CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :919 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e917 of 2299

12-41-cv Noel v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n

N.Y.S.D. Case # 11-cv-0237(GBD)

1

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

2

3

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

4

5

August Term, 2011

6

7

8

(Argued: April 19, 2012

Decided: June 28, 2012)

9

10

Docket No. 12-41-cv

11

12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

13

14 CHRISTOPHER NOEL; SIMI LINTON; UNITED SPINAL, a

15 nonprofit organization; TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN,

16 a nonprofit organization; 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB,

17 a nonprofit organization; DISABLED IN ACTION, a

18 nonprofit organization, 19

20

PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,

21

22

-v.-

USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _________________ DATE FILED: ______________

23

24 NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a 25 charter mandated agency; DAVID YASSKY, in his 26 official capacity, as Commissioner of the New 27 York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,

28

29

DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS.

30

31 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

32

33

Before:

JACOBS, Chief Judge, KEARSE and HALL,

34

Circuit Judges.

35

36

CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 06/28/2012

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :929 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e927 of 2299

1

Appeal from a temporary injunction entered in the

2 United States District Court for the Southern District of

3 New York (Daniels, J.) requiring all new taxi medallions and

4 street-hail livery licenses issued in the City of New York

5 be limited to vehicles that are wheelchair accessible. We

6 conclude that defendants are not in violation of Title II,

7 Part A, of the Americans with Disabilities Act and that the

8 district court therefore erred in granting partial summary

9 judgment for plaintiffs and entering the temporary

10 injunction.

11

Vacated and remanded for entry of partial summary

12 judgment for defendants and further proceedings consistent

13 with this opinion.

14

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation

15

Counsel of the City of New York

16

(Leonard Koerner, Robin Binder,

17

Michelle Goldberg-Cahn, Ronald E.

18

Sternberg, on the brief), for

19

Defendants-Appellants.

20

21

Sid Wolinsky (Julia Pinover, Mary-

22

Lee Smith, Kara J. Janssen, on the

23

brief), Disability Rights Advocates

24

(Allegra L. Fishel, Outten and

25

Golden, LLP, on the brief), for

26

Plaintiffs-Appellees.

27

28

Richard D. Emery (Emery Celli

29

Brinckerhoff & Abady LLP), for

30

Taxicab, Limousine & Paratransit

31

Association as amicus curiae in

32

support of Defendants-Appellants.

2

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :939 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e937 of 2299

1 DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge:

2

Two people who use wheelchairs and the organizations

3 that represent persons with disabilities bring this class

4 action against the New York City Taxi and Limousine

5 Commission (“TLC”) and the TLC Commissioner David Yassky for

6 violation of Parts A and B of Title II of the Americans with

7 Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,

8 and the New York City Human Rights Law. The United States

9 District Court for the Southern District of New York

10 (Daniels, J.) granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment as

11 to liability on the claim that defendants are violating Part

12 A of Title II of the ADA (“Title II(A)”) by failing to

13 provide meaningful access to taxi services for persons with

14 disabilities. The district court also entered a temporary

15 injunction that requires that all new taxi medallions and

16 street-hail livery licenses be limited to vehicles that are

17 wheelchair accessible (“accessible taxis”), until the TLC

18 proposes and the district court approves a comprehensive

19 plan to provide meaningful access to taxi service for

20 wheelchair-bound passengers.

21

Defendants appeal the injunction and the grant of

22 partial summary judgment upon which the injunction is

23 premised. Appellate jurisdiction exists to review the

24 injunction and the underlying merits that relate to it. We

3

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :949 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e947 of 2299

1 conclude that, though the TLC exercises pervasive control

2 over the taxi industry in New York City, defendants were not

3 required by Title II(A) to deploy their licensing and

4 regulatory authority to mandate that persons who need

5 wheelchairs be afforded meaningful access to taxis. The

6 district court therefore erred in entering the temporary

7 injunction.

8

Accordingly, we vacate the temporary injunction and

9 remand for the district court to enter summary judgment for

10 defendants on the Title II(A) claim and for further 11 proceedings consistent with this opinion.1

12

13

BACKGROUND

14

The facts are not in dispute. Plaintiffs are [1]

15 persons with disabilities who seek fuller access to New York

16 City taxis and [2] organizations who represent them. They

17 contend that the taxi services in New York City fail to give

18 meaningful access to persons with disabilities and that the

19 TLC thus discriminates in violation of the ADA, the

20 Rehabilitation Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law.

1 Because we vacate the temporary injunction as improvidently granted, we need not address defendants’ secondary argument that the district court erred by entering an injunction that, as defendants contend, exceeded the scope of the litigation and the request of plaintiffs.
4

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :959 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e957 of 2299

1

There are two types of licensed taxis in New York City:

2 the traditional yellow cabs and the livery cabs. The yellow

3 cabs are “medallion taxis” because the license is

4 accompanied by a metal “medallion” that is affixed to the

5 outside of the taxi. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19-502(h). A

6 yellow taxi is a 5-passenger vehicle for hire licensed “to

7 accept hails from passengers in the street.” Id. § 19-

8 502(l). A livery cab is a 5-passenger vehicle for hire that

9 is dispatched from a livery base station on a pre-arranged

10 basis. See 35 N.Y.C. Rules & Regs. §§ 59A-03(j), (k); see

11 generally N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 19-502(g) (defining “for-hire

12 vehicle”). Livery cabs have not been authorized to accept

13 street hails.2

14

2 New York adopted legislation in December 2011 (amended in February) (1) allowing the TLC to sell 2,000 additional yellow taxi medallions, all of which must be for accessible taxis, and (2) establishing the Hail Accessible Inter-Borough License (“HAIL”) program, which permits livery vehicles to respond to street hails in northern Manhattan and the other boroughs. See 2012 NY ALS 9 (amending 2011 NY ALS 602). The TLC will be authorized to issue 18,000 HAIL licenses over a three-year period: 6,000 in the first year, 6,000 in the second year, and 6,000 in the third year. Twenty percent of the HAIL licenses are for accessible vehicles. Id. at § 5(b).
The licenses and medallions are expected to yield over a billion dollars in revenue for the City. Significantly, the TLC cannot sell any of its new accessible medallions until the HAIL license program commences. Id. at § 8.
5

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :969 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e967 of 2299

1

Under the City Charter, all taxis are licensed and

2 regulated by the TLC, an administrative agency of the City

3 of New York under the Deputy Mayor for Operations. See 65

4 N.Y.C. Charter § 2300. As a condition of licensure, taxi

5 owners and drivers must comply with the TLC’s applicable

6 laws and regulations. Id. §§ 2300, 2303; N.Y.C. Admin. Code

7 § 19-504. Under the City Charter, the TLC “adopt[s] and

8 establish[es] an overall public transportation policy

9 governing taxi, coach, limousine, wheelchair accessible van

10 services and commuter van services as it relates to the

11 overall public transportation network of the city.” N.Y.C.

12 Charter § 2300. This includes “set[ting] standards and

13 criteria for the licensing of vehicles, drivers and

14 chauffeurs”; establishing “standards of service, . . .

15 insurance and minimum coverage, . . . driver safety, . . .

16 equipment safety and design, . . . noise and air pollution

17 control”; and adjudicating “charges of violations of the

18 provisions of the administrative code and rules promulgated

19 thereunder.” Id. §§ 2300, 2303.

20

The number of medallions is limited by law to 13,237.

21 At least 231 are designated for wheelchair-accessible

22 vehicles, though any medallion owner may operate such a taxi

6

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :979 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e97 of 2299

1 regardless of whether the medallion has that designation.

2 Currently, 233 taxis are so accessible; 98.2% of medallion 3 taxis are therefore inaccessible to persons in wheelchairs.3

4 Not surprisingly, the wait time for accessible taxis is

5 prolonged. The record shows that the chances of hailing any

6 taxi in Manhattan within ten minutes is 87.33%, whereas the

7 chances of hailing an accessible taxi within ten minutes is

8 3.31%.

9

* * *

10

After some discovery, plaintiffs moved for partial

11 summary judgment only on the ADA claims and only as to

12 liability. Defendants cross-moved on all claims. Each

13 side’s motion for summary judgment was granted in part and

14 in part denied.

15

As to Part B of Title II of the ADA (“Title II(B)”),

16 which governs public transportation, the district court

17 granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. The

18 district court reasoned that although the TLC has “extensive

19 regulatory powers,” the agency itself has “no authority to

3 The complaint alleges that 60,000 people in New York City are wheelchair users. The City’s population exceeds eight million. See 2010 Census Bureau, available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml (last visited June 20, 2012). Accordingly, people in wheelchairs make up approximately 0.73% of New York City’s population.
7

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :989 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e987 of 2299

1 provide [public transportation] services, and does not

2 function as a transportation services provider, to the

3 public.” Noel v. New York City Taxi & Limousine Comm’n, --

4 F. Supp. 2d --, No. 11 Civ. 237 (GBD), 2011 WL 6747466, *5

5 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2011). Because the TLC does not

6 “operate” a public transportation service, the district

7 court held that the TLC is not obligated under Title II(B)

8 to ensure meaningful access to taxis for persons with

9 disabilities. Id. at *6.

10

However, as to Title II(A), which governs public

11 services generally, the district court granted summary

12 judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The district court

13 reasoned that the TLC “is a public entity carrying out a

14 public regulatory function that affects and confers a

15 benefit on New York City taxicab riders,” and therefore may

16 not discriminate in any of its functions--including its

17 regulatory activities--and must ensure persons with

18 disabilities have meaningful access to taxis in New York

19 City. Id. at *8. The district court determined that

20 plaintiffs enjoyed no meaningful access to taxis, id., and

21 were therefore entitled to summary judgment, id. at *8-9.

22

8

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :999 F0il6e/d280/62/02182/12 6P4a9g5e997 of 2299

1

The district court then entered a temporary injunction

2 that had immediate impact in view of recent changes in New

3 York State law, which had authorized the issuance of

4 additional medallions and authorized, for the first time,

5 livery cabs to pick up street hails in under-served areas of

6 the City. See supra note 1. The injunction is as follows:

7

[t]he TLC must propose a comprehensive plan to

8

provide meaningful access to taxicab service for

9

disabled wheelchair bound passengers. Such a plan

10

must include targeted goals and standards, as well

11

as anticipated measurable results. Until such a

12

plan is proposed and approved by th[e District]

13

Court, all new taxi medallions sold or new street-

14

hail livery licenses or permits issued by the TLC

15

must be for wheelchair accessible vehicles.

16 Id. at *9.

17

On appeal, defendants challenge the temporary

18 injunction and the grant of summary judgment, to the extent

19 it bears on the injunction. While the appeal was pending,

20 we granted defendants’ motion to stay enforcement of the

21 injunction. We now consider the merits of defendants’

22 appeal and vacate the temporary injunction.4

4 Because this appeal comes to us on review of the district court’s temporary injunction and because plaintiffs have not cross-appealed, the issue of whether the district court correctly granted summary judgment for defendants on the Title II(B) claim is not before us. In addition, because the district court did not rule on plaintiffs’ Rehabilitation Act and state law claims, those claims are also not before us.
9

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9190 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51907 of 2299

1

JURISDICTION

2

We have jurisdiction over this interlocutory appeal

3 because the district court entered an order “granting” an

4 “injunction[].” See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). By the same

5 token, we have jurisdiction to “consider the underlying

6 merits of the case, to the extent they relate to the

7 propriety of granting injunctive relief.” United States v.

8 Allen, 155 F.3d 35, 39 (2d Cir. 1998) (alterations and

9 internal quotation marks omitted) (holding that this Court

10 had jurisdiction to consider not only the injunction but

11 also the merits of the district court’s determination that

12 the appellee was entitled to summary judgment).

13 Accordingly, we review the entry of the temporary injunction

14 as well as the grant of partial summary judgment on which it

15 is based.

16

17

DISCUSSION

18

We review a district court’s grant of injunctive relief

19 for abuse of discretion. Kapps v. Wing, 404 F.3d 105, 112

20 (2d Cir. 2005). “A district court abuses its discretion

21 when it rests its decision on an error of law or clearly

22 erroneous finding of fact.” Abrahams v. MTA Long Island

23 Bus, 644 F.3d 110, 115 (2d Cir. 2011).

10

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9191 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51917 of 2299

1

We review the grant of summary judgment, which was the

2 basis for the temporary injunction, de novo. Miller v.

3 Wolpoff & Abramson, L.L.P., 321 F.3d 292, 300 (2d Cir.

4 2003).

