. Wayne County Airport Authority is a public, government entity within the meaning and 

definition of the ADA as it was chartered by the Michigan Legislature in 2002. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. The Wayne County Airport Authority is the government chartered entity that oversees 

Detroit Metro Airport (“DTW”). 

11. Plaintiffs currently have access to and from DTW via public transportation companies, 

such as SMART and AirRide, and wish to continue to have access in the future.  12. The current drop-off location for SMART and AirRide is at the International Arrivals 

Level of the McNamura Terminal of DTW, which is an accessible and ADA-compliant 

location. 

13. Effective Monday, September 22, 2014, SMART and AirRide transportation services 

will be relocated to the Ground Transportation Center. 

14. Defendant announced its plan to relocate SMART and AirRide transportation services 

on its website, made available to the general public and to the Plaintiffs at: 

http://www.metroairport.com/GroundTransportation.aspx 

15. Defendant claims the relocation of SMART and AirRide is due to safety and congestion 

concerns, however Great Lakes Bus, the shuttle for airport employees that makes 

approximately 168 roundtrips per day as compared to the 13 roundtrips by AirRide, 

will not be relocated from the same current location. 

16. The new location at the GTC presents serious accessibility problems, and thus is in 

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the potential violations of the ADA 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. The traffic at the GTC is heavily congested as it also serves cabs, charter buses, 

and shuttle services for hotels, parking lots and rental cars, and fails to provide 

safe pedestrian access to persons with disabilities. 

b. The proposed area for buses to stop takes place in three spots in two side-byside 

lanes, one lane along the curb, and the other the middle lane with an active 

traffic lane on its other side.  c. If a bus is parked in each of the lanes, the bus in the curb-side lane blocks the 

bus in the middle lane from deploying its wheel chair lift as there is simply not 

enough room. 

d. When all three unloading spots are occupied, passengers loading and unloading 

from a bus in the middle lane are forced to exit between vehicles and cross over 

a lane of traffic, an action which could result in severe bodily harm and/or 

death, especially if this person is blind and unable to see the potential dangers. 

e. The new location at the GTC is approximately 100 yards from the nearest 

indoor area of the airport, as opposed to 50 feet in the McNamura Terminal at 

the present location, thus forcing people to either wait outside for their bus or 

run quickly once it arrives. Disabled persons, especially those with mobility 

limitations, who cannot “run” quickly enough are thus forced to wait outside, 

even in harsh weather conditions. 

f. The GTC severely limits a disabled person’s access to and communication with 

Prospect Airport Services, a service used by disabled persons to assist them in 

getting around at the Airport, thereby leaving them stranded, and without access 

to reasonable accommodations. 

g. The obscure location of the elevators in the GTC is unclearly marked and 

difficult to find, creating further hurdles and frustration for disabled persons 

seeking to use them. 

h. The covered shelters at the GTC are not large enough for someone who uses a 

wheelchair to maneuver inside without blocking entrances and other people,  which could result in embarrassment, frustration, and being forced to wait 

outside in treacherous weather. 

i. Unlike the current location inside the McNamura Terminal, the GTC does not 

have a service animal relief area, which could result in frustration and hardship 

for the disabled person and his or her service animal alike. 

j. Passengers traveling from the McNamara Terminal to the new transit pickup 

location outside of the GTC must either choose to travel directly out “side 

doors” that exit to active lanes of traffic, or go through a revolving door, which 

when often broken is inaccessible to those with mobility impairments. To wit, 

the Detroit Free Press in 2009 reported that the door had broken 33 times from 

April 1, 2008 to March 22, 2009. 

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant is aware of the significant issues posed to the 

disabled should they move SMART and AirRide to the GTC, yet they are insistent in 

moving forward with their announced plan. 

18. After numerous pleas to not move SMART and AirRide to the GTC went unanswered 

by the Defendant, their Board met one final time on September 18, 2014 and failed to 

take action to prevent the impending relocation from occurring. 

