[nfbmi-talk] FW: Fw: important ada retaliation lawusit indian trails vwca
Terry D. Eagle
terrydeagle at yahoo.com
Thu Apr 30 20:23:45 UTC 2015
At last! Someone, an attorney, calls it the way it is--unlawful,
retaliation, and corrupt action!
And who is ultimately and actually harmed by public officials unlawful,
retaliation, and corrupt action? It is we the persons with disAbilities!
While the State of Michigan alledgedly spoke out, the State hardly has clean
hands when it comes to unlawful, retaliation, and corruption, with regard to
following the law and retaliation toward persons and entities who support
persons with disAbilities and enforcement of laws to protect and advance the
lives of persons with disAbilities.
When will people learn that negoiation and settlement with terrorist simply
does not work to achieve compliance. Corrupt terrorist believe either the
law is not applicable to them, or they are above the law by virtue of their
official position. They need to be treated for that which they
are--criminals and thugs, and put in prison to stop and prevent their harm.
If it is good for teachers and school administrators, to stop and prevent
future harm to our children and grandchildren, it is proper for officials
who harm and retaliate against we persons with disAbilities and our
supporters!
And those who standby silent are just as cupable and an accomplice to the
unlawful activity, and that is the law speaking, not me.
-----Original Message-----
From: nfbmi-talk [mailto:nfbmi-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On Behalf Of David
Robinson via nfbmi-talk
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 12:46 PM
To: NFB of Michigan Internet Mailing List
Subject: [nfbmi-talk] Fw: important ada retaliation lawusit indian trails
vwca
Since we are involved, we all should know about it. Thanks Joe.
Dave Robinson
----- Original Message -----
From: joe harcz Comcast
To: David Robinson NFB MI
Cc: terry Eagle ; Mark Eagle ; Larry Posont NFBMI Pres. ; Elmer Cerano MPAS
; MARK MCWILLIAMS MPAS ; Peter Berg ; DANIEL COOPER ; Robin Jones
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2015 11:29 AM
Subject: important ada retaliation lawusit indian trails v wca
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MICHIGAN FLYER, LLC )
& INDIAN TRAILS, INC., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. )
)
WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
_______________________________________________/
NYMAN TURKISH PC
Jason M. Turkish (P76310)
Melissa M. Nyman (293207)
20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 115
Southfield, Michigan 48076
Phone: (248) 284-2480
Jason.Turkish at NymanTurkish.com
Melissa.Nyman at NymanTurkish.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
____________________________________________________________________________
/
COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Michigan Flyer, LLC and Indian Trails, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”),
hereby sue the Wayne
County Airport Authority (“Defendant”), and state as follows:
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs bring this action to put an end to Defendant Wayne County
Airport
Authority’s corrupt and unlawful retaliatory conduct following Plaintiffs
participation
in support of persons with disabilities bringing claims of disability
discrimination
against the Defendant, for their relocation of public transportation
services, from the
International Arrivals Level of the McNamara Terminal, to the Ground
Transportation
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 1 of 12 Pg ID 1
Center (“GTC”), at Detroit Metro Airport (“DTW”), in alleged violation of
the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”)
and
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.
2. After participating and assisting Michael Harris and Karla Hudson in
their lawsuit
against the Defendant for violations of Title II and Title V of the
Americans with
Disabilities Act in the case of Harris et al v. Wayne County Airport
Authority, 2:14-cv-
13630 (E.D. Mich.), the Plaintiffs were immediately and severely retaliated
against by
the Defendant, in blatant violation of the anti-retaliation provisions of
the ADA.
3. In retaliating against the Plaintiffs, the Defendant systematically and
relentlessly
interfered, disrupted, and undermined their existing businesses as private
companies
providing public transportation at DTW, an airport operated by the
Defendant.
4. The retaliation in question occurred only after the Plaintiffs supported
and participated
in proceedings involving a lawsuit brought by their disabled ridership
against the
Defendant, and said retaliation is the direct result of their participation.
5. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating the Defendant’s
retaliatory conduct
violates the ADA, and injunctive relief preventing Defendant from further
retaliating
against the Plaintiffs in their business operations at the Defendant’s
Airport.
Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek recovery of damages for the unlawful
disruption of
their businesses.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1331, because
Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal statutes, specifically the ADA. In
addition, this
Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief,
pursuant to 28
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 2 of 12 Pg ID 2
U.S.C. §§ 2201-02, and jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive
relief pursuant
to 15 U.S.C. § 1116.
7. 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
8. Plaintiff Michigan Flyer, LLC is a Michigan Limited Liability Company,
organized
under the laws of the State of Michigan, engaged in providing public
transportation to
the Defendant’s Airport.
9. Plaintiff Indian Trails, Inc. is the parent company of Michigan Flyer,
LLC, and is the
private partner in the public-private partnership between the Ann Arbor Area
Transportation Authority (“AAATA”), which contracts with Indian Trails, Inc.
through
its subsidiary Michigan Flyer, LLC to provide scheduled public bus service
to the
Defendant’s Airport.
10. Plaintiffs have standing to bring the present cause of action.
a. Plaintiffs are companies engaged in providing public transportation to
Defendant’s Airport, and are subject to the requirements of the ADA to
provide
equal access to their services.
b. In support of their legal obligation to provide accessible transportation
to their
customers, the Plaintiffs participated in proceedings brought by two
disabled
individuals against the Defendant for allegedly illegally relocating public
transportation to an inaccessible location at Defendant’s Airport.
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 3 of 12 Pg ID 3
c. The Plaintiffs involvement in support of their disabled ridership
included, but was
not limited to: attending court proceedings, assisting in providing
information to
expert witnesses, assisting in providing information to counsel for the
disabled
riders, attending and participating in settlement discussions involving
reconfiguration of the public transportation loading area in question,
supporting
the disabled riders in interviews and in a published press release,
supporting the
disabled riders in online newsletters and mass e-mails, providing financial
support
to sustain the litigation against the Defendant, and ultimately signing onto
a
release of liability in which the Plaintiffs accepted the disabled rider’s
settlement
with the Defendant as a resolution to the relocation of public
transportation at the
Airport, and agreed to not themselves bring suit for said relocation.
d. At all times relevant to this action, the Defendant was aware of the
Plaintiffs
participation on behalf of the disabled riders, and once this participation
began,
the Defendant systematically and relentlessly retaliated against the
Plaintiff’s
businesses of providing public transportation to the Defendant’s Airport.
11. 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
12. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 11,
inclusive.
13. The Wayne County Airport Authority is the government chartered entity
that oversees
Detroit Metro Airport.
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 4 of 12 Pg ID 4
14. Plaintiffs are private companies engaged in providing public
transportation to the
Defendant’s Airport, and are legally required to provide access to persons
with
disabilities.
15. On September 19, 2014, two individuals with disabilities, Michael Harris
and Karla
Hudson, sued the Defendant for violations of Titles II and V of the
Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990, as amended, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation
Act,
arguing, inter alia, that Defendant’s planned relocation of public
transportation from
curbside at the International Arrivals level of the McNamara Terminal to the
distant
south-end of the Ground Transportation Center across the street, violated
the disabled
riders federally protected rights to equal access as persons with
disabilities.
16. In providing material support to the disabled riders, and in
participating in numerous
aspects of the prior litigation, the Plaintiffs joined the Governor of
Michigan, the State
Transportation Commission Chair, the Director of the Michigan Department of
Transportation, and ultimately the Attorney General of Michigan in voicing
concern for
the Airport’s blatant disregard and neglect to their most vulnerable
customers.
17. The Plaintiffs publicly and unequivocally supported the cause of their
disabled
ridership, vehemently and forcefully advocating for their position sought in
the prior
litigation. In turn, the Defendant publicly and unequivocally opposed both
the
individuals with disabilities suing them, as well as the current Plaintiffs
for supporting
their cause.