5

6

I

7

One goal of the ADA is to “‘provide a clear and

8 comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

9 discrimination against individuals with disabilities.’”

10 Henrietta D. v. Bloomberg, 331 F.3d 261, 273 (2d Cir. 2003)

11 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)). To do so, the ADA’s

12 “first three titles proscribe discrimination against

13 individuals with disabilities in employment and hiring

14 (Title I), access to public services (Title II), and public

15 accommodations (Title III).” Id. Title II is, in turn,

16 “divided into Parts A and B”: “Part A governs public

17 services generally,” and Part B “governs the provision of

18 public transportation services.” Abrahams, 644 F.3d at 115.

19 This appeal involves only Title II(A).

20

Title II(A) provides: “Subject to the provisions of

21 this subchapter, no qualified individual with a disability

22 shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from

11

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9192 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51927 of 2299

1 participation in or be denied the benefits of the services,

2 programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected

3 to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

4 To prevail under Title II(A), “plaintiffs must demonstrate

5 that (1) they are ‘qualified individuals’ with a disability;

6 (2) that the defendants are subject to the ADA; and (3) that

7 plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to participate in or

8 benefit from defendants’ services, programs, or activities,

9 or were otherwise discriminated against by defendants, by

10 reason of plaintiffs’ disabilities.” Henrietta D., 331 F.3d

11 at 272. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs are

12 qualified individuals or that the TLC is a public entity

13 that is generally subject to Title II(A). The only question

14 on appeal then is whether the TLC denied plaintiffs an

15 opportunity to participate in its services, programs, or

16 activities, or otherwise discriminated against them on

17 account of a disability.

18

19

II

20

“As a remedial statute, the ADA must be broadly

21 construed to effectuate its purpose” of providing “a clear

22 and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of

12

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9193 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51937 of 2299

1 discrimination against individuals with disabilities.”

2 Innovative Health Sys., Inc. v. City of White Plains, 931 F.

3 Supp. 222, 232 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (internal quotation marks

4 omitted), aff’d in part, 117 F.3d 37 (2d Cir. 1997),

5 recognized as superseded on other grounds, Zervos v. Verizon

6 N.Y., Inc., 252 F.3d 163, 171 n.7 (2d Cir. 2001).

7 Accordingly, the phrase “services, programs, or activities”

8 has been interpreted to be “a catch-all phrase that

9 prohibits all discrimination by a public entity.”

10 Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 45.

11

Although the ADA is to be interpreted broadly, “the

12 scope of Title II is not limitless.” See Reeves v. Queen

13 City Transp., Inc., 10 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 1185 (D. Col.

14 1998). In enacting Title II, Congress directed the Attorney

15 General to promulgate regulations to implement Title II(A),

16 see 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a), and the Attorney General’s

17 regulations add scope and shape to the general prohibitions

18 in the ADA, which are not self-reading. As the House

19 Judiciary Committee Report conceded, it is “the purpose of

20 this section . . . to direct the Attorney General to issue

21 regulations setting forth the forms of discrimination

22 prohibited.” H.R. Rep. 101-485(III) at 52, reprinted in

23 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 445, 475.

13

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9194 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51947 of 2299

1

The most relevant regulation here is 28 C.F.R.

2 § 35.130(b)(6), which governs the conduct of a public entity

3 administering a licensing program. The TLC, of course,

4 administers a licensing program: the licensing of taxis.

5 Section 35.130(b)(6) prohibits a “public entity” from

6 “administer[ing] a license or certification program in a

7 manner that subjects qualified individuals with disabilities

8 to discrimination on the basis of disability” or

9 “establish[ing] requirements for the programs or activities

10 of licensees or certified entities that subject qualified

11 individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis

12 of disability.”

13

Notwithstanding the broad construction of the ADA,

14 Section 35.130(b)(6) does not support plaintiffs’ claim

15 against the TLC. Section 35.130(b)(6) prohibits the TLC

16 from refusing to grant licenses to persons with disabilities

17 who are otherwise qualified to own or operate a taxi (i.e.,

18 qualified medallion purchasers and drivers); it does not

19 assist persons who are consumers of the licensees’ product.

20 This reading of Section 35.130(b)(6) is consistent with the

21 Technical Assistance Manual of the Department of Justice

22 (“TAM”), which is persuasive authority as to the ADA’s

23 meaning, unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with

14

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9195 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51957 of 2299

1 the ADA’s regulations. See Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d

2 at 45 n.8. The section involving licensing makes clear that

3 the persons who are protected are those who are seeking

4 licenses:

5

A public entity may not discriminate on the basis

6

of disability in its licensing, certification, and

7

regulatory activities. A person is a “qualified

8

individual with a disability” with respect to

9

licensing or certification, if he or she can meet

10

the essential eligibility requirements for

11

receiving the license or certification. . . .

12

Public entities may not discriminate against

13

qualified individuals with disabilities who apply

14

for licenses, but may consider factors related to

15

the disability in determining whether the

16

individual is “qualified.”

17 ADA TAM II-3.7200, available at

18 http://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-3.7200 (last visited June

19 20, 2012). The example given in the TAM reinforces that

20 limitation:

21

ILLUSTRATION: A State prohibits the licensing of

22

transportation companies that employ individuals

23

with missing limbs as drivers. XYZ company

24

refuses to hire an individual with a missing limb

25

who is ‘qualified’ to perform the essential

26

functions of the job, because he is able to drive

27

safely with hand controls.

28 Id. The TAM concludes that such a licensing requirement

29 would violate Title II(A), id., but--critically--that “[t]he

30 State is not accountable for discrimination in the

31 employment or other practices of XYZ company, if those

15

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9196 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51967 of 2299

1 practices are not the result of requirements or policies

2 established by the State.” Id.

3

That guidance goes far to deciding this appeal. The

4 gravamen of plaintiffs’ claim is that there are too few

5 accessible taxis in New York City and that the TLC should

6 use its regulatory authority to require that more taxis be

7 accessible. But no such claim is cognizable under Title

8 II(A) against the TLC because nothing in the TLC’s

9 administration of the licensing program discriminates

10 against persons with disabilities. Although only 231

11 medallions are conditioned on wheelchair accessibility, none

12 of the medallions issued by the TLC prohibits any medallion

13 owner from operating an accessible taxi.

14

15

III

16

Plaintiffs contend that the TLC violates Title II(A)

17 because the industry it licenses fails to provide meaningful

18 access to taxis for persons with disabilities.

19

As an initial matter, Title II(A) makes clear that

20 “[t]he programs or activities of entities that are licensed

21 or certified by a public entity are not, themselves, covered

16

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9197 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e5197 of 2299

1 by [Title II(A)].” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(6).5 As the TAM

2 advises: “[a]lthough licensing standards are covered by

3 title II, the licensee’s activities themselves are not

4 covered. An activity does not become a ‘program or

5 activity’ of a public entity merely because it is licensed

6 by the public entity.” ADA TAM II-3.7200 (emphasis added).

7 At the risk of being obvious, “[t]he New York City taxicab

8 industry is a private industry.” Freidman v. Gen. Motors

9 Corp., 721 F. Supp. 2d 218, 220 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).

10 Accordingly, even if private industry (such as the New York

11 City taxi industry) fails to provide meaningful access for

12 persons with disabilities, a licensing entity (such as the

13 TLC) is not therefore in violation of Title II(A), unless

14 the private industry practice results from the licensing

15 requirements. See ADA TAM II-3.7200.

16

This conclusion was adopted by the two district courts

17 that have considered the issue. It was claimed in Tyler v.

18 City of Manhattan, 849 F. Supp. 1429, 1441-42 (D. Kan.

19 1994), that Manhattan (Kansas) violated Title II(A) by

20 granting liquor licenses to businesses that were

5 Cf. 49 C.F.R. § 37.37(a) (Title III) (Department of Transportation regulation providing that “[a] private entity does not become subject to the requirements of this part for public entities[] because it . . . is regulated by, or is granted a . . . permit to operate by a public entity.”).
17

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9198 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51987 of 2299

1 inaccessible to persons with disabilities. The district

2 court concluded “that the regulations implementing Title II

3 of the ADA do not cover the programs and activities of

4 [private] entities that are licensed or certified by a

5 public entity.” Id. at 1441 (citing 28 C.F.R.

6 § 35.130(b)(6)); accord id. (explaining that “[a]lthough

7 City programs operated under contractual or licensing

8 arrangements may not discriminate against qualified

9 individuals with disabilities, the programs or activities of

10 licensees or certified entities are not themselves programs

11 or activities of the public entity merely by virtue of the

12 license or certificate.” (internal citation, quotation

13 marks, and alteration omitted)). Tyler ruled that the

14 licensing of non-accessible private establishments did not

15 deny “access to services, aids, and programs provided by the

16 City under licensing or contractual arrangements.” Id. at

17 1442.

18

The plaintiff in Tyler also argued that the city’s

19 physical inspection of licensed facilities provided a

20 benefit to non-disabled people only, because only non-

21 disabled people could enter those establishments. Id. The

22 district court explained that it was not the government

23 inspections that denied access to the facilities or the

18

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9199 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e51997 of 2299

1 benefits of being there; it was the facilities themselves,

2 which were operated privately. Id. Such a claim is not

3 actionable under Title II(A), Tyler reasoned, because “Title

4 II . . . and its implementing regulations prohibit

5 discrimination against qualified individuals only by public

6 entities” and do “not go so far as to require public

7 entities to impose on private establishments, as a condition

8 of licensure, a requirement that they make their facilities

9 physically accessible to persons with disabilities.” Id.

10 Because private establishments are not services, programs or

11 activities of a public entity, Tyler held that they are not

12 governed by Title II(A) or its implementing regulations.

13 Id.

14

In Reeves v. Queen City Transportation, Inc., 10 F.

15 Supp. 2d 1181 (D. Colo. 1998), a private company transported

16 guests to resorts in vehicles that were not wheelchair

17 accessible. The plaintiffs sued the public utility

18 commission that had issued the company a certificate to

19 operate, alleging a violation of Title II(A). Id. at 1182-

20 83.

21

In rejecting the Title II(A) challenge, the District of

22 Colorado concluded that the utility commission “operates a

23 certification program, not a transportation program,” and

19

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9290 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52907 of 2299

1 that “issuance of a certificate of” operation to a private

2 transportation company “does not constitute a violation of

3 Title II even if [that company] subsequently engage[s] in

4 unlawful discrimination.” Id. at 1186 (internal quotation

5 marks omitted).

6

Plaintiffs undertake to distinguish these cases on the

7 ground that this Circuit interprets the ADA more broadly.

8 To be sure, this Circuit broadly interprets the ADA, see

9 Innovative Health Sys., 117 F.3d at 45--and the district

10 court here relied on that broad construction, see Noel, 2011

11 WL 6747466, at *7-8. However, the ADA is not without

12 limits, and limits are found in the Attorney General’s

13 regulations, which (as relevant here) emphasize that Title

14 II(A)’s prohibition on discrimination by public entities

15 does not compel public entities to police compliance by the

16 private entities they license. E.g., 28 C.F.R.

17 § 35.130(b)(6); see also ADA TAM II-3.7200. Moreover,

18 Reeves can hardly be distinguished on the ground that it is

19 incompatible with the Second Circuit’s broad reading of the

20 ADA; Reeves properly cites our decision in Innovative Health

21 Systems for that proposition. Reeves, 10 F. Supp. 2d at

22 1183.

23

20

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9291 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52917 of 2299

1

Plaintiffs also contend that this case is different

2 because the TLC’s control of the taxi industry is pervasive.

3 See N.Y.C. Charter § 2303(b); Statharos v. N.Y. City Taxi &

4 Limousine Comm’n, 198 F.3d 317, 321, 324 (2d Cir. 1999).

5 Pervasive control is significant, plaintiffs argue, because

6 it was the dispositive factor in Paxton v. State of West

7 Virginia Department of Tax & Revenue, 451 S.E. 2d 779 (W.

8 Va. 1994).

9

In Paxton, the West Virginia Supreme Court affirmed a

10 writ of mandamus compelling a lottery commission--a public

11 entity--to require all places that sell lottery tickets to

12 be accessible to persons with disabilities. Id. at 781,

13 786. The court noted that the lottery commission has

14 substantial control and regulatory authority over the

15 lottery, id. at 783-84, but that was not essential to the

16 decision. The crucial fact--which was held to distinguish

17 the lottery franchises from the liquor licenses in Tyler--

18 was that, “through its contract vendors the Lottery

19 Commission furnishes the lottery devices and services that

20 allow the licensee to conduct lottery sales.” Id. at 785.