19. Kirk Studley, Director of Michigan Department of Transportation, at a public hearing 

on September 18, 2014 before the Michigan Transportation Commission, stated he was 

going to request delay of the impending relocation due to unresolved issues related to 

accessibility for persons with disabilities. This statement was made in the presence of 

Plaintiff Hudson.  20. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder communicated his support in “maintaining the 

integrity of the current stop locations” in a letter to Mr. Tom Naughton, CEO of the 

Wayne County Airport Authority and to Mr. Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor 

Area Transportation Authority dated June 11, 2014. (Exhibit-A, Letter from Governor 

Snyder). 

21. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, wish to continue using transportation services 

to and from the airport, such as SMART and AirRide, but they will be effectively 

barred due to the inaccessibility of the location for disabled persons. 

22. In short, the current transportation stop at the International Arrivals Level of the 

McNamura Terminal is accessible to disabled individuals, and the impending action 

announced by Defendant to move that transportation stop to the GTC is not accessible 

to disabled individuals, needlessly and recklessly subjects them to bodily injury, and is 

patently in violation of the ADA. 

COUNT I 

VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. 

23. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 22, 

inclusive. 

24. In enacting the ADA, Congress expressly determined that society tends to isolate and 

segregate people with disabilities; that individuals with disabilities continually 

encounter prejudice and discrimination, including outright exclusion and the failure to 

eliminate exclusionary criteria; that this nation should assure equality of opportunity for 

all participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency to individuals with  disabilities; and that continuing discrimination impedes them from competing on an 

equal basis and pursuing opportunities available to other citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a) 

25. The express purpose of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national 

mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities; to provide 

clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities; and to ensure that the federal government plays a central 

role in enforcing the standards established in the Act on behalf of individuals with 

disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). 

26. The Plaintiffs are individuals who constitute “qualified individual(s) with a disability” 

under the ADA. 

27. The Defendant, to the extent that it is a government chartered entity, is subject to Title 

II of the ADA. 

28. Title II of the ADA states “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 subjected to discrimination by any 

such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 

29. Through the acts set to take place on September 22, 2014, Defendant has acted in 

disregard of Plaintiffs’ disabilities, effectively planning to subject them to 

discrimination by forcing them to use an inaccessible area, in violation of the ADA. 

30. Moving public transportation service locations to the GTC denies Plaintiff’s the right to 

equal access, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

31. Defendants’ announced course of conduct is in violation of the equal access and 

nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title II of the ADA, and will result in injury  to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, if the Defendant is not prevented from 

implementing its plan 

32. Unless enjoined from doing so, Defendant’s actions will inflict irreparable injuries for 

which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT II 

VIOLATION OF TITLE V OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. 

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 32, 

inclusively. 

34. Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act states in pertinent part that “It shall be 

unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise 

or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account 

of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or 

enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 12203(b). 

35. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendant has acted to interfere with 

Plaintiff’s exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by the ADA, specifically 

by interfering with Plaintiff’s right to equal access and nondiscrimination, in utilizing 

public transportation services at DTW. 

36. The Defendant, by implementing their planned move of public transit services on 

September, 22, 2014 to in an inaccessible location, will have “interfered” with the 

Plaintiff’s federally protected rights to access public transportation in violation of the 

ADA, as Smartbus and AirRide will be forced by the Defendant to pick up the 

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, in a dangerous manner, and in an environment 

devoid of adherence to the ADA.  37. Plaintiffs hereby allege that in knowingly forcing them, and those similarly situated, to 

access public transportation services through an inaccessible and dangerous location, 

the Defendant has acted with “discriminatory animus,” needlessly subjecting the 

persons with disabilities to the potential for loss of life and limb. 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the relief set forth below. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 

38. A declaration that Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority’s announced course of 

action unlawfully violates Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990. 

39. A temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction enjoining the Wayne 

County Airport Authority’s relocation of public transportation to the Ground 

Transportation Center, until such time as the GTC, or an alternative location, can be 

made accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities requesting reasonable 

accommodations. 

40. A permanent injunction preventing Defendant from implementing their announced plan 

to move SMART and AirRide from the current location at the Arrivals Level of the 

McNamura Terminal to the Ground Transportation Center. 

