Center for Independence of the Disabled v. Metropolitan Transp. Auth.
2020 NY Slip Op 3203 (2020)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A public accommodation's ongoing failure to provide accessibility for people with disabilities constitutes a continuing violation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL), tolling the statute of limitations. State laws establishing minimum accessibility requirements do not preempt the broader anti-discrimination mandates of the NYCHRL.
Facts:
- The New York City subway system consists of 427 stations, over 80% of which (360 stations) are not equipped with any vertical accessibility other than stairs.
- These stair-only stations are unusable by individuals with certain mobility impairments, including those who use wheelchairs, scooters, walkers, or have conditions affecting their muscle, joint, heart, or lung function.
- The lack of accessible stations renders certain neighborhoods and locations in New York City unreachable for people with these disabilities.
- Plaintiffs consist of five non-profit disability rights organizations and three individuals with mobility impairments.
- The City of New York (CNY) is the owner of the subway system.
- CNY leases the subway system to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA), which operate it.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs, Center for Independence of the Disabled et al., filed a putative class action lawsuit against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the City of New York, and others in the Supreme Court, New York County (a trial court).
- Defendants filed a pre-answer motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing it was barred by the statute of limitations, preempted by state law, and nonjusticiable.
- The trial court denied the motion of the transit defendants to dismiss the complaint and denied the motion of the City of New York to dismiss without prejudice.
- Defendants (appellants) appealed the trial court's order to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the ongoing lack of accessibility in the majority of New York City subway stations constitute a continuing violation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) for statute of limitations purposes, and are such claims preempted by state transportation and public authorities laws?
Opinions:
Majority - Gische, J.
No, claims under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL) challenging the subway system's ongoing lack of accessibility are not barred by the statute of limitations or preempted by state law. The court held that the defendants' failure to provide an accessible subway system is a continuous wrong that tolls the statute of limitations. The court reasoned that under the NYCHRL's broad and liberal construction, the violation is not a single past act of construction but a discriminatory act that recurs each time a person with a disability is denied access. Furthermore, the court found no preemption by state law. There is no conflict preemption because Transportation Law § 15-b, which requires 100 stations to be accessible, sets a minimum standard, not a ceiling, and does not prohibit making additional stations accessible. There is no field preemption because the state did not show intent to occupy the entire field of disability accessibility; the Transportation Law addresses specific construction requirements, whereas the NYCHRL is a law of general anti-discrimination application. Finally, the court determined the issue is justiciable because plaintiffs seek to enforce their statutory rights, a proper function of the judiciary.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the expansive interpretation of the 'continuing violation' doctrine under the NYCHRL, particularly for systemic barriers like architectural inaccessibility, distinguishing it from narrower federal standards. It significantly limits the scope of state law preemption, affirming that local anti-discrimination laws can impose obligations exceeding state-mandated minimums. The ruling ensures that claims against long-standing, non-compliant infrastructure can proceed, potentially impacting other public accommodations with historical accessibility issues and strengthening the enforcement power of local human rights laws.