21 Thus the lottery commission was not “only engaged in a

22 licensing arrangement,” but “provide[d] an aid, benefit or

23 service on a continuing basis to its licensee”; and that is

21

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9292 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52927 of 2299

1 the reason that the West Virginia Supreme Court held that

2 the commission was covered by Title II(A). Id. (“[T]he

3 lottery is the service provided by the Lottery Commission,

4 and it is this service that makes the Lottery Commission

5 subject to the ADA under 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1).”).6

6

We neither endorse nor challenge the reasoning of

7 Paxton. In any event, our case is a closer analog to Reeves

8 and Taylor, in which the public entity is merely the entity

9 charged with regulating and licensing private industry. The

10 TLC’s control over the taxi industry, however pervasive it

11 is at this time, does not make the private taxi industry “a

12 ‘program or activity’ of a public entity.” See ADA TAM II-

13 3.7200; accord 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(6).7 Accordingly, the

6 Reeves distinguished Paxton on this same basis: that Paxton “relied heavily on” the fact “that state statutes charged the Lottery Commission with operation of the state lottery on a continuous basis,” such that “the lottery is the service provided by the Lottery Commission.” Reeves, 10 F. Supp. 2d at 1187 (internal quotation marks omitted).
7 Plaintiffs’ “pervasive control” argument might have more force if the TLC failed to include accessible models on its list of vehicles that medallion holders can use as taxis. There is no showing, however, that the TLC inhibits the purchase of accessible medallions or vehicles that can be adapted for wheelchair access. In short, the ADA does not require a licensing entity to use its regulatory power to coerce compliance by a private industry.
Plaintiffs suggest that the Taxi-for-Tomorrow Initiative violates Title II(A) by effectively preventing medallion owners from using an accessible vehicle. Taxifor-Tomorrow, which is non-binding, “seeks to select the
22

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9293 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52937 of 2299

1 TLC does not violate the ADA by licensing and regulating a

2 private taxi industry that fails to afford meaningful access

3 to passengers with disabilities.

4

5

IV

6

None of the regulations cited by plaintiffs require a

7 different result.

8

Section 35.130(b)(1)(i) provides that “[a] public

9 entity, in providing any aid, benefit, or service, may not,

10 directly or through contractual, licensing, or other

11 arrangements, . . . [d]eny a qualified individual with a

12 disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from

13 the aid, benefit, or service” “on the basis of [that

14 individual’s] disability.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i).

15 This provision bars a public entity from discriminating by

16 refusing to issue a license to a person who has a disability

17 because of the disability; but the TLC denies that it

18 engages in any such discrimination, and Plaintiffs do not

next vehicle that will be used as the standard taxicab of New York.” Joint App’x 33. According to the record, a committee tentatively accepted the Nissan NV200. The current model of the NV200 is not accessible, but the model that would serve as the standard taxi is still being developed. Joint App’x 142. We decline to decide now issues that might arise in the future as the project goes forward.
23

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9294 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52947 of 2299

1 dispute the point. Moreover, to the extent that plaintiffs

2 argue that the “service” the TLC provides is the regulation

3 of the taxi industry, plaintiffs’ argument is the same

4 argument that was rejected in Tyler, where the plaintiff

5 pleaded inability to avail himself of the benefits of the

6 municipality’s physical inspections of non-accessible

7 facilities.

8

Plaintiffs also rely on 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i),

9 which prohibits a “public entity . . . , directly or through

10 contractual or other arrangements,” from “utiliz[ing]

11 criteria or methods of administration . . . [t]hat have the

12 effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities

13 to discrimination on the basis of disability.” This is

14 aimed at requirements that discriminate against people with

15 disabilities, such as when a public entity refuses to do

16 business with a person who has a disability. See, e.g., ADA

17 TAM II-3.7100, available at

18 http://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-3.7100 (last accessed June

19 20, 2012). Plaintiffs raise no such claim against the TLC.

20

Finally, plaintiffs argue that Section 35.130(b)(6)

21 (discussed at length above) governs their claim because it

22 (in part) prohibits “a public entity [from] establish[ing]

23 requirements for the programs or activities of licensees or

24

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9295 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52957 of 2299

1 certified entities that subject qualified individuals with

2 disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.”

3 An example of such discrimination would be denying licenses

4 to transportation companies that employ individuals with

5 disabilities, which causes discrimination against

6 prospective employees who are otherwise qualified. ADA TAM

7 II-3.7200. The TLC licensing scheme is distinguishable on

8 the elementary ground that it does not cause discrimination.

9

Instead, plaintiffs contend that the TLC violates the

10 ADA because it could require more taxis to be accessible,

11 but does not. The TLC’s licensing requirements do not

12 discriminate and do not cause anyone else to discriminate,

13 by licensing or otherwise. The TLC’s licenses do not bar

14 taxi owners from operating accessible vehicles. The only

15 medallions that specify whether the taxi must be accessible

16 specify that the taxi operated pursuant to that license be

17 accessible. No doubt, more such taxis would be on the

18 streets if the TLC required more of them to be accessible.

19 But the TLC’s failure to use its regulatory authority does

20 not amount to discrimination within the meaning of the ADA

21 or its regulations.

22

23

25

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9296 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52967 of 2299

1

V

2

It may be that there is a failure to provide meaningful

3 access to taxis for persons with disabilities. But if so,

4 it is a failure of the taxi industry in New York City.

5 Plaintiffs do not--and cannot--bring such a claim against

6 the taxi industry directly under Title III of the ADA (which

7 governs private entities), because Title III expressly

8 exempts taxi providers from purchasing or leasing 9 “accessible automobiles.” 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b).8

10

Plaintiffs assert their claim under Title II(A), but

11 Title III is instructive nevertheless. Plaintiffs contend

12 that the TLC violates the ADA because the industry it

13 pervasively regulates fails to afford meaningful access to

14 persons with disabilities. But since the taxi industry

15 itself is exempt, there is no underlying violation of the

16 ADA for the TLC to redress by regulation. The district

17 court, which has held that the TLC must increase the number

18 of handicap-accessible taxis, has thus run counter to the

8 If, however, “a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile, the vehicle is required to be accessible . . . .” 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). Nevertheless, because “[a] provider of taxi service is not required to purchase vehicles other than automobiles in order to have a number of accessible vehicles in its fleet,” a taxi provider is not obligated to purchase or lease vehicles accessible to persons with disabilities. Id.
26

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9297 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e5297 of 2299

1 policy choice of the political branches, which exempted the

2 taxi industry from the ADA.

3

This was a problem of which the district court was all

4 too aware. Discussing plaintiffs’ Title II(B) claim, the

5 district court observed:

6

Title III cannot be read as exempting taxicab

7

owners from any requirement that they purchase

8

wheelchair accessible automobiles, but at the same

9

time have intended that subtitle B of Title II

10

impose such a personal obligation based solely on

11

the extent of the control of the public regulatory

12

agency. The effect would be to impose an

13

obligation on those private owners under subtitle B

14

of Title II that Congress explicitly intended to

15

exempt under Title III. Congress had the same

16

power to require regulated private owners providing

17

taxi service to purchase wheelchair accessible

18

automobiles under Title III, and chose not to do

19

so.

20 Noel, 2011 WL 6747466, at *6.

21

That sound reasoning applies with equal force to

22 plaintiffs’ Title II(A) claim. If the TLC is required under

23 Title II(A) to ensure that the taxi industry provides a

24 sufficient number of accessible taxis, then private taxi

25 owners would be required to purchase or lease accessible

26 taxis even though the ADA explicitly exempts them from such

27 requirements. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). The exemption compels

28 the conclusion that the ADA, as a whole, does not require

29

27

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9298 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52987 of 2299

1 the New York City taxi industry to provide accessible 2 taxis.9

3

* * *

4

In sum, Title II(A) does not obligate the TLC to use

5 its licensing and regulatory authority over the New York

6 City taxi industry to require that taxi owners provide

7 meaningful access to taxis for persons with disabilities.

8 The district court therefore erred in granting summary

9 judgment for plaintiffs on their Title II(A) claim and in

10 entering a temporary injunction premised on that grant of

11 summary judgment. See Abrahams, 644 F.3d at 115 (holding

12 that “[a] district court abuses its discretion when it[,

13 inter alia,] rests its decision on an error of law”).

14

9 We reject plaintiffs’ argument that, in this case, Title II and Title III merely provide differing standards of obligations under the ADA and that, where standards differ, the standard providing the highest degree of access must be met. See ADA TAM II-1.3000, Illustration 3, available at http://www.ada.gov/taman2.html#II-1.3000 (last accessed June 20, 2012). It may be true, as the TAM example demonstrates, that when public and private entities form a joint venture to build a stadium, the stadium must comply with both Title II and Title III and, where the standards differ, the stadium must comply with the higher standard. But here, there is no joint venture. Nor do standards differ: the taxi industry is exempt from the ADA. If Title II(A) were construed to require indirectly that the taxi industry provide accessible vehicles, Title III’s exemption would be undone altogether.
28

CCaassee: 12:1-14-1cv-0D0o2c3u7m-GeBnDt: 12D9ocumPaegnet :9299 Fil0e6d/2086//22081/122 P6a4g9e52997 of 2299

1

CONCLUSION

2

Accordingly, the district court’s temporary injunction

3 is vacated. The case is remanded with instructions for the

4 district court to grant summary judgment to defendants on

5 the Title II(A) claim and for further proceedings consistent

6 with this opinion.

29

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

CHRISTOPHER NOEL, SIMI LINTON, UNITED SPINAL, a nonprofit organization, THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonprofit organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization
Plaintiffs,

'
INJUNCTIVE AND DECLARATORY RELIEF

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND

LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter

mandated agency, and DAVID YASSKY, in

his official capacity as chairman and

X

commissioner of the New York City Taxi

and Limousine Commission,

Defendants.

INTRODUCTION 1. This class action lawsuit challenges pervasive and ongoing discrimination by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("Taxi Commission") and Taxi Commission Chairman and Commissioner David Yassky (together "Defendants"), against residents of and visitors to New York City with mobility disabilities who need and want to use New York City medallion taxis. 2. Only 1.8% of the medallion taxis under the jurisdiction of the Taxi Commission are accessible to men, women, and children with mobility disabilities. As a result, neither disabled residents nor disabled tourists are able to hail a medallion taxi in the way that their nondisabled peers do.

3. The absence of medallion taxis that passengers can get into is an especially acute problem for mobility-disabled New Yorkers because most of the New York City subway system lacks elevators and is otherwise unusable by people with disabilities.
4. More than 1.6 million New Yorkers have some type of disability and approximately 60,000 are wheelchair-users. In addition, New York City's growing elderly population includes many residents who now rely on wheelchairs to move about the city.
5. Without an accessible medallion taxi, New Yorkers and visitors with mobility disabilities are deprived of all that New York City offers - going to work, to school, visiting family and fi-iends, and attending educational, cultural, entertainment and political events.
6 . The New York City medallion taxi fleet has been overwhelmingly inaccessible for years.
7. Each day, countless New Yorkers with mobility disabilities are excluded from participating in city life because the city's dearth of accessible medallion taxis leaves them with no practical means to travel from one location to another.
8. The failure of the Taxi Commission to make its fleet of medallion taxis accessible has many serious negative financial consequences. Inaccessible medallion taxis hurt the public, the business community, and the taxpayers. The failure discourages conventions and conferences from coming to New York City, and prevents people from patronizing businesses of all kinds.
9. The Taxi Commission's perpetuation of an inaccessible medallion taxi fleet also forces disabled men, women, children, and seniors to utilize inferior alternatives such as paratransit, which is far less convenient and far more expensive to taxpayers than making accessible taxis available.
10. Recently, the Taxi Commission has made policy decisions which have resulted in a medallion taxi fleet which is even more unusable by disabled men and