41. Reasonable Attorneys fees and costs for the prosecution of this matter. 

42. Although the Plaintiff seeks no compensatory damages at this time, Plaintiff wishes to 

reserve the right to amend and request compensatory damages should it come necessary 

to encourage Defendant to comply with federal law. 

43. All other relief that this Court deems just and proper.  Respectfully submitted, 

NYMAN TURKISH PC 

/s/ Jason M. Turkish 

By: Jason M. Turkish, Michigan Bar #P76310 

20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 115 

Southfield, Michigan 48076 

Phone: (248) 284-2480 

Fax: (248) 262-5024 

Jason.Turkish at NymanTurkish.com 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

By: Melissa M. Nyman, California Bar #293207 

5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 720 

Rocklin, California 95765 

Phone: (916) 218-4340 

Fax: (916) 218-4341 

Melissa.Nyman at NymanTurkish.com 

Dated: September 19, 2014 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

      Exhibit-A 

Letter from Governor Snyder 

1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL HARRIS & KARLA HUDSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 2:14-cv-13630 

) 

v. ) HON. DAVID M. LAWSON 

) 

WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 

__________________________________________/ 

JS2MP MJ Naao0hYsseeu7oooMlliitn0nnsshAe0ss. fTMN:aa i Ceu( .. NMli 2TrTdvky4U.i,u micN8MRsr )ChkyaKi e2mi at cnIsnh8S@haNtiH4 gne(Ny- arP P2m(y n72D4Cm a6948 rna3i380vTn120 euT007, ru)7S6k ru) ik istihes.h c1.oc1mo5m Attorneys for Plaintiffs _______________________________________________________________________________________________________/ 

PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER 

AND/OR MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

NOW COMES Plaintiffs Michael Harris and Karla Hudson, by and through their 

undersigned counsel, and hereby moves this court for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) 

and/or Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 and E.D. Mich. LR 65.1 in order to 

prevent irreparable injury to Plaintiff’s federally-protected rights and interests under the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which are being threatened by the actions of the 

Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority. In support of this Motion, Plaintiffs rely upon the 

Verified Complaint filed with the Court as well as the brief below. 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 1 of 17 Pg ID 182 

WHEREFORE, for all the reasons set forth more fully below, Plaintiffs hereby request 

that this Honorable Court temporarily/preliminarily enjoin the Defendant’s relocation of public 

transportation to the Ground Transportation Center (“GTC”), which would result in numerous 

violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, until such time as the GTC, or an 

alternative location, can be made accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities requesting 

reasonable accommodations. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NYMAN TURKISH PC 

/s/ Jason M. Turkish 

By: Jason M. Turkish, Michigan Bar #P76310 

20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 115 

Southfield, Michigan 48076 

Phone: (248) 284-2480 

Fax: (248) 262-5024 

Jason.Turkish at NymanTurkish.com 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

By: Melissa M. Nyman, California Bar #293207 

5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 720 

Rocklin, California 95765 

Phone: (916) 218-4340 

Fax: (916) 218-4341 

Melissa.Nyman at NymanTurkish.com 

Dated: September 19, 2014 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 2 of 17 Pg ID 193 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MICHAEL HARRIS & KARLA HUDSON, ) 

) 

Plaintiffs, ) 2:14-cv-13630 

) 

v. ) HON. DAVID M. LAWSON 

) 

WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, ) 

) 

Defendant. ) 

) 

__________________________________________/ 

JS2MP MJ Naao0hYsseeu7oooMlliitn0nnsshAe0ss. fTMN:aa i Ceu( .. NMli 2TrTdvky4U.i,u micN8MRsr )ChkyaKi e2mi at cnIsnh8S@haNtiH4 gne(Ny- arP P2m(y n72D4Cm a6948 rna3i380vTn120 euT007, ru)7S6k ru) ik istihes.h c1.oc1mo5m Attorneys for Plaintiffs _______________________________________________________________________________________________________/ 

