[nagdu] Article: Taxi Ruling could set new standard for city services

[Robert Harris]

I use the buses and trains every day. Be aware that I've had problems
with well meaning folks trying to shove me and my dog toward the ADA
car. that is a no no and a civil rights violation.  Seems people have
trouble understanding the difference between a wheel chair and a dog
guide. I'd hate to be on a business trip and denied a cab because a
"wheel chair accessible car was not available. Yes I was threatened with
arrest if I refused to sit in the ADA car. They backed off of course but
this is very real and we need to watch out that we are not segregated
for our own good and take a trip back to the 1960's with a different
twist.


Bobby and Prince

P s Back to the old drawing board with the boots I guess. My dogs paws
have always toughened up but the first year is the one that I moan and
grown about.  $100 for a pair of boots and trying to find one with zero
vision if it falls off on travel? UG!

PPSS Be careful about melting and mixing please.





From:	"Steven Johnson" <blinddog3 at charter.net>
To:	<wagdu at nfbwis.org>, "NAGDU Mailing List,	the National
            Association of Guide Dog Users" <nagdu at nfbnet.org>
Date:	01/23/2012 06:58 PM
Subject:	[nagdu] Article: Taxi Ruling could set new standard for city
            services
Sent by:	nagdu-bounces at nfbnet.org



Although at first this may not appear to be service-dog related, please
keep
in mind that ADA Title III and those provisions under this title also
include service dogs.



The following article is forwarded to you by the Great Lakes ADA Center
(www.adagreatlakes.org) for your information:



Thomson Reuters News and Insights

January 20, 2012



Taxi ruling could set new standard for city services

Reporting By Basil Katz

When a federal judge last month ruled that New York violated federal
laws
because it lacked wheelchair-accessible taxis, disabilities advocates
celebrated a major victory.

The December opinion by Manhattan federal judge George Daniels may have
set
a new standard for what kind of municipal services in New York and other
cities fall under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Since every city is organized in a different way, it is difficult to
name
specific services or agencies that would be affected. But applied
broadly,
Judge Daniels' taxi ruling could be applied to other city agencies that
are
active regulators, said Robert Dinerstein, a professor at American
University's law school.

In his December opinion, Judge Daniels found that New York City's taxi
authority violated Title II, section A of the ADA because the authority
has
an active regulatory role in maintaining and overseeing the taxi fleet
--
thus acting as a public entity proving a public service.

By finding that the taxi authority qualified as performing a public
service,
Dinerstein said, the judge potentially expanded the definition of what
constitutes a public service by a city agency or policy for purposes of
the
ADA.

The decision could have ramification beyond New York because it
recognizes
that licensing of medallions is considered a program or activity of a
public
entity, he said.

"While you could say that not every city does the licensing of taxis the
way
New York does, it certainly could be analogized to other situations
where a
city agency is either regulating what's going on or, like here, where
you
could not legitimately run a taxi unless you went through the process,"
Dinerstein said.

This week, the judge upheld that opinion, and denied a motion by New
York's
Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) to freeze his order. The city has
also
filed a notice of appeal with the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Daniels ordered New York City to create a plan to improve access and --
pending his approval of such a plan -- required that any new taxis added
to
the fleet be wheelchair accessible.

The ruling is likely to cause an additional headache for lawmakers in
Albany
who have been hashing out legislation to address the New York taxi
issue.

In his at-times indignant opinion, Daniels said the TLC's policies
discriminated against the handicapped and cited the fact that only 232
of
the city's 13,237 cabs are wheelchair-accessible.

"The TLC's exercise of its regulatory authority alone has created the
discriminatory effects on disabled riders who require the use of
wheelchairs," Daniels wrote.

The TLC disputed that interpretation and maintains it is not subject to
the
ADA, and that its role is more limited to acts such as dispensing taxi
medallions.

"We respectfully disagree with the court's decision because the ADA
specifically exempts taxicabs from having to be wheelchair accessible,"
Robin Binder, of the New York City Law Department, said in a statement.
She
said the city is "considering the next steps to take in court in light
of
this ruling."



JUSTICE DEPARTMENT GETS INVOLVED

The New York case was also notable because of the involvement of the
U.S.
Justice Department, which intervened against the TLC in October.

It is an illustration of how the Justice Department under the Obama
administration has been aggressively pushing an expansion of the ADA in
federal court, said Samuel Bagenstos, a professor at the University of
Michigan Law School and the former U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
for Civil Rights. "It's a strategy that extends beyond taxi cabs and
transportation issues to the entire sweep of the ADA," he said.

The case is Christopher Noel et al v. New York City Taxi and Limousine
Commission et al, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York,
No. 11-00237.



Source:
http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2012/01_-_January/Taxi_r

uling_could_set_new_standard_for_city_services/

_______________________________________________
nagdu mailing list
nagdu at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/nagdu_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
nagdu:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/nagdu_nfbnet.org/harris.robert%40epamail.epa.gov