women than it was previously. Defendants have made the policy decision to approve for use as medallion taxis sport utility vehicles ("SUV"), which are too high for wheelchairusers to enter, and hybrids, which have trunks too small to accommodate even a folding wheelchair.
11. Although the Taxi Commission's recent Taxi of Tomorrow initiative is intended to select the next vehicle that will be used as the standard taxicab of New York, this initiative is non-binding, subject to present and hture political considerations, provides no guarantee that the Taxi Commission will select a vehicle which is accessible, * and the Taxi Commission can change its plans about this initiative at any time.
JURISDICTION 12. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. 8 794, et seq., Title I1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. 8 12131, et seq.,
and the New York City Human Rights Law ('NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code $8-101 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $8 1331 and 1343.
13. This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $82201 and 2202.
VENUE
14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 8 1391(b), venue is proper in the District in which
this Complaint is filed, because Defendants are located within this District, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District, and the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this District.
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Christopher Noel is a resident of New York City with a mobility disability that causes him to rely on a wheelchair. He is a qualified individual with a

disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes and a member of the proposed class.
16. Mr. Noel is employed as outreach manager for a healthcare benefits advising non-profit in New York City. On a daily basis, his job requires him to travel to various appointments around the city, making presentations to different groups and consulting one-on-one with individuals. Because he cannot rely on accessible medallion taxis to travel to different parts of the city within any given workday, he must rely on buses and paratransit, which involve extended waits and indirect routes, making his workday much less convenient and far less efficient than it would be if he had ready access to medallion taxis. On more than one occasion, he has hailed an accessible medallion taxi, only to discover that the folding ramp in the cab was bolted shut and the purported accessible medallion taxi could not function as an accessible medallion taxi at all.
17. Mr. Noel is otherwise qualified to participate in the program, service, and/or activity offered by Defendants and is being excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, and subjected to discrimination under the program, service, and/or activity of public transportation through demand responsive service, as operated and overseen by Defendants, solely by reason of his disability.
18. Plaintiff Simi Linton, Ph.D. is a resident of New York City with a mobility disability that causes her to rely on a power wheelchair. She is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes and a member of the proposed class.
19. Dr. Linton is a filmmaker, writer, and consultant who works primarily in New York City. She often travels throughout the city for work, social, and speaking engagements, as well as for doctors' appointments. Because of how difficult it is to obtain an accessible taxi, Dr. Linton must rely on either the bus system, which is slow

and unreliable, or a private transportation company, which typically charges more than double the price that a taxi would cost.
20. Dr. Linton, a lifelong New Yorker, has attempted to hail taxis on numerous occasions over the years, but has only succeeded in hailing an accessible taxi twice. She regularly experiences taxis that see her wheelchair and pass her by, and also experiences problems due to taxi drivers who are inexperienced with the access features of their vehicle.
21. Dr. Linton is otherwise qualified to participate in the program, service, andlor activity offered by Defendants and is being excluded fiom participation in, denied the benefits of and subjected to discrimination under, the program, service, andlor activity of public transportation through demand responsive service, as operated and overseen by Defendants, solely by reason of her disability.
22. Plaintiff United Spinal Association ("United Spinal") is a national disability rights and veterans service organizations founded in 1946. It is a New York based notfor-profit organization that seeks to advance the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities, including those who require transportation services that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
23. United Spinal currently has approximately 12,000 members nationwide. Approximately 900 members of United Spinal reside in New York City and many more visit New York City on a regular basis. Many such members are having diEculty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis because, by virtue of the acts andlor omissions of Defendants alleged herein, they cannot effectively obtain an accessible taxi.
24. The mission of United Spinal is to provide and create access to resources, enabling people with spinal cord injuries to hlfill their potential as active members of their communities. United Spinal drafted significant portions of the ADA and continues to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities through state and federal legislation, the courts, grassroots advocacy, and education.

25. United Spinal currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect people with disabilities in New York City. The comprehensive services offered by United Spinal include: providing assistance to veterans navigating benefit programs; funding spinal cord research and education; organizing the largest annual spinal cord disabilities conference in the country; advocating for the civil rights of its members; keeping members informed of legislative and advocacy issues; providing technical assistance and repair programs to wheelchairusers; and advocating for accessible travel.
26. United Spinal itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants actions and omissions as alleged herein. United Spinal's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituentswho are harmed by Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices. United Spinal has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and fixstration of its mission.
27. In addition, one or more members of United Spinal have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right.
28. United Spinal can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to United Spinal's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
29. Plaintiff The Taxis for All Campaign ("Taxis for All") is a coalition of disability rights organizations and individuals in New York City dedicated to the goal of having all yellow medallion taxis be wheelchair accessible. The member groups of the Taxis for All campaign include the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York, Disabilities Network of New York City, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, 504 Democratic Club, New York Lawyers for the Public

Interest, New York City Chapter, National Multiple Sclerosis Society and United Spinal Association.
30. Taxis for All was founded in 1996 in New York City by disability rights advocates in New York City who were fmstrated by the inaccessibility of New York City medallion taxis and the inability of people with disabilities to get around in the city. For the past 14 years Taxis for All has and continues to expend substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning transportation difficulties faced by people with disabilities. Their efforts include lobbying for legislative solutions, raising awareness, and organizing roll-in demonstrations at taxi stands to protest the inaccessibility of New York City taxis.
31. Taxis for all itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants actions and omissions as alleged herein. Taxis for All's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices.
32. In addition, one or more members of Taxis for All have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. Taxis for All can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to its purpose.
33. Plaintiff 504 Democratic Club ("Democrats 504") is a New York Citybased coalition of Democrats working towards inclusion of people with disabilities in the political and social fabric of society and was founded in 1983.
34. Democrats 504 has approximately 350 members who are from all five boroughs, and include a diverse group of people with disabilities, public officials, friends and family who support the concepts set forth in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Many of these members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis because, by virtue of the acts andor omissions of Defendants alleged herein, they cannot effectively obtain an accessible medallion taxi.

35. Democrats 504 currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect people with disabilities in New York City. Over the years, Democrats 504 has provided the leadership for starting many community activities. These activities include the Disability Independence Day March, held on the anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the annual Disability Budget and Policy Agenda, and advocacy work on behalf of city employees with disabilities. Democrats 504 participated in the founding of, and provides much of the leadership for the Taxis for All Campaign, dedicated to bringing wheelchairaccessible taxis and liveries to New York City.
36. Democrats 504 itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. Democrats 504's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' policies and practices. Democrats 504 has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
37. In addition, one or more members of Democrats 504 have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. Democrats 504 can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to Democrat 504's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
38. Plaintiff Disabled In Action ("DIP), founded in 1970, is a nonprofit civil rights membership organization committed to ending discrimination against people with all disabilities.
39. DIA consists primarily of, and is directed by, people with disabilities. DIA's members include residents with disabilities throughout New York City. Many of DIA's members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion

taxis because, by virtue of the acts andlor omissions of Defendants alleged herein, they cannot effectively obtain an accessible medallion taxi.
40. DIA's objectives include promoting the ability of persons with disabilities to live independently. To that end, DIA works for the passage of laws that affirm and defend the rights of people with disabilities. In addition, DIA works to educate government officials, community leaders and the general public about disability issues and plans and participates in public demonstrations to draw attention to these issues.
41. DIA has and continues to expend substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect disabled residents of New York City. For instance, DIA advocated for passage of Local Law 58, the 1987 NYC Building Code amendment requiring that all commercial and residential buildings include accessible features in common areas and dwelling units when newly constructed or renovated. DIA also has participated in legal actions against New York City for its holding a public Town Hall meeting at an inaccessible site, against the federal government for noncompliance with the ADA at fifteen federal courthouses in New York City, against the New York City Human Rights Commission for failure to provide written material in alternate formats, and against the New York City MTA for not operating Access-A-Ride in compliance with the ADA.
42. DIA itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as discussed herein. DIA's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' policies and practices. DIA has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
43. In addition, one or more members of DIA have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. DIA can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to DIA's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief

are requested, which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
44. Defendant New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission is a city agency established in 1971 by the New York City Charter ("Charter"). NY City Charter $2300.
45. The Taxi Commission is run by a nine-member commission, and one of the nine members is designated as the chairman and chief executive officer. Id. $ 2301(a) and (c).
46. The purpose of the Taxi Commission is the "continuance, further development and improvement of taxi and limousine service in the city of New York."
NY City Charter 9 2300.
47. The Charter further defines the purpose of the Taxi Commission as "consonant with the promotion and protection of the public comfort and convenience to
adopt and establish an overall public transportation policy governing taxi . . . services as
it relates to the overall public transportation network of the city; to establish certain rates, standards of service, standards of insurance and minimum coverage; standards for driver safety, standards for equipment safety and design; standards for noise and air pollution; and to set standards and criteria for the licensing of vehicles, drivers and chauffeurs, owners and operators engaged in such services." NY City Charter $ 2300.
48. The Taxi Commission's jurisdiction also extends to regulating and supervising "transportation of persons by licensed vehicles for hire in the city" over rates of fare, standards, and conditions of service. NY City Charter $ 2303(b)(a).
49. The Taxi Commission is a "public entity" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. $ 12131.
50. Defendant David Yassky, sued here in his official capacity, is Chairman and Commissioner of the Taxi Commission and is thus responsible for, and a participant in, the actions andlor omissions of the Taxi Commission.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 
 51. New York City has more taxis than any major American city, with nearly 43 medallion taxis per square mile. 52. Only 1.8% of New York City's medallion taxis are accessible to wheelchair-users.
Readily available transportation by taxi is critical in New York City 53. Access to medallion taxis is essential to life in New York City. Medallion taxis enable both residents of and visitors to New York City to function productively in a fast-paced city and to quickly travel to and from home, school, work and to cultural and social outings, and more. 54. Medallion taxis are particularly important for wheelchair-users because these residents and visitors have the most limited access to other transportation options such as the subway, private automobiles, and bus systems. 55. Most of New York City's subway is inaccessible to users with mobility disabilities. Elevators are frequently out of service, even at the subway stops that are theoretically accessible. The lack of other transportation options increases disabled New Yorkers' need to rely on medallion taxis for accessible transportation. 56. On June 27, 2010, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA") eliminated many city bus routes which further limited transportation options for many New Yorkers who use wheelchairs. 57. Access-A-Ride, the local paratransit service, is a time-consuming and inefficient means by which to travel. 58. Access-A-Ride service is also currently being reduced by the MTA. 59. The diminished capacity of Access-A-Ride firther exacerbates the need that wheelchair-users have for accessible taxis. \\ \\

Defendants' service and activitv offered to New York Citv residents 60. Defendants offer a program, service, andlor activity to New York City residents and visitors by providing public transportation through demand responsive service in the form of medallion taxis. 61. The Taxi Commission sets policy regarding the types and characteristics of vehicles that are used to provide demand responsive public transportation in New York City. 62. The Taxi Commission has jurisdiction over "the development and
effectuation of a broad public policy of transportation . . . as it relates to forms of public
transportation in the city, including innovations and experimentation in relation to type and design of equipment, modes of service and manner of operation." NY City Charter $ 2303(b)(9).
63. The Taxi Commission also has jurisdiction over "assistance to the business community and industry of public transportation affected by this chapter in aid of continuation, development and improvement of service and the safety and convenience of the public, including assistance in securing federal and state grants." NY City Charter $ 2303(b)(10).
64. Under the Taxi Commissions authority to develop and effectuate broad public policy standards for transportation, the agency promulgates many aspects of public transportation through demand responsive service.
65. The Taxi Commission controls how many medallions are issued and at what price, thereby controlling the number of taxis that are in service.
66. Medallions must be purchased through an auction and can cost as much as $825,000 each.
67. The Taxi Commission sets safety and emissions standards for vehicles approved as taxis. The Taxi Commission also performs vehicle inspections on each

vehicle three times each year. If a vehicle does not pass this inspection, it faces sanctions fiom the Taxi Commission
68. The Taxi Commission decides which vehicles are allowed to operate as medallion taxis in New York City.
69. By deciding which vehicles it approves as taxis, the Taxi Commission sets public policy regarding the characteristics of the city's medallion taxi fleet.
70. By determining the type of vehicles allowed in circulation, the Taxi Commission determines whether or not the vehicles are accessible.
71. Only three of the 16 types of cars, vans and SUVs which the Taxi Commission allows on the road as medallion taxis are wheelchair accessible.
72. Of the 13,237 medallion taxis in New York City, only 240 or 1.8%, have a ramp or lift to make them accessible by wheelchair-users.
73. Defendants have known for years that New York City residents and visitors with mobility disabilities experience extreme difficulty getting accessible medallion taxis when they need them.
74. Defendants continue to allow the use of inaccessible medallion taxis which results in men, women, and children with disabilities being denied the benefit of and access to the service of public transportation through demand responsive service in the form of medallion taxis.
75. It is difficult, if not impossible, for people with disabilities to utilize the few accessible cabs because the chances of finding an accessible taxi to hail are very low, given the low number in circulation.
76. The Taxi Commission has approved two recent policy changes regarding its taxi fleet that have made it more difficult for those with disabilities to access taxis, thus making the taxi fleet overall less accessible.
77. The Taxi Commission has permitted replacing the Ford Crown Victoria sedans that have been used as taxis for many years with hybrid vehicles and SUVs.