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION FOR 

TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND/OR 

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 3 of 17 Pg ID 204 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...............................................................................................5 

QUESTION PRESENTED ..................................................................................................6 

I. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................7 

II. RELEVANT FACTS ..............................................................................................7 

III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................11 

A. Standard of Review ....................................................................................11 

B. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits ...........................................11 

C. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without Injunctive Relief ...........12 

D. An Injunction Will Not Harm the Defendant .............................................13 

E. An Injunction is in the Public Good ...........................................................14 

F. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Required to Post a Bond ....................................15 

IV. CONCLUSION....................................................................................................16 

V. CERTIFICATION ................................................................................................17 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 4 of 17 Pg ID 215 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Sixth Circuit Opinions 

Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281 (6th Cir. 1998) .................................................. 11 

Gonzalez v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703 (E.D. Mich. 1999) ......................... 12 

Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d 644 (6th Cir. 2007) .......................................... 11 

Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566 (6th Cir. 2002) ....................12 

Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., 119 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 1997) ....................... 11, 12 

Southerland v. Fritz, 955 F. Supp. 760 (E.D. Mich. 1996) .......................................................... 11 

Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896 (6th Cir. 2007) .................................................................. 11 

Second Circuit Opinions 

Doctor's Assocs. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975 (2d Cir. 1996) ............................................................... 15 

Fourth Circuit Opinions 

W. Va. Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232 (4th Cir. 1971) .......... 15 

Ninth Circuit Opinions 

Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court Cent. Dist., 840 F.2d 701 (9th Cir. 1988) ..................................... 12, 13 

Tenth Circuit Opinions 

Cont’l Oil Co. v. Frontier Ref. Co., 338 F.2d 780 (10th Cir. 1964) ............................................ 15 

Federal Court Opinions 

Heather K. v City of Mallard, 887 F. Supp. 1249, 1266 (1995) .................................................. 14 

United States Code 

42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(3), (a)(8) (2006) ........................................................................................ 14 

42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1) (2006) ................................................................................................... 14 

42 U.S.C. § 12132 (2006) ............................................................................................................ 13 

Rules 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 ..................................................................................................................... 1, 15 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(A) .......................................................................................................... 17 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B) .......................................................................................................... 17 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 5 of 17 Pg ID 226 

QUESTION PRESENTED 

1. Whether the proposed imminent actions of the Defendant Wayne County Airport 

Authority, scheduled to take place on September 22, 2014, which both discriminate 

against and endanger persons with disabilities who wish to have access to public transit at 

the Airport, would cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, 

sufficient to warrant temporary/preliminary injunctive relief? 

Plaintiffs Answer: “Yes.” 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 6 of 17 Pg ID 237 

I. INTRODUCTION 

This case challenges the Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority’s imminent plans to 

relocate public transportation at the Detroit Metro Airport (“DTW”) McNamara terminal, from 

its present location on the International Arrivals Level, which is ADA accessible, to a distant site 

in the Ground Transportation Center (“GTC”), which is patently out of compliance with the 

ADA, as the GTC is nothing more than a distant, and inaccessible section of a parking garage 

across the street from the McNamura Terminal. If the Defendant is successful in their efforts to 

effectuate the move on September 22, 2014, then the Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, will 

be subjected to irreparable injury in that, at best, they will be subject to systemic discrimination, 

and at worst, their lives may be in jeopardy should they attempt to navigate the inaccessible 

GTC. Alternatively, the Defendant could stipulate, or this Honorable Court could require, that 

during the pendency of the instant litigation, public transportation services continue to be offered 

in their present location, at no harm to the Defendant. 

II. RELEVANT FACTS 

Plaintiff Michael Harris is a resident of Westland, Michigan who uses a wheelchair, and 

is the Executive Director of the Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America. (Dkt. Entry #1, ¶ 6). 

Plaintiff Karla Hudson is a totally blind individual living in East Lansing, Michigan. (Id. ¶ 7). 

Both Plaintiffs have traveled through DTW in the past, and plan to do so again in the future. (Id. 

