Kinney v. Yerusalim
9 F.3d 1067, 1993 WL 479663 (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
When a public entity resurfaces a street, this action constitutes an "alteration" under the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations. Consequently, the entity must install curb ramps to ensure accessibility, and it cannot invoke the "undue burden" defense, which is only applicable to existing facilities, not alterations.
Facts:
- Disabled in Action, a nonprofit organization, and twelve individuals with ambulatory disabilities resided and worked in Philadelphia.
- The lack of curb ramps at intersections in Philadelphia presented a major obstacle for people with ambulatory disabilities, making travel dangerous and difficult.
- The City of Philadelphia engaged in street resurfacing projects, which at a minimum involved laying a new layer of asphalt over an entire street from intersection to intersection.
- The City's policy was to install curb ramps only when construction work independently affected the curb or sidewalk, or during a complete street reconstruction.
- Under this policy, the City did not install curb ramps when it performed resurfacing projects that were limited to the street surface itself.
Procedural Posture:
- Disabled in Action and several individuals (Plaintiffs) filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against the City of Philadelphia.
- Plaintiffs sought an injunction to compel the City to install curb ramps on all streets resurfaced after the effective date of the ADA.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court (the court of first instance) granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, ordering the City to install curb ramps on the specified streets.
- The City of Philadelphia (Appellant) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
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 resurfacing a city street constitute an 'alteration' under the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 35.151, thereby requiring the city to install curb ramps at intersections?
Opinions:
Majority - Roth, Circuit Judge
Yes, resurfacing a city street constitutes an 'alteration' under the Americans with Disabilities Act regulations, requiring the installation of curb ramps. An 'alteration' is defined as a change that 'affects or could affect the usability' of a facility. Resurfacing improves the primary function of a street—facilitating smooth and safe travel—and therefore enhances its usability. The ADA regulation at 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e) specifically mandates that altered streets must contain curb ramps, effectively unifying the street and its curbs as a single facility for the purpose of the alteration. When a city improves a street's usability for the general public, it must simultaneously make it accessible to individuals with disabilities. Furthermore, the City cannot claim an 'undue burden' defense, as that defense is expressly limited to 'existing facilities' under § 35.150 and does not apply to alterations governed by § 35.151.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a broad, functional definition of 'alteration' under the ADA, focusing on whether a change affects a facility's 'usability' rather than just direct access points. It sets a crucial precedent that routine, but significant, public works projects like street resurfacing trigger the stringent accessibility requirements for alterations, not the more lenient standards for existing facilities. This prevents public entities from making incremental improvements that benefit the non-disabled population while deferring accessibility modifications, ensuring that accessibility becomes an integral part of all significant upgrades.