78. Both the approved hybrids and SUVs pose new access barriers that were not present with the Crown Victorias.
79. Trunk space in hybrids is typically much smaller than the trunk space in Ford Crown Victorias, and many folding wheelchairs do not fit into the trunk of hybrid sedans approved by the Taxi Commission.
80. The SUVs that the Taxi Commission has approved as taxi vehicles are less accessible to many disabled people than the Crown Victoria. The difference in seat height of the newly approved SUVs (as comparable to Crown Victorias) prevents an individual from transferring fiom his or her wheelchair to a higher taxi seat.
81. The higher seats on the newly approved SUVs are too high for someone trying to make a lateral transfer from wheelchair to taxi seat to do so independently or safely.
82. Men, women and children who use wheelchairs have a particular need for door-to-door public transportation through demand responsive service during bad weather. Precipitation can destroy the delicate electrical systems that power motorized wheelchair-users, so individuals using this type of equipment cannot be out in the elements the way an ambulatory person can.
83. The accumulation of snow, ice, and rain along sidewalks or in c u b cuts makes it difficult, if not impossible, for wheelchairs to travel along the sidewalks.
84. Many people with mobility disabilities also have safety concerns about traveling alone or certain distances or at night, making them more likely to need a taxi than their nondisabled peers.
The Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative 85. In 2007, The Department of Citywide Administrative Service introduced the Taxi of Tomorrow initiative. This initiative seeks to select the next vehicle that will be used as the standard taxicab of New York.

86. The Taxi of Tomorrow political initiative is non-binding. There is no guarantee that the Taxi Commission will actually do anything, and the Taxi Commission can change its plans about this initiative at any time.
87. In particular, any purported commitment to accessibility with respect to the Taxi of Tomorrow is non-binding.
88. The Taxi of Tomorrow initiative is considering the folJowing criteria for selecting this taxi: safety; passenger experience; driver comfort and amenities; purchase price and ongoing maintenance and repair costs; environmental impact throughout the vehicle's life cycle; physical footprint (interior room); wheelchair access; and "iconic design" that will identifl the new taxi with New York City.
89. The Taxi of Tomorrow has announced three vehicles that are finalists for the vehicle that will be selected for the next New York taxi.
90. Two of the three finalist vehicles are inaccessible, and if mandated, would result in a fleet of inaccessible vehicles.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 91. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated and all residents in and visitors to New York City with mobility disabilities who have been and are currently being discriminated against by Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. The class the named Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all people with mobility disabilities who need and want to use New York City medallion taxis. 92. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court. 93. Data fiom the United States Census conducted in 2000 indicate that more

than 1.6 million residents over the age of 21 in New York City self-identify as having a disability. Such data further show that more than 220,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a sensory disability, which includes visual disabilities, and more than 588,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a physical disability, which includes mobility disabilities.
94. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented, in that Plaintiffs' members and individuals in the class will continue to be denied access to medallion taxis.
95. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including the question of whether Defendants' failure to provide an accessible public transportation through demand responsive service violates the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, ADA and the NYCHRL and discriminates against individuals with disabilities.
96. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, or their members, are typical and are not in conflict with the interests of the class as a whole. Defendants' course of conduct and violation of the law as alleged herein has caused Plaintiffs and class members to be deprived of the opportunity to effectively utilize Defendant's program, service andlor activity. Therefore, all class members will suffer the same or similar injuries for the purposes of ths injunctive and declaratory relief sought. Plaintiffs' claims are thereby representative of and co-extensive with the claims of the class.
97. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they andlor their members do not have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and will prosecute the case vigorously on behalf of the class.
98. The attorneys representing the class are experienced both in disability law and in class action institutional litigation. Counsel representing the plaintiff class is qualified to fully prosecute this litigation and possesses adequate resources to see this matter through to resolution. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.

99. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION THE REHABILITATIONACT OF 1973,29
U.S.C. 6 794, ET SEQ.
100. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
101. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "no otherwise qualified
individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of his or her
disability, be excluded fi-om the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
29 U.S.C. 5 794(a).
102. An "individual with a disability" is defined under the statute, in pertinent part, as "an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits
one or more major life activities of such individual." 29 U.S.C. 8 705(20)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 5 12102). "Otherwise qualified" means a person who meets the
essential eligibility requirements for participation in, or receipt of benefits fi-om, that
program or activity. 28 C.F.R. 5 39.103.
103. Plaintiffs members include, and Plaintiff represents, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the applicable statutes. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified to participate in the program or activity of public transportation through demand responsive service, in the form of medallion taxis, offered by Defendants.

104. The Taxi Commission has jurisdiction over "assistance to the business community and industry of public transportation affected by this chapter in aid of continuation, development and improvement of service and the safety and convenience of the public, including assistance in securing federal and state grants." NY City Charter $ 2303(b)(10).
105. Upon information and belief, Defendants' program or activity of providing public transportation through demand responsive service in the form of medallion taxis, has received substantial federal financial assistance.
106. The term "discrimination" as defined by Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act includes the failure of a public entity operating a demand responsive system "to purchase or lease a new vehicle for use on such system, for which a solicitation is made after the 3othday following July 26, 1990, that is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless such system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service such system provides to individuals without disabilities." 42 U.S.C. $ 12144.
107. Defendants do not provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities and are excluding persons with mobility disabilities fiom participating in and receiving the benefits of the program or activity of public transportation through demand responsive service in the form of medallion taxis.
108. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief herein is granted, Plaintiffs and their members will suffer irreparable harm in that they will

continue to be discriminated against and denied access to the program or activity operated and overseen by Defendants.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,
42 U.S.C. 6 12131, ET SEQ.
109. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
110. Title I1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 5
12132, provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."
111. The term "disability" includes physical and mental impairments that
substantially limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. 5 12102(2). The named
Plaintiffs, members of Organizational Plaintiffs, and the class Plaintiffs seeks to represent are people who have mobility disabilities that substantially limit the major life activities of walking, standing, andlor moving about in their communities without mobility aids. Thus, Plaintiffs' members are, or Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with
disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 5 12102,42 U.S.C. 5 12131, and 28 C.F.R. 5
112. A "public entity" includes state and local governments, their agencies, and
their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. 5 1213l(1). Defendant qualifies as a public entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 5 12131 and 28 C.F.R. 5 35.104.
113. The term "designated public transportation" includes transportation by bus,

rail, or any other conveyance that provides the general public with general or special service on a regular and continuing basis. 42 U.S.C. $ 12141(2). New York City's medallion taxis provide service to the general public and operate on a regular and continuing basis and thus falls within the definition of "designated public transportation."
114. The term "demand responsive system" includes any system of providing
designated public transportation which is not a fixed route system. 42 U.S.C. 5 1214l(1).
"Fixed route system" is defined as a system of providing designated public transportation on which a vehicle is operated along a prescribed route according to a fixed schedule. 42 U.S.C. $ 12141(3). New York City's medallion taxis do not operate along a prescribed route according to a fixed system and so are properly considered a demand responsive system under 42 U.S.C. $ 12141(1).
115. The term "discrimination" within the meaning of 42 U.S .C. $ 12132 includes the failure of a public entity operating a demand responsive system tc3 purchase or lease a new vehicle for use on such system, for which a solicitation is made after the 3oth day following July 26, 1990, that is not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless such system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service such system provides to individuals without disabilities. 42 U.S.C. $ 12144.
116. Congress authorized the United States Department of Transportation to promulgate regulations interpreting the ADA. 42 U.S.C. $ 12149. One of these regulations, codified at 49 C.F.R. $ 37.77, defines the provision of "equivalent service" in a demand responsive system. The provision of equivalent service is defined as when the

service available to individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, is provided in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of the individual and is equivalent to the service provided other individuals with respect to the following service characteristics: response time; fares; geographic area of service; hours and days of service; restrictions or priorities based on trip purpose; availability of information and reservations capability; and any constraints on capacity or service availability.
117. The Taxi Commission does not provide "equivalent service" to riders with
disabilities and is in violation of both 49 C.F.R. 5 37.77 and 42 U.S.C. 5 12144.
118. Defendants have entered into contractual andlor other arrangements with private entities to operate demand responsive service within New York City and has failed to ensure that the private entities meet the requirements under the ADA that would apply to Defendants if Defendants provided the service directly, in violation of 49 C.F.R. 537.23.
119. Congress directed the Department of Justice ("DOJ") to write regulations
implementing Title II's prohibition against discrimination. 42 U.S.C. 5 12134. Pursuant
to this mandate, the DOJ has issued regulations defining the forms of discrimination
prohibited by Title I1 of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. 5 35.101 et. seq.
120. Defendants, through contractual, licensing andlor other arrangements and relationships, are currently denying qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the transportation services provided by Defendants and is otherwise limiting qualified individuals with disabilities in the enjoyment of rights, privileges, advantages, andlor opportunities enjoyed by others receiving those aids,

benefits or services, in violation of 28 C.F.R $35.130(b)(l)(i) and 28 C.F.R. $35.130(b)(l)(vii)
121. By making the policy decision to maintain a taxi fleet which is 98.2% inaccessible to men, women and children with disabilities Defendants deny qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in a service, program, or activity that is not separate or different in violation of 28 C.F.R. $35.130(b)(2).
122. Defendants, directly andlor through contractual or other arrangements utilize criteria and/or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disability, in violation of 28 C.F.R. $ 35.130(b)(3)(i).
123. Defendants have failed to make necessary reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of 28 C.F.R. $35.130(b)(7).
124. Defendants' acts and omissions alleged herein are in violation of the equal access to transportation requirements set forth in Title I1 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 8 12131, et. seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder,
and constitute discrimination on the basis of disability against Plaintiffs and class members.
125. Defendants' conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the ADA and unless restrained from doing so, defendants will continue to violate said law.
126. The actions and/or inactions of Defendants as alleged herein discriminate against Plaintiffs and class members because of their disabilities by excluding them fiom accessing and utilizing the services, programs andlor activities offered by Defendants.

127. Plaintiffs class has no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief requested herein is granted, Plaintiffs members and the class that Plaintiff seeks to represent will suffer irreparable harm in that they will continue to be discriminated against and denied access to the programs, services, and activities operated and overseen by Defendants. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to section 203 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. $12133, and attorney's fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY
HUMAN RIGHTS LAW, N.Y.C ADMIN. CODE 6 8-101 ET. SEQ.
128. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
129. The NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code 5 8-107(4)(a), provides that "[ilt
shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public
accommodationbecause of the actual or perceived . . . disability . . . status of any person
directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the
accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof. . ."
130. The term "person" includes governmental bodies or agencies. N.Y.C.
Admin. Code 5 8-102(1). The Taxi Commission is a governmental body or agency and thus Defendants qualify as a person within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin. Code 5 8-
102(1). 131. The term "place or provider of public accommodation" includes providers,
whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are

extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available. N.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-1O2(9). Medallion taxi service constitutes a public accommodation as it is a service, accommodation, advantage, or privilege offered to the general public and thus falls within the meaning of N.Y.C. Admin Code tj 8-102(9).
132. The NYCHR1; additionally requires that any person prohibited fiom discriminating under Section 8-107 on the basis of disability "shall make reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to "enjoy the right or rights in question provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the covered entity." N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-107(15). The term "covered entity" is defined as a person required to comply with any provision of Section 8-107 which includes Defendants under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).
133. Defendants' policies and practices serve to directly and indirectly refuse, withhold fiom and/or deny people with mobility disabilities access to the public accommodation of medallion taxi service in violation of N.Y.C. Admin. Code fj8107(4)(a).
134. The Taxi Commission qualifies as a covered entity and must make the reasonable accommodations necessary to allow people with mobility disabilities to enjoy the right of access to the public accommodation of medallion taxi service as required by N.Y.C. Admin. Code 8-107(15).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 135. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.