¶ 8.b). Plaintiffs currently have the option of access to and from DTW via public transportation 

companies, such as SMART and AirRide, and wish to continue to have access in the future. (Id. 

¶ 11). 

Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority is a public, government entity as it was 

chartered by the Michigan Legislature in 2002. (Id. ¶ 9). Defendant is the government entity 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 7 of 17 Pg ID 248 

that oversees DTW. (Id. ¶ 10). Currently, the loading area for SMART and AirRide is at the 

International Arrivals Level of the McNamura Terminal. (Id. ¶ 12). This area is accessible and 

ADA-compliant. Id. However, effective Monday, September 22, 2014, SMART and AirRide 

transportation services will be relocated to the Ground Transportation Center. (Id. ¶ 13). 

Defendant announced its intention to relocate these public transportation companies on its 

website, made available to the general public and to the Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶ 14). 

Defendant claims the relocation of SMART and AirRide is due to safety and congestion 

concerns. (Id. ¶ 15). Curiously, however, Great Lakes Bus, the shuttle for airport employees 

that makes approximately 168 roundtrips per day, as compared to the 13 roundtrips by AirRide, 

will not be relocated from the same current location. Id. 

The new location at the GTC presents serious accessibility problems, and thus is in 

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Id. ¶ 16). For example, the traffic at the GTC 

is heavily congested as it also serves cabs, charter buses, and shuttle services for hotels, parking 

lots and rental cars, and fails to provide safe pedestrian access through accessible routes to 

persons with disabilities. (Id. ¶ 16.a). The proposed new area for buses to stop takes place in 

three spots in two side-by side lanes: one lane along the curb, and the other, the middle lane, with 

an active traffic lane on its other side. (Id. ¶ 16.b). If a bus is parked in each of the lanes, the bus 

in the curb-side lane blocks the bus in the middle lane from deploying its wheel chair lift, as 

there is simply not enough room. (Id. ¶ 16.c). This bus parking set-up also poses serious safety 

risks to people and service animals while loading and unloading. (Id. ¶ 16.d). When all three 

unloading spots are occupied, passengers loading and unloading from a bus in the middle lane 

are forced to exit between vehicles and cross over a lane of traffic. Id. This action could result 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 8 of 17 Pg ID 259 

in severe bodily harm and/or death, especially if a person is blind and unable to see the potential 

dangers. Id. 

Aside from the traffic and general layout of the bus parking itself, the GTC presents other 

accessibility problems in violation of the ADA. The new location at the GTC is approximately 

100 yards from the nearest indoor area of the airport, as opposed to 50 feet in the McNamura 

Terminal at the present location. (Id. ¶ 16.e). This extended distance forces people to either wait 

outside for their bus or run quickly once it arrives. Id. Disabled persons, especially those with 

mobility limitations, who cannot “run” quickly enough are thus forced to wait outside, even in 

harsh weather conditions. Id. As winter approaches, should this plan not be enjoined by this 

Court, a disabled individual, particularly one with a spinal cord injury who lacks sensation and 

feeling in limbs, could become the victim of frost bite, or worse. 

The GTC also severely limits a disabled person’s access to, and communication with, 

Prospect Airport Services. (Id. ¶ 16.f). This company assists disabled persons in getting around 

at the airport. Id. At the current location at the International Arrivals Level of the McNamura 

Terminal, there are ample personnel and communication options to assist a disabled person in 

reaching Prospect Airport Services. However, at the GTC, a disabled person is left without 

access to such resources, leaving them stranded and without access to reasonable 

accommodations. Id. Without the aid of Prospect Airport Services, a disabled individual would 

be forced to navigate this heavily congested area, with luggage, on their own, which is 

unnecessary, dangerous, and at complete variance with the aims of the ADA. 

