Fell v. Spokane Transit Authority
911 P.2d 1319 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination in a place of public accommodation under Washington's Law Against Discrimination (RCW 49.60.215), a plaintiff must prove the treatment received was not comparable to the level of service provided to non-disabled individuals. Compliance with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) may serve as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for the defendant's actions.
Facts:
- Prior to 1992, the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) offered paratransit service for aged and disabled persons throughout its entire service area.
- In 1991, Congress enacted the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), prompting STA to develop a new paratransit plan to conform with the federal law.
- Following a public process, STA adopted a new plan in January 1992 that restricted paratransit services to an area within three-quarters of a mile of its fixed bus routes.
- Eligibility for the new service was based on an individual's inability to use the fixed-route system, not solely on age or disability.
- A class of disabled individuals, including Evelyn Fell (Plaintiffs), who had previously received paratransit service, resided outside the new service corridors and were no longer eligible for the service.
- While 99% of prior paratransit users were still served under the new plan, the plaintiff class was excluded.
- STA provided no specific transportation service for non-disabled individuals residing outside the fixed-route service areas, other than a van pool service which was also available to disabled persons.
Procedural Posture:
- Evelyn Fell and a class of disabled individuals sued the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) in a Washington state trial court.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction, claiming STA's new paratransit plan violated the state's Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the trial court granted judgment in favor of the plaintiffs.
- The trial court issued a permanent injunction against STA's plan, ruling that STA failed to show that providing the prior level of service was 'no longer reasonably possible.'
- STA, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's decision directly to the Supreme Court of Washington.
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 a public transit authority's paratransit plan, which complies with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) but reduces service to some disabled individuals, constitute discrimination in a place of public accommodation under Washington's Law Against Discrimination, RCW 49.60.215?
Opinions:
Majority - Talmadge, J.
No. A public transit authority's paratransit plan that complies with the ADA does not necessarily violate Washington's anti-discrimination law; the proper legal standard is whether the services provided to disabled persons are comparable to those provided to non-disabled persons. The trial court's use of a 'reasonably possible' test was erroneous because it transforms an anti-discrimination statute into an entitlement statute without a principled limit. The correct analytical framework, adapted from employment discrimination law, requires a plaintiff to make a prima facie case by showing, among other things, that they received treatment not comparable to that of non-disabled individuals. If a plaintiff succeeds, the burden shifts to the defendant to offer a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions. Here, STA's compliance with the comprehensive federal ADA regulations can serve as such a reason, which the plaintiff must then prove is a pretext for discrimination. The case is remanded for trial under this new framework.
Dissenting - Madsen, J.
Yes. The STA's new paratransit plan violates Washington's Law Against Discrimination because state law provides greater protection than the ADA and must be given independent effect. The majority's holding effectively nullifies state law by making ADA compliance a nearly insurmountable defense. The trial court's 'reasonably possible' standard is consistent with state regulations aimed at ensuring disabled persons have 'the enjoyment of places of public accommodation to the greatest extent practical.' The state law's goal is the 'full enjoyment' of services, not just comparable treatment. By cutting off essential services to individuals like the plaintiffs, who have no other means of transport for medical care and education, STA failed to comply with its obligations under Washington law.
Analysis:
This case establishes the controlling legal framework for disability discrimination claims in public accommodations under Washington law. It rejects an open-ended 'reasonable accommodation' standard in favor of a 'comparability of treatment' analysis, aligning the state's public accommodation law with principles from employment discrimination jurisprudence. By allowing compliance with the federal ADA to serve as a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, the court significantly raises the evidentiary bar for plaintiffs. This decision prioritizes a predictable, uniform standard for public entities and businesses over a more individualized, potentially expansive interpretation of state anti-discrimination protections.
Unlock the full brief for Fell v. Spokane Transit Authority