136. Plaintiff contends that Defendants have failed and are failing to comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. $ 794, et seq., Title I1 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. $ 12131 et seq., and the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Adrnin. Code $8-101 et. seq.
137. Defendants disagree with Plaintiffs' contention. 138. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly. 139. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
Plaintiff prays for judgment as follows, including but not limited to: A. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' acts and practices as alleged herein violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; B. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' acts and practices as alleged herein violate the Americans with Disabilities Act; C. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' acts and practices as alleged herein violate the New York City Human Rights Law. D. For injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to violate the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law through the policies and practices alleged herein; E. An award of Plaintiffs reasonable attorney's fees and costs; and F. Such other and hrther relief as the Court may deemjust and proper.
\\ \\ \\ \\

Dated: New York, NY January 12,2011

DISABILITY,FUGHTS ADVOCATES

By:

ity Rights ~dvocates'

roadway. 10th Floor
h e w kork. NY 10036 


~ e l e ~ h o n e l (212) 644-8644 


Facsimile: (212) 644-8636 


Email:

general@dralegal.org

SID WOLINSKY (CA Bar No. 33716)"

REBECCA S. WILLIFORD (CA Bar No. 269977)*

KARA J. WERNER (CA Bar No. 274762)"

Disability Rights Advocates

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor 


Berkeley, CA 94704 


Telephone: (510) 665-8644 


Facsimile: (510) 665-8511 


TTY:

(510) 665-8716 


Email:

general@,draleaal.org

"Motions for admissionpro hac vice pending

ALLEGRA L. FISHEL (AF 4866)

MOLLY A. BROOKS (MB 2360)

DANA SUSSMAN (DS 3915)

Outten and G o l d eL~L~P

3 Park Avenue, 29 Floor

New York, NY 10016 


Telephone: (212) 245-1000 


Facsimile: (212) 977-4005 


Email:

afishel@,outtenrrolden.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

 </s> UN ITE D STATES DISTRI C T COU RT SOUTH ERN DI ST RI CT OF NEW YORK - -- --- -------------- - -- - - --- ---- - - - - X

CHRISTOPHER NOEL, SlMl LINTON, UNITED SPINAL, a nonprofit organization, THE TAXIS
FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonpro fit organization,
DISABLED IN ACTION , a nonprofit o rgani zation,
P laint iffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

-against-

II Civ. 237 (GBD)

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUS INE COMM ISS ION, a charter mandated agency, and DAV ID YASSKY, in his ofli cial capacity as chaimlan and commissioner orthe New York C ity Taxi Comm ission,

Defendants. ---- ---- ---- -- -- - -- -- -- ---- ---- -- -- - X GEORG E B. DANIE LS, District Judge:

Plaintiffs Chri stopher Noel and Simi Linton, each disabled individuals w ho require

the usc of whee lchairs, and United Spinal , The Taxis for All Campaign. 504 Democratic

Club, and Disab led in Action, each nonprofi t organizations, (coll ecti ve ly. "Plainti ITs")

bring Ihi s civil rights class action against the New York City Taxi and Lim ousine

Commission ("NYCTLC") and David Yassky, in his officia l capac ity as chaimlan and

commissi oner of the NYCTLC (co llectively, the "TLC"). Pl ainti ffs allege that the TLC is

violat ing Title II, subtitle A oflhe Ameri cans with Di sabili ti es Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §

12132, Title II, subtitle B of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12 144, Seetion 504 of the

Rehabil itation Aet of 1973, 29 U.S.c. 794 et seq., and the New York Ci ty Human Rights

Law (" NYCI-IRL") , N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101 el seq. Plaimiffs claim that the lack or

wheelchair access ible taxicabs are a result of the TLC's po licies and regulations and thus,

the TLC denies disab led persons, w ho use wheelchai rs and scooters and res ide in or visit

New York City, the opportunity to use and benefit from the ew York City taxicab system.
Plaintiffs move for summary judgment that the TLC is liable for violating Title II , subtitle A and subtitl e B of the ADA. The Uni ted States filed a statement of interest in this litigation in support of Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment that the TLC violates Title II, subtitle B of the ADA . The TLC cross-moves for summary judgment dismissing all of Plaintiffs' claims on the grounds that it does not vio late any of the applicable requirements of Title 11 of the ADA.
Plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgmen t on their Tit le II, subt itle B claim is denied. The TLC's cross-motion for summary judgment on its Title 11, subt itl e B claim is granted. The TLC's cross-mot ion fo r summary judgment on its Title II, subtit le A, Rehabilitation Act , and NYC HRL claims is denied.
Plaintiffs ' motion for summary judgment on their Title II, subtitle A claim is granted . The TLC subjects disabled persons who must use wheelchairs and scooters to discrimination in vio lation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. As a direct result of the TLC's policies and regulations, those disabled persons are not provided meaningful access to the benefits of New York City taxicab scrvicc. Background
Street hail taxicab service provides a valuable benefit to numerous individuals who
visit, li ve or work in Ncw York City. Declaration of Julia M. Pinover in Support of
Pl aintiffs' Mot ion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Pinovcr Decl."), Ex. C. (Chhabra Tr.) at 169: 15-23,222: 4-14. Taxicabs provide readi ly available on-demand transportation for passengers to trave l to and from jobs, school, political events, doctors, recreation , and
2

appointments. Taxicabs allow for spontaneity in door to door travel, and fo r unplanned or unanticipated trips. Declaration of Susan Dooha In Support of Plaint iffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (<<Dooha Decl.") · II, 20, 22; Decl aration of Christopher Noel In Support of Plaintirrs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment ("Noel Dec!.") ~'16·7; Dec laration of Simi Linton Ln Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partia l Summary Judgment ("Linton Oed") ~ 5, 12, 16. Tax icabs in New York City curren tly may only provide street hail response taxicab service ifissued a medallion by the TLC. Pinover Oed. Ex. C (Chhabra Tr.) at 53: 16-54: 12.
The TLC is an administrative body established by the New York C ity Charter which is a part of the government of the City o f New York under the Deputy Mayor for Operations. 65 N.Y.C. Charter §§ 2300. Pursuant to the Charter and local law, the TLC regu lates the pri vatc taxicab industry in New Yo rk City through a li ccnsing scheme whereby taxicab owners and drivers obtain licenses from the TLC, and as a condition of
licensure, must comply with appl icab le laws and regulations. .til §§ 2300, 2303; New
York Ci ty Admin is trati ve Code ("Admin. Code") § 19·504. Under the C ity Charter, the TLC "set[s] standards and cri teria fo r the li censing of
vehicles," "adjudicates charges of violation of the provisions o f the adm inistrati ve code and ru les," and establ ishes "requ irements of standards, safety, and design, com fort , convenience, noise, and air pollution contro l and eCficiency:' Pinover Decl., Ex. I (City Charter) at 65 N.Y,C. Charter §§ 2300, 2303. The TLC is also charged wi th the "deve lopment and effectuation of a broad pub li c policy of transportation ," Pinover Oed Ex. 1. (City Chaner) 65 N.Y.C. Chaner §§ 2300. 2303.
3

The number of medallions that the TLC can li cense is currentl y limited by law to
13,237. 65 N. V.C. City Charter § 2303(b) ; Declaration ofTLe Deputy Commissioner
Ashwini Chhabra ("Chhabra Decl.") 7 1. Of those, at least 231 must be must be wheelchair accessible. Id . at 20. The TLC thus issues that limited number of wheelchair accessible medallions, whi ch require, as a condition of its use, that the owner of the medalli on obtain and utilize a wheelchair accessible vehicle in providing taxicab service. Id. at ~ 20; Pinover DecL, Ex. A at 2. Taxicab medallion owners can elect to purchase and utilize a wheelchair accessible taxicab even if they do not have an accessible medallion.) Pinover Decl., Ex . C (Chhabra Tr.) at 52:24·53:6.
The TLC does not own, lease o r operate tax icab vehi cles. Chhabra Decl. at 19. However, the TLC regulations establish the exact spec ifications fo r vehicles that may serve as taxicabs. Pinover Decl., Ex . J (TLC Rul es) at 35 R.C.N.V. § 67·05. 1 (201 1). The TLC has created an approved li st vehicles wh ich TLC has verified as meeting the relevant speci fi cations. Id . Of those vehicles, only two are wheelchair accessible. See Transcript of November 22, 201 1 Oral Argument at 44: 2 1·25.
Current ly only 233 of the 13, 237 medallion taxicabs in New York C it y are wheelchair accessible. C hhabra Dec!. 20. Thus, only 1.8% of the medalli o n taxicab neet is wheelchair accessible and over 98% is inaccessible. Pinover Decl ., Ex . E at 4; Pinover Decl., Ex. C. (Chhabra Tr.) at 70:16·22. As a result, availability is scarce, and wait times for wheelchair accessible taxicabs are much higher than wait times for non·accessib le taxicabs . Declaratio n of Doug Kruse in Support of Plai ntiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (" Kruse DecL") 12. A non-disabled person is over twent y- li ve (25) limes
) New legislation recently passed increasing the number of (axicab medallions ava ilable for licensing and sale by the TLC.
4

more likely to hail a taxicab within ten minutes than is a person who uses a wheelchair. Id. The likelihood of successfully hailing any taxicab in Manhattan within 10 minutes is 87.33%, whereas the likelihood of hailing a handicap accessible cab is 3.31 %. Kruse Dec l.
14. The TLC has taken no steps to require. promote, or provide a financial incentive to
non-accessible medallion owners to purchase accessiblc vehicles. Pinover Oecl.. Ex . C (Chhabra Tr.) at 61:22-62:6; 63:7-13, 83:20-24. The TLC admits that there is no reason why the TLC could not effectuate an increase in wheelchair accessiblc taxicabs. Id. at 55: 12-15. Thc TLC is in thc proccss of planning a Mcdallion Taxicab Wheelchair Accessible Di spatch Program. Chhabra Oed. 30. Under that program, passcngers will be able to call31 1 and be connected to a dispatcher who will be ab le to detennine thc closest wheelchair accessible taxicab and dispatch that taxicab to thc passengcr's location. Jd. 35. Thc cxact date on which this program will be avai lable, and the associated response timcs for taxi dispatch are not yct known . !Q" . 3 t , 47 . Summary Jud gmenl Siand ard
Summary judgment is appropriate where the evidence, viewed in the light mosl favorable to the non-moving pany, shows "that there is no genui nc issue as to any material fac t and that thc moving party is entitled to ajudgmellt as a matter of law," Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Vaeold. L.L.C. v. Cerami, 545 F. 3d 114, 121 (2d Cir. 2008). The burden rests upon the moving party to show that there is no genuinc issue of material fact. Sec Cclotex Com. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). A fact is "material" only wherc it will affect thc outcome of the sui t under goveming law. Anderson v. Libeny Lobby. inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). For there to be a "genuinc" issuc about the fact, the evidence must be such
5

"that a reasonab le jury could return a verdict for the nonmov ing party." Id. [n detennining whether there is a genu ine issue of material fac t, the Court is requ ired to reso lve all amb iguities and draw a ll inferences in favor of the non·moving party. Sec. rns. Co. o f Hartford v. Old Dom inion Freight Line, Inc., 391 F.3d 77, 83 (2d Ci r. 2004). Where there is no evidence in the record "from which a reasonable inference could be drawn in favor of the non· moving party on a material issue of fac t," summary judgment is proper. Catl in v. Sl!QQl, 93 F.3d 1112, 1116 (2d Cir. 1996).
Here, there is no material fact ual dispute among the parties. In fac t, the TLC acknow ledges that it neither ensures thai all taxicabs be wheelchair accessib le, nor does the TLC provide mean ingful access to such serv ices as defined by the ADA. The TLC simply
argues that it has no legal obligation under Title n of the ADA to do so. Sec Transcript of
November 22,2011 O ral Argument at 48:25. 53: 13· 20 ("We've conceded, if your Honor reaches that q uestion [o f meaningful access], we lose ...") Statutory and Regulatory 'Framework
Co ngress passed the ADA to provide "a clear and comprehensive nat iona l mandate for the elimination of discrim ination against individuals with disab il ities." 42 U.S.c. § 12 10t(b)(l). In order to establ ish a violati on under the ADA, the plai ntiffs must demonstrate that ( I) they are "q ua lifi ed individuals" with a disability; (2) that the defendant s are subject to the ADA; and (3) that the plaintiffs were denied the opportunity to participate in or benefit fro m defendants' serv ices, programs, or activities, or were otherwise discriminated against by defendants, by reason of plaintiffs' d isab il ities. Henriett a D. v, Bloomberg, 331 F.3d. 261, 272 (2d Cir. 2003); See Doe v. P frommer, 148
6