Further frustrating hurdles are prevalent at the GTC. The elevators are located in an 

obscure and unmarked area, making them difficult to find for disabled persons seeking to use 

them. (Id. ¶ 16.g). The small covered shelters meant to provide a minimal amount of protection 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 9 of 17 Pg ID 2610 

from the outdoor elements are not large enough for someone who uses a wheelchair to maneuver 

inside without blocking entrances and other people, which could result in embarrassment, 

frustration, and being forced to wait outside in treacherous weather. (Id. ¶ 16.h). Unlike the 

current location at the International Arrivals Level, the GTC does not have a service animal relief 

area, which could result in frustration and hardship for the disabled person and his or her service 

animal alike. (Id. ¶ 16.i). Finally, passengers traveling from the McNamura Terminal to the new 

transit pickup location outside of the GTC must either choose to travel directly out “side doors” 

that exit to active lanes of traffic, or go through a revolving door, which when often broken is 

inaccessible to those with mobility impairments. (Id. ¶ 16.j). To wit, the Detroit Free Press in 

2009 reported that the door had broken 33 times from April 1, 2008 to March 22, 2009. Id. 

Defendant is aware of these significant issues posed to the disabled should they move 

SMART and AirRide to the GTC, yet they are insistent in moving forward with their announced 

plan. (Id. ¶ 17). After numerous pleas to not move SMART and AirRide to the GTC went 

unanswered by the Defendant, their Board met one final time on September 18, 2014 and failed 

to take action to prevent the impending relocation from occurring. (Id. ¶ 18). Prominent public 

figures have expressed the importance and need to keep the current loading areas for these public 

transportation service companies. For example, Michigan Governor Rick Snyder communicated 

his support in “maintaining the integrity of the current stop locations” in a letter to Mr. Tom 

Naughton, CEO of the Wayne County Airport Authority and to Mr. Michael Ford, CEO of the 

Ann Arbor Area Transportation Authority dated June 11, 2014. (Id. ¶ 20). Kirk Studley, 

Director of Michigan Department of Transportation, at a public hearing on September 18, 2014 

before the Michigan Transportation Commission, stated he was going to request delay of the 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 10 of 17 Pg ID 2711 

impending relocation due to unresolved issues related to accessibility for persons with 

disabilities. (Id. ¶ 19). 

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, wish to continue to have equal access to 

transportation services to and from the airport, such as SMART and AirRide, but they will be 

effectively barred due to the inaccessibility of the location for disabled persons. (Id. ¶ 21). 

III. ARGUMENT 

A. Standard of Review 

The factors to be weighed before issuing a TRO or a preliminary injunction are the same. 

See, e.g., Workman v. Bredesen, 486 F.3d 896, 904-05 (6th Cir. 2007); Southerland v. Fritz, 955 

F. Supp. 760, 761 (E.D. Mich. 1996). 

The standard for issuing a preliminary injunction in this Circuit is well established. In 

Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir. 1998), the court stated “[i]n 

determining whether or not to grant a preliminary injunction, a district court considers four 

factors: (1) the plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the plaintiff could 

suffer irreparable harm without the injunction; (3) whether granting the injunction will cause 

substantial harm to others; and (4) the impact of the injunction on the public interest.” Id.; see 

also Hamilton's Bogarts, Inc. v. Michigan, 501 F.3d 644, 649 (6th Cir. 2007). Typically, the 

reviewing court will balance these factors, and no single factor will necessarily be determinative 

of whether or not to grant the injunction. Connection Distrib. Co., 154 F.3d at 288. 

B. Plaintiffs are Likely to Succeed on the Merits 

“In order to establish a likelihood of success on the merits of a claim, a plaintiff must 

show more than a mere possibility of success.” Six Clinics Holding Corp., II v. Cafcomp Sys., 

119 F.3d 393, 402 (6th Cir. 1997). “However, it is ordinarily sufficient if the plaintiff has raised 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 11 of 17 Pg ID 2812 

questions going to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make them fair 

grounds for litigation and thus for more deliberative investigation.” Id. 

[T] o succeed on an ADA claim, plaintiff must demonstrate (1) that he is disabled, (2) 

that his requests for accommodations are reasonable, and (3) that those requests have been 

denied. Gonzalez v. Nat’l Bd. of Med. Exam’rs, 60 F. Supp. 2d 703, 706 (E.D. Mich. 1999). 