18. Plaintiff’s support and participation in proceedings in the previous
action included, but
was not limited to: attending court proceedings, assisting in providing
information to
experts, assisting in providing information to counsel for the disabled
riders, attending
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 5 of 12 Pg ID 5
and participating in settlement discussions involving reconfiguration of the
public
transportation loading area in question, supporting the disabled riders in
interviews and
in a published press release, supporting the disabled riders in online
newsletters and
mass e-mails, providing financial support to sustain the litigation against
the Defendant,
and ultimately signing onto a release of liability in which the Plaintiffs
accepted the
disabled rider’s settlement with the Defendant as a resolution to the
relocation of public
transportation at the airport, and agreed to not themselves bring suit for
said relocation.
19. Following the previous litigation, the Defendant chose to immediately
and forcefully
retaliate against the Plaintiffs for their role in supporting the cause of
the disabled riders
in their suit against the Defendant. The precise retaliatory acts include
the following:
a. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant reduced the
Plaintiffs “dwell
time,” which is the amount of time a bus may remain at the curb to safely
load
and unload passengers. Following the relocation of public transportation
from
International Arrivals to the GTC, which constituted a substantial increase
in
distance, the Defendant unreasonably decreased the Plaintiffs dwell time, by
as
much as eighty percent, thus preventing the safe and orderly loading and
unloading of passengers, and unnecessarily causing passengers departing the
Airport to miss their scheduled buses.
b. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant needlessly and
relentlessly
began forcing arriving buses operated by the Plaintiffs to circle the
Airport, at
times denying them access even when empty spaces designated for such buses
in the GTC were available, causing the buses to arrive after their scheduled
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 6 of 12 Pg ID 6
arrival times, and consequently causing the Plaintiff’s customers to
unsafely
rush to make their departing flights, or miss them entirely.
c. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant began forcing buses
operated by the Plaintiffs to depart minutes prior to their scheduled
published
departure times, forcing Plaintiff’s customers to wait extended periods of
time,
up to several hours, for another bus with available seats, because their
reserved
bus left too early, without them, at the direction of the Defendant.
d. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant began prohibiting
the
Plaintiffs from unloading passengers at the Departures Level of the McNamara
Terminal, an area designated by signage for “Motor Coach Unloading,” and
previously used by the Plaintiffs as an alternate accessible location when a
passenger with a disability was onboard and needed immediate curbside
assistance upon arrival at the Airport. The Defendant went so far as to
utilize its
own private police force to prevent Plaintiff’s buses from reaching this
area, and
then immediately reprinted the existing signage to read “unscheduled charter
buses only,” – an invented term in the transportation industry that has no
recognized meaning and was crafted solely to exclude the Plaintiffs.
e. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant began giving
competitors of
the Plaintiffs preferential access to closer drop-off and pick-up locations,
including allowing competitors to operate in illegal no-parking zones, while
denying the Plaintiffs similar access, even when they were transporting
passengers with disabilities.
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 7 of 12 Pg ID 7
f. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant began stationing
airport
personnel, in a climate-controlled booth, in direct proximity to the
drop-off and
pick-up location for the Plaintiff’s operations, and began having said
personnel
interrogate bus passengers arriving at the Airport, questioning them about
the
route the Plaintiffs took to the Airport and what cities the bus had stopped
in
along the way. Such questioning has been unnerving to passengers, and has
undermined the integrity and legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s business
operations at
the Defendant’s Airport.
g. Soon after the prior litigation ended, the Defendant pursued frivolous
misdemeanor criminal charges against Plaintiff Michigan Flyer, LLC for
displaying signage they were contractually permitted to display.
Additionally,
the Defendant has temporarily, in their own words, decided to “stand down”
on
said prosecution, but has repeatedly threatened to once again employ the use
of
criminal process to coerce the Plaintiffs should they not act in the manner
desired by the Defendant.
h. Soon after the prior litigation ended, and subsequent to the Defendant
pursuing
frivolous misdemeanor charges, the Defendant compelled Plaintiff Michigan
Flyer, LLC to file a “permit application” to display the signage they were
already contractually permitted to display as part of the Settlement in the
prior
litigation. Defendant then selectively denied their permit, for among other
things, their request to display a “blade sign,” which is an overhead sign
that is
able to be seen from a distance, and is the type of sign used extensively
throughout the Airport, but yet inexplicably denied to the Plaintiffs.