FJd 73,82 (2d Cir. 1998). The part ies dispute whether the T LC's acti vit ies are subject to
the relevant rcqui rements of subtitles A and B of Title n of the ADA.
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrim ination by public enti ties in the provision of
public services. 42 U.S.C. § 12 13 1 et seq; Abrahams v. MTA Long Island Bus, 644 F.3d
110, 11 5 (2d Cir. 20 11). It is div ided into subtitles A and B. Subtit le A governs public services generally. It prov ides that "no qualified individual with a disabil ity shall , by reason of such disabili ty, be exc luded from partici pation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activ ities of a pub lic en tity, or be subjected to discrimination by any
such ent ity." 42 U.S.c. § 12132. The Attorney General has the a uthority to prom ulgate regulati ons to implement sub tit le A. 42 U.S.C. § 121 34(a). T hose regulat ions are codi li ed at 28 C.F.R. § 35 et. seq.
Subtitle B of T it le II speci lieally governs the provision of publi c transportat ion
services by public entities. See 42 U.S.c. §§ 121 41 · 12 165. The Secretary of
Transportation has the authority to issue linal regu lations impl ementing subtit le B. Abrahams, 644 F.3 d at 11 5. Section 121 44 of subtitle B governs public entit ies operating a demand responsive system. A demand responsive systcm is any system of provid ing designated publi c transportation which is not a lixed route system . 42 U.S.c. § 12 141 . A public en tity may not purchase or lease a new veh icle fo r use that is not readi ly access ible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, unless the system otherwise provides an
eq uivalent level of serviee.2 42 U.S.c. § 12 144.
2 "If a public entity operate!; a demand responsive system, it shall be considered discrimination for the purposes of [42 U.S.C. § 12132 and 29 U.S.C. § 794J, for such entity to purchase or lease a new vehic le for use on such system ... that is not readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with d isabilities, including individual s who use
wheelchairs, unless such system, when vicwed in its entircty, provides a level of service to
7

I. T HE TLC IS NOT SUBJ ECT TO TITLE II , SU BT ITLE B
The parties agree that the New York City taxicab system is a demand responsive
system that is a part of the c ity's public transportatio n system. The parties dispute whether
the TLC "operates" the taxicab transportation system such that the TLC is subject to subtit le B of Title II.
To detennine whether the TLC "operates" the taxicab transportation system, one must first analyze the plain language of the statute. Wiley & Sons . Inc. v. Kirtsaeng, 654
F.3d 210, 218- 19 (2d C ir. 2011) (internal c itations omitted). Title II prov ides no guidance in defining "operate." The Second C ircuit , however, has suggested that it would be approp riate to adopt the de fin ition from Title III in the context of T ille II. See Celeste v. East Mcadow Union Free School District, 373 Fed. Appx. 85, 91 (2d Ci r. 2010). Under
Titlc III, '''to operate ' means ' to put o r keep in operation ,' ' to control or direct the
fun ctioning of,' or ' to cond uct the affairs of or manage. ",3 Id. These definit ions arc also
appropriatc here. Sce CSX Com . v. Childrcn 's Inv. Fund Mgt. (UK) LLP, 654 F.3d 276, 290(2d C ir. 201 1) (quoting DeD 't of Revenue of Or. v. ACF Ind us., Inc., 5 10 U.S. 33 2, 342 (1994) ("The nonnal rul e of statutory construction is that ' idcntical words used in
"'» different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meanin g.
The ten11 "operate" must be read in context with thc rcmaindcr of the stat ute. Sec In re Ames Dcp' t Stores, 582 F.3d 422, 427 (2d Cir. 2009) (noting that statutory
such individuals equivalent to the level of serv ice such system provides to individuals without disabilities." 42 U.s.c. § 12 144. ) Based upon a witness's testimony that a local government cntity was required to maintain a sidewalk which was not access ible to disabled individuals, the Second Ci rcuit held that the government entity may have been liable under Title II if the emity "efTec ti 'Ie Iy controilled] the area" and remanded the case to the District Court to make that dctennination. The Second Circuit made no findings on what amount or type of control was necessary to subject the government entity to liability.
8

interpretation calls for an exam ination of "the specific context in which [theJ language is used, and the broader co ntext of the stat ute as a whole") (internal quotat ion marks omitted»). Relevant to the cvaluation arc the functions and responsibilitics a pub lic entit y gcnerally performs in ordcr to eithcr "put or keep in operation, control or direct the functioning of, conduct the affairs of, or manage" a transportation system.
There arc certain traditional indications that a public entity is operating a transportation system. For example, generall y the entity perfomls as a business directly providing transportation services to the public. It usually collects fares and receipts from its passenger-customcrs in exchange for providing transportati on services. The entity usually will purchase or Icase and maintain the necessary equipment, including vehicles, to run that system. Further, the entity may plan service routes and schedules to ensure reli able service on the system . The entity also generally hires, fires, and manages the employees who drive and maintain the vehicles on the system . It is clear that the TLC does nOI operate a taxicab transportation system in any traditional business model sense.
However, a public entity need not operate its transportation system itself to be subject to the provisions of Title 11, subtitle B. Subtitle B defines "the tenn "operates" as used with respect to a ...demand responsive system [toJ include{J operation of such system by a person under a contractual or other arrangement or relationship with a public entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12141. A common example of such a relationship is when a pub lic entity contracts with a private entity to provide public transportation services that the public entity would otherwise provide direct ly to the public. In that case, the private entity wou ld stand in the shoes of the publi c entity and assume all of the responsibilities of the public entity. The public entity thus would have to ensure that the private entity complies
9

with the public entity requi rements of subtitle B of Title II. The TLC has no such standard contractual relationship with a privatc cnti ty to operate a transportation system that provides public transportation services.
Plaintiffs and the United States contend that the TLC "operates" the New York City taxicab neet under such "other arrangement or relationsh ip" with private medallion owners. Rather than merely regulate the neet, it is argued that the TLC exercises extensive contro l over it. The United States argues that the TLC is using private medallion ho lders it controls to provide taxicab service as a part of the city's public transportation network. Accordingly, the United States argues that the TLC is required to ensure all indiv idual medall ion holders comply with all requirements applicable to public enti ties under subtit le B of Title II. Plaintiffs and the United States, however, offer no case law in support of their argument that extensive regu lation alone should be interpreted as "operation" of the system:1
The TLC is a public regulatory agency. The TLC 's regulation of the taxicab industry does not legally equate to the TLC "operating" the taxicab transportation system. The TLC has extensive regulatory powcrs to, among other things, license medallion owners, vehicles and drivers, establish rates, standards of service and safety. However, the
4 Plaintiffs and the United States cited only James v. Peter Pan Transit System in support of their novel theory that the TLC is subject to subtitle B of Title " as a result of the ir regulatory control of the taxicab system. See Tr. 36: 12-23; James v. Peter Pan Transit System, No. 97 CV 747, 1999 WL 735173, at +2 (E.D.N.C. January 20, 1999). Howevcr, that court cxplicitly noted that Plaintiffs' claim against the city defendant arose under subtitle A of Title II, no t subtitle B. Id. There, in evaluating whether the city defendant was subject to subtitle A, the court discussed the division ofrcsponsibilities between a public and private entity in operating a demand responsive transportation system, which included roule and schedule planning, hiring, firing, and training employees, and purchasing and maintaining vehicles.
10

TLC has no authority to provide services, and does not function as a transportation services
provider, to the public. Nor does any private entity carry out such functions o n its behalf.
Most significantly, the legal obligation imposed by Title 11. subtitle B is the
requirement that the public entity operating a transportation system purchase only
wheelchair accessible vehicles for use in that system. Neither the T LC, nor any private
entity with which it has a contractua l or any other arrangement o r relationship to "operate"
such a system, purchases or leases vehicl es at all. 5 Instead, taxi cab drivers or fleet owners
pri vately purchase their own vehiclcs, and makc independcnt dccisions on wbethcr to
operate a taxicab at any given time, day, or location within New York Ci ty.
Given the TLC 's lack of independent authority to operate a system absent private
individua ls' decisions to provide transportation serv ice, one cannot construe the TLC's
regulatory authority to be a public entity's power " to put or keep in operation, to control or
direct the fu nct ioning of, to conduct the affairs of, or manage" a public transportation
system. Instead, the TLC licenses and regulates the manncr in which privatc individuals
and enti ti es provide private transportation services on their own behalf, to ensure that the
New York City taxicab ind ustry is safe and e ffi cient for the public.
The regulations promulgatcd by the DOT directly support the conc lusion that thc TLC does not operate the transportation system as dcfined in subt itle B of Titl e [1.6
S Plaintiffs and the United States argue that no actual purchase or lease of vch icles by an entity is neccssary for itlo be subject to subtitle B, but instead the power to control wh ich cars arc purchased or leased is sufficient. However. neither party offers legal support for this position. Givcn the plain language of subsection B of Title II that it is discrimination for a public entity thai operates a demand responsive system " IQ purchase or/ease a /lew vehicle" for use on the system which is not wheelehair accessible, thi s argument must be rejected. 6 The DOT's agency regulations are entitled to controlling weight unless they are "arbitrary, capricious. or manifestly contrary to the statute, and its manual is given substantial deference unless another reading is compelled by the regulation 's plain language." Innovative Health Sys, Inc. \'. White Pla ins, 117 F.3d 37, 4S (2d Cir. 1997); See Chevron U.S.A. . Inc. v. Natural
II

Pursuant to 49 C.F.R. § 37.37, "[a] private entity does not become subject to the requirements or[49 C.F.R. § 37] for public entities, because it .. . is regul ated by, or is granted a franch ise or permi t to operate by a public entity."
Plaintiffs and the Uni ted States argue that subtitle B of Title II requires the TLC to mandate that all iaxicabs purchased by medall ion owners be wheelchair accessible. However, such a read ing of Title II , subt it le B wou ld connict with Title III and the DOT' s regulation exempting private prov iders of taxi service from purchasing wheelehair accessible cabs. Sec 42 USC § 12184 (requiring th at private entities providing publ ic transportation to purchase wheelchair accessible vehicles other than automobiles) (emphasis added); 37 C.F.R. § 37.29(b) ("Providers of taxi service are no l required to purchase or Icase accessible automobiles").
Plaintiffs argue that because the TLC exercises such con tro l over the tax icab system that they have an obligation to make that system complian t with the provisions of subtitle B of Title II. Title III cannot be read as exempt ing tax icab owners from any requirement that they purchase wheelchair accessible automob iles, but at the same lime have intended that subtitle B of Title II impose such a personal obl igation based so lely on the extent of the contro l of the public regu latory agency. The effect would be to impose an obligation on those private owners under subtitle B of Tit le II that Congress exp lici tly intendcd to exempt under Titlc II I. Congress had the same power to require regulatcd private owners prov idi ng taxi service to purchase wheelchair accessible automobiles under Title III, and chose not to do so. Thus, the reasonable interpretation of subtitle B of Title II , applicab le to public entities, is that, where the city itse lf is providing transportation
Resources Defense CQuncillnc, 467 U.S. 837, 844 (1984); Thomas Jefferson Univ. v. Shalalo, 512 U.S. 504 , 510-12 (1994).
12

service, or has a private entity stand in its shoes7 to provide that service, subtitle B of Ti tl e
II requires that wheelchair accessib le veh icles be purchased or leased fo r the provision of
those transportation services to the public.
Subtitle B of Title II does not mandate the pllrchase of wheelchair accessib le
taxicabs because the TLC is a regulatory agency wh ich neither operates a taxi
transportation system, nor purchases new vehicles fo r such purpose.
II. THE TLC VIOLAT ES SU BTITLE A OF TITL E "
All of th e T LC's Activities are S ubj ect to S ubtit le A
"As a remed ial statute, the ADA must be broadly construed to effectuate its
purpose" of prov iding a clear and comprehensive mandate for the elimination of
d iscrimination against individuals with d isabili ties. Innovative Health Sys. v. White
Plai ns, 931 F. Supp. 222, 232 (S.D.N. Y. 1996), afT'd ;" pari, 117 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir.
1997). Consistent with th is in tent, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals has interpreted the
phrase "programs, services, or activities" in Title II, subti tle A to be "a catch-all phrase that
prohibits discrimination by a public enti ty, regard less of the context." Id. In interpreting
the provision, the Second C ircu it recogn ized that the legislative history explains that [Title
II] "simply extends the anti-discrimination prohibi ti on in [the Rehabilitation Act] to all
7 Notably, the commentary to the final DOT rule discusses th is "stand in shoes" concept both in explaining the addition of private entities in the definition of "operate" and the rationale behind the "by con tract, or other arrangement" language clarified in 37 C.F.R. § 23. The commentary notes that the addition of the reference to private entities into the definition or "operate," fOnTIS the basis for the "stand in the shoes" provision affecting contractors to other transportation providers. Thc commentary also cxplains that 37 C.f.R. § 23 embodies the "stand in the shoes" conccpt which requires that where a public entity contracts with a private enti ty to provide transportation service, the private entity must play by the public entity's rules with respect to vehicle acquisition and transportation services. It further gives an example ofan "OIher arrangement" that falls into the "stand in shoes" rationale-where a utility company is required by law to provide transit service on behalf of the city government and the city government in tum provides that utility with federa l funds received to run the transportation service. 56 FR 45584-01 (Sept. 6, 199 1).
13