There is no dispute that Plaintiffs are disabled. Plaintiff Harris uses a wheelchair and is disabled 

in the major life activity of “walking.” Plaintiff Hudson is totally blind. There is also no 

dispute that Plaintiffs’ ability to request reasonable accommodations will be severely, if not 

completely, compromised upon the implementation of the Airport Authority’s September 22, 

2014 relocation plan. As the Court explained in Six Clinics Holding Corp., II, 119 F.3d at 402, 

when a Plaintiff alleges a set of facts that are serious, and appear to present the need for highly 

substantive litigation, then the Plaintiff has met their burden. There could be nothing more 

“serious” than the potential of a disabled individual being injured or killed while simply trying to 

access public transportation. Therefore, the Plaintiffs have raised the essential “questions going 

to the merits so serious, substantial, difficult, and doubtful as to make them fair grounds for 

litigation,” and thus have sufficiently demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits. 

C. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Without Injunctive Relief 

A plaintiff's harm from the denial of a preliminary injunction is irreparable if it is not 

fully compensable by monetary damages. Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 

305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002). The issuance of injunctive relief is appropriate when a 

disabled person loses the chance to engage in a normal life activity. Chalk v. U.S. Dist. Court 

Cent. Dist., 840 F.2d 701, 710 (9th Cir. 1988). 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 12 of 17 Pg ID 2913 

No monetary damages will compensate for Plaintiffs’, and others similarly situated, being 

subjected to an inaccessible transportation stop, that needlessly and recklessly, threatens them 

with bodily injury and even death, and is patently in violation of the ADA. And make no 

mistake, there is no injury more irreparable than death – which is a tangible possibility when 

persons with disabilities are confronted with the absurdity of accessing buses without an 

accessible route around other traffic. Persons with disabilities have a statutory right to equal 

access at airports, including DTW. “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 subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 

U.S.C. § 12132 (2006). Not only would persons with disabilities be “subjected to discrimination” 

but in so doing, they would also face the real risk of bodily injury or death, both of which are 

irreparable injuries, and as such the Plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction to enjoin the Airport 

Authority from their publicly announced plans to violate the ADA. Chalk, 840 F.2d at 710. 

D. An Injunction Will Not Harm the Defendant. 

It has been demonstrated that Plaintiffs stand to suffer great irreparable harm in the 

absence of injunctive relief. However, Defendant does not stand to suffer any material harm by 

the issuance of injunctive relief. SMART and AirRide have been successfully using the 

International Arrivals Level of the McNamura Terminal in servicing their disabled and nondisabled 

patrons. The current service area is fully accessible and ADA compliant. Maintaining 

“business as usual” in the current service area would not harm the Defendant in the least. 

Defendant claims the relocation of SMART and AirRide is due to safety and congestion 

concerns, yet the “congestion” caused by these two companies, if it exists at all, is miniscule as 

compared to the employee shuttle, Great Lakes Bus, which makes approximately 168 roundtrips 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 13 of 17 Pg ID 3014 

to the current stop each day. AirRide, in comparison, makes a mere 13 roundtrips. Further, the 

new location presents insurmountable safety concerns for all patrons of SMART and AirRide, 

disabled or not. An injunction preventing Defendant from forcing these transportation 

companies to operate in an inaccessible area, thus subjecting disabled persons to extreme safety 

hazards, cannot possibly harm the Defendant as it would simply be maintaining the safe status 

quo that exists at the airport now. 

E. An Injunction Is In the Public Good. 

“[T]he public interest is served by enforcement of anti-discrimination provisions of Title 

II of the ADA.” Heather K. v City of Mallard, 887 F. Supp. 1249, 1266 (1995). (discussing the 

court having no difficulty in favorably determining the public interest where Congress’s remedial 

intent for the ADA to ban discrimination against persons with disabilities was at stake). To wit, 