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 8 of 12 Pg ID 8
i. And finally, soon after the litigation ended, and in writing, the
Defendant
retaliated against the Plaintiffs by suggesting that the Ann Arbor Area
Transportation Authority, a public entity known by the Defendant to be a
contractual partner with the Plaintiffs for their airport bus service,
should
contract with a different vendor rather than continue to do business with
the
Plaintiffs.
20. In short, the Defendant has utilized its position as the Operator of the
Detroit Metro
Airport to act with animus towards the Plaintiffs in viciously and
relentlessly retaliating
against them for standing up for their disabled riders and opposing actions
taken by the
Defendant that were so outrageous they drew the criticism of the Governor,
Attorney
General, MDOT Director, State Transportation Commission Chair, and hundreds
of
disabled and non-disabled riders who wrote to the Defendant in protest of
their
degradation of access to public transportation. In retaliating against the
Plaintiffs for
supporting persons with disabilities, the defendant has once again run afoul
of federal
law, and is endangering the safety of all persons at the Airport by forcing
unsafe
practices for the operation of Plaintiff’s transportation businesses.
COUNT I
VIOLATION OF TITLE V OF THE ADA.
21. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in
paragraphs 1 through 20,
inclusive.
22. 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
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 9 of 12 Pg ID 9
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).
23. 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).
24. Responding to the enormity of the task before the United States in
“eliminating
discrimination against individuals with disabilities,” Congress made certain
to offer
statutory protections not just for the disabled themselves, but also for
those who would
support the cause of ensuring equal access to the disabled, providing them
legal
protections when faced with retaliation.
25. Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act states, in pertinent
part, under the
heading of “Retaliation,” that “[n]o person shall discriminate against any
individual
because such individual has opposed any act or practice made unlawful by
this
chapter or because such individual made a charge, testified, assisted, or
participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, or hearing under
this
chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 12203(a). (Emphasis added).
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 10 of 12 Pg ID 10
26. Through the actions alleged herein, the Defendants have unlawfully
retaliated against
Plaintiffs for “assisting” and “participating” in an earlier proceeding
brought by persons
with disabilities under Titles II and V of the Americans with Disabilities
Act.
27. The Plaintiffs, as Congress so intended, rose in support of their
customer’s deprivation
of rights afforded to them under the ADA, seeking to advance the stated
intent of the
law in “eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities,”
and in doing
so, they are afforded protections and remedies against the Defendant’s
retaliatory and
unlawful response.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s prior and current
retaliation, the
Plaintiff’s business operations have been severely undermined and damaged.
Damages
to the Plaintiff’s businesses include, but are not limited to, customers
refusing to ride
the Plaintiff’s service due to the mistreatment by the Defendant, damage to
their
business image of providing efficient and comfortable public transportation,
an inability
to reasonably operate their businesses at the Airport, as well as frequent
unnecessary
operational disruptions, the need to give refunds to customers who were
disgruntled by
actions taken by the Defendant against Plaintiffs, increased expenses in
labor costs to
cope with the demands of operating a bus service in such a hostile
environment, and
expected future consequences to the long-term viability of what have been
successful
businesses, but are now seeing diminished growth.
29. Without declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff’s businesses will
continue to be
irreparably harmed by the retaliation brought on by the Defendant.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request the relief set forth below.
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 11 of 12 Pg ID 11
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiffs pray for the following relief:
30. A declaration that Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority has
unlawfully
retaliated against the Plaintiffs in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.
31. A permanent injunction preventing Defendant from further retaliating
against the
Plaintiffs.
32. All monetary damages consistent with those provided in the Americans
with
Disabilities Act for the victims of retaliation under Title V, as will be
proven at trial.
33. Reasonable Attorney’s fees and costs for the prosecution of this matter.
34. 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
Lead 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: April 27, 2015 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs
2:15-cv-11512-GAD-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 04/27/15 Pg 12 of 12 Pg ID 12
_______________________________________________
nfbmi-talk mailing list
nfbmi-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nfbmi-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nfbmi-talk_nfbnet.org/terrydeagle%40yahoo.
com
More information about the NFBMI-Talk
mailing list