Congress enacted the ADA “to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the 

elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). In 

doing so, Congress recognized that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists 

in such critical areas as . . . public accommodations, . . . transportation, . . . and access to public 

services;” and that “the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination and 

prejudice denies people with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to 

pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous, and costs the United 

States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses resulting from dependency and 

nonproductivity.” Id. § 12101(a)(3), (a)(8) The public interest in effectuating Congress’s intent 

for this remedial legislation is well-established, and it is in the public good that the very kind of 

discrimination the ADA sought to ban, and that the Airport Authority is about to engage in, be 

enjoined to protect the Plaintiffs, others with disabilities, and the general public. 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 14 of 17 Pg ID 3115 

F. Plaintiffs Should Not Be Required to Post a Bond. 

Federal appellate courts construing Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 permit a trial court to require no 

bond where the nonmoving party fails to demonstrate any injury. “[T]he trial judge has wide 

discretion in the manner of requiring security and if there is an absence of proof showing the 

likelihood of harm, certainly no bond is necessary.” Cont’l Oil Co. v. Frontier Ref. Co., 338 F.2d 

780, 782 (10th Cir. 1964); accord Doctor's Assocs. v. Stuart, 85 F.3d 975, 985 (2d Cir. 1996); 

see also W. Va. Highlands Conservancy v. Island Creek Coal Co., 441 F.2d 232, 236 (4th Cir. 

1971) (holding that a nominal bond of $100 was sufficient where defendant failed to show it 

would suffer more than negligible harm as a result of having to delay timber cutting until the 

issues raised in the litigation could be decided). 

Here, there is no indication that Defendants will suffer any cognizable harm during the 

time that the temporary restraining order and/ or preliminary injunction are in effect. Like in W. 

Va. Highlands Conservancy, any damage suffered by the Defendant does not go beyond a mere 

delay imposed on their plans. Said simply, the Airport Authority can continue its current location 

for public transportation, which has been in place for years, during the brief period in which the 

Plaintiffs are to litigate the substance of their claims. Because Defendant will not be harmed by 

the issuance of a temporary restraining order and/ or preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs should not 

be required to post a bond, or in the alternative, Plaintiffs should be required to post no more 

than a nominal bond. 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 15 of 17 Pg ID 3216 

IV. CONCLUSION 

WHEREFORE, for all these reasons, Plaintiffs hereby requests that this Honorable Court 

enjoin the Defendant’s relocation of public transportation to the Ground Transportation Center, 

which would result in numerous violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, until 

such time as the GTC, or an alternative location, can be made accessible to qualified individuals 

with disabilities. 

Respectfully submitted, 

NYMAN TURKISH PC 

/s/ Jason M. Turkish 

By: Jason M. Turkish, Michigan Bar #P76310 

20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 115 

Southfield, Michigan 48076 

Phone: (248) 284-2480 

Fax: (248) 262-5024 

Jason.Turkish at NymanTurkish.com 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

By: Melissa M. Nyman, California Bar #293207 

5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 720 

Rocklin, California 95765 

Phone: (916) 218-4340 

Fax: (916) 218-4341 

Melissa.Nyman at NymanTurkish.com 

Dated: September 19, 2014 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 16 of 17 Pg ID 3317 

V. CERTIFICATION 

In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), the undersigned certifies that at 

approximately 5:00pm on September 18, 2014, he placed a call to Ms. Emily Neuberger, Vice 

Present and General Counsel for the Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority. The 

undersigned further certifies that in his message he left Ms. Neuberger his direct mobile 

telephone number for use after hours, and at the time of the instant filing no return call has been 

received. In accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b)(1)(B), upon the undersigned having attempted 

communication with opposing counsel, the Court may issue a Temporary Restraining Order 

“without notice,” upon a showing of “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint clearly 

show that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the 

adverse party can be heard in opposition.” Id. R. 65(b)(1)(A). Here, the Verified Complaint 

details imminent risks to life and limb of persons with disabilities, and thus the undersigned 

respectfully requests that the Court act immediately to enjoin the Defendants’ conduct which 

endangers the public. 

/s/ Jason M. Turkish 

Dated: September 19, 2014 By: Jason M. Turkish, Michigan Bar #P76310 

2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW Doc # 3 Filed 09/19/14 Pg 17 of 17 Pg ID 34