actions of slale local governments." llL. It further noted that the preamble to the
Department of Justice regu lations explain that "[a]1I governmental acti vi ties of public
entities are covered." llL. (quoting 28 C. F.R. § 35, app. A at 456 (1996» .
The Department of Justice regul ations impl ementing subtitle A of Title II further clarify what activities perfornled by public entities are covered. For example, "a pub lic entity in providing any aid, benefit or service, may not, directly, or through contractual , licensing, or other arrangements, on the bas is of disability, deny a qualified individual with a di sabi lity the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit or service." 28 C. F.R. § 35 .130(b)(1)(i) Public entities may not "utilize criteria or methods of administration. .. that have the effect of subjecting qualified indiv iduals with disabilities to disc rim ination on the basis of disability.. ." 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(h)(3)(i) Public entities are also prohibited from "establish ing requirements for programs or activities of licensees that subj ect qualified individuals with disabi lities to discrimination on the basis of disabil ity. 28 C.F.R. § 35. 130(b)(G).
The TLC concedes thai it is a publ ic entity subject to subti tle A of Title II of the ADA. However, it argucs that the "servicc, program, or activity" thai it provides is merely the licensing of taxicab owners and drivers. Thcrcfore, the TLC argues that subti tle A only prohib its the TLC from discriminating againsl disabled individual s who seek TLC licenses. Its argument appears to be that any oth er regulatory activities that may have an adverse discriminatory effect on disab led taxicab riders are not subject to subtitle A.
During oral argument, the TLC claimed that it has no legal responsibility undcr thc ADA even where their regulati ons wou ld otherwise have discriminatory effects on disablcd taxicab riders . It cl aimed no obligation 10 provide any wheelc hair accessib le
14

vehi cles, despite its authority to choose exactly which taxicabs are penni ued for service in the Ncw York City taxicab system. Th e TLC argued that it may have a moral ob li gation, but not a legal obligati on. to provide wheelchair accessible service to di sab led persons. The TLC voluntarily intends to pursue signi ficant im provements in the ncar futu re. However. the TLC's arguments of no legal obligation are unsupported by. and directly conflict with, this Circuit 's interpretation o f the ADA generally, and subti tl e A of Tit le II specilieal ly.
The TLC is a public entity carrying out a pub lic regulatory fu nction that affects and confcrs a bcnelit on Ncw York City taxicab riders. Thcy directl y establi sh requirements for the programs and activities ofpri vatc taxi cab licensees. Under the Second Ci rcuit 's expansivc interpretation of "programs, services or activities," and correspondi ng DOJ regul ations. there can be no doubt that the TLC's regulatory activities arc govemmcntal activities of a public entity. Thus, the TLC cannot diseriminatc in any of those activities. "Th(is] prohibition [against discrimination] applics to action that carries a discriminatory effect. regardless of the government 's motive or intent." Henrietta D. v. Guiliani, 119 F. Supp. 2d 18 1,206 (E.D.N.Y. 2000). The TLC is legally obli gated by subtitle A o f Tit le II of the ADA to ensurc that the cxercise of its regulatory powers docs not discri minate agai nst disabled passengers.
T he TLC Denies Disa bled Persons Who Require W hee lch airs Mea ningful Access to the New Yo r k City Taxica b System To determine whether the TLC discriminates in violation of subtit le A of Title II, "the relevant inquiry is not whether the benefits available to persons with disabil ities and to others are actually equal, but whether individuals with di sabil ities have 'meaningful access' to the benelit that the grantec offers." Hell rietla D., 331 F.3d at 273 (citing
15

Alexander v. Choate, 469 U.S. 287, 301 (1985». To ensure meani ngful access,
reasonable accommodati ons for access to the grantee's program or benefit may have to be made. s Id.
Here, the TLC regu lates in order to "transfoml the yellow taxicabs into an essentia l
part of New York City's public transportation system," and effectuate a broad public
policy in aid of the continuation , development, and improvement of the service and safety
and convenience of the public. Through its ex tensive regulation, the TLC ensures the
public benefit of safe and efficient New York City taxicab serv ice . The TLC docs not
present ly9 provide meaningful access to this pub li c benefit for disab led indi viduals who
require wheelchairs.
The TLC mandates prec isely which types of vehicles may be driven as New York
City taxicabs. The T LC has des ignated sixteen potential vehicles for use as taxicabs, only
two of which are wheelchair accessible. The TLC has admitted that it has both the ability
and authority to provide more wheelchair accessible vehi cles, but it has chosen not to do
so. As a result of the T LC's regulations and policies, only 232 New York City taxicabs,
out of a total of 13,237 are accessible to individual s using wheelchairs. As a result, a non·
8 Amicus, the Taxicab, Limousine, and Paralransit Association ("TLPA") argues that Plaintiffs have an initial burden to prove a lack of program accessibility and to propose a plausible accommodation, the costs of which facially do not outweigh the benefits. Only then, they argue, does the burden shift to the defendants to demonstrate that the plausible accommodation imposes an undue hardship. See TLPA Amicus Br. At 5-6. None of the cases which the TL PA cites stand for this proposition . Further, cvcn if such a burden were imposed on the Plaintiffs, they have made clear that the reasonable accommodation they seek is additional wheelchair accessible vehicles. The TLC, the only party with standing, has made no arguments that this accommodation would pose an undue hardship on them. 9 The recent legislation sib'l1ed by Govemor Cuomo providing for a greater number of wheelchair accessible taxicabs and livery cabs, and the T LC's proposed dispatch system may be steps towards providing meaningful access to the New York City taxicab system to disabled persons who require wheelchairs. Ilowever, meaningful access for the disabled to public transportation services is not a utopian goal or political promise, it is a basic civil right. Title 11 requires im mediate and fuJI compliance.
16

disabled person is over twenty~five (25) times more likely to hail a taxi within ten minutes than is a person who uses a wheelchair.
On this record, what would consti tute meaningful access need not be deternlined. It is clear, however, that less than 2% of the city's fleet being wheclchair access ible, resulting in the unavailability of taxi transportation and signi ficant ly increased wait times for disabled persons who require wheelchairs, is not meaningful access. In fact, during oral argument, the TLC conceded that its regulations do not provide mean ingful access to individuals who require wheelchairs. It must do so. Until it does, the TLC is in violat ion of subtit le A of Title 11 of the ADA.
The acknowledged lack of meani ngful access is a direct result of the policies, practices, and regulations of the TLC. The TLC' s exercise of its regulatory authority alone has created the discriminatory effects on disabled riders who require the use of wheelchairs. Only the proper exercise of that authority can fix the problem that it created and neglected in the past. The disab led who seek meaningful access to taxicab services have nowhere clse to tum to enforce their civil rights.
The TLC must propose a comprehensive plan to provide meaningful access to taxicab service for disabled wheelchai r bound passengers. Such a plan must include targeted goals and standards, as well as anticipated measurable results. Until such a plan is proposed and approved by thi s Court, all new taxi medallions sold or new street~haillivery licenses or permits issued by the TLC must be for wheelchair accessib le vehicles.
Conclu sion Plaint iffs' motion for sum mary judgment on thei r Title II , subtit le B claim is denied. The TLC' s cross~motion for summary judgment on its Title 11, subtitle B claim is
17

granted. The TLC's cross·motion [or summary judgment on its Titl e II , subtitle A, Rehabi litation Act, and NYCHRL claims is denied. 1o
Plaintiffs' molion for summary judgment on their Title II, subtitle A clai m is granted.

Dated: December 23, 2011 New York, New York

SO ORDERED:
8y~
E B. DANIELS United States District Judge

!O The TLC moved for summary judgment on its Rehabilitation Act and NYCIIRL claims on the same grounds as its Title U, subtitle A claims. Thus, the T itle II, subtitle A analysis applies to those claims as well. Sec Henrietta D.. 331 F.3d 261 , 272 (2d Cir.2003); Lovejoy·Wilson v. NOCO Motor Fuel. Inc. , 263 F.3d 208, 212 n. 3 (2d CiT. 1998).
18

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 21 Filed 05/25/11 Page 1 of 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
NOEL
Plaintiff,
v.
NEW YORK TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION., et aL
Defendants.

ORDER 11 Civ. 237 (GBD)

GEORGE B. DANIELS, District Judge. Detendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED.
Dated: May 24,2011 New York, New York
SO ORDERED.

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 33 Filed 08/10/11 Page 1 of 2

~c.s-n--_--~--'-{...-
\ I~~~~:(~~1~';;:( " \ I Y flLED

~~!;~~~~2~~~!:~~~~{~_ ~~~~~F1~:-~D ---- J

CHRISTOPHER NOEL, SIMI LINTON,'-=.::::: :---.. ----

UNITED SPINAL, a nonprofIt organization, .

TIlE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPA1GN. a

nonprofit organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC

CLUB, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED

IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

Ca.:;e no. l1-cv-0237 (GBD)

Plaintiffs,

-against-

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND
LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter
mandated agency, and DAVID YASSKY, in his official capacity as chairman and commissioner oftbe New York: City Taxi and Limousine Commission,

Defendants.

STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the undersigned that a Plaintiff elass be certified under "'ederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as follows.
(1) The class is defined as "All persOll!) using wheelchair!; or scooters who reside in or visit New York City who are persons with cUsabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Rehabilitation Act and/or City Human Rights Law arld wbo seek to use New York City medallion taxis,"
(2) Disability Rights Advocates and Outt~..n and Golden, LLP are designated as class counsel for the Plaintiffs.
(3) Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, Ph.D., United Spinal Association, The Taxis for All Campaign, 504 Democratic Club, and Disabled In Action are designated as Plaintiff Class Representatives.

9::3S1tJd

9188Sbb80L1 S:3~tJI~OSStJ ONtJ ~:3ISI:3~~ Lb:12 2002-b0-L0

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 33 Filed 08/10/11 Page 2 of 2

IT IS SO ORDERED:

DISABILTTY RIGHTS ADVOCATES OUTTEN AND GOLDEN, LLP
By:
CORPORATION COUNSEL OF THE CITY Of NEW YORK By:

l..:3Sltld

2 91BBSbbB0l..1 S3~tlIJOSStl ONtl ~3IS13~~ Bb:12 2002-b0-l..0

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 1 of 31

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x
CHRISTOPHER NOEL, SIMI LINTON, UNITED SPINAL, a nonprofit organization, THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonprofit organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs, -against-

Case No. II-cv-0237 (GBD)

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency, and DAVID YASSKY, in his official capacity as chairman and commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission,

Defendants. x

SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION I. PlaintiffS submit this Supplemental Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule l5(a)(2) and Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to challenge the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission's ("TLC',,) affirmative discriminatory policies which have caused, and continue to cause, taxi service in New York City to be inaccessible to men, women and children who use wheelchairs. 2. In spite of repeated broken promises of improvement by defendants, less than 2% of medallion taxis in New York City are currently accessible to wheelchair users. With the socalled Taxi of Tomorrow arriving on the streets in 2013 absent judicial action, this inaccessibility will be perpetuated for the next decade. The TLC's agreement with Nissan to provide the Taxi

1

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 2 of 31

of TomoITow requires, for the next ten (10) years, that unrestricted medallion holders must

purchase the Nissan NV200 van ("Nissan Van") but does not require that the Nissan Van include

a ramp or a lift which would make it useable by wheelchair users.

3.

As a licensing and regulatory agency, the TLC has an obligation to issue rules

which comply with the law. However, the TLC's approval of the non-accessible version of the

Nissan Van means that taxi medallion owners who follow the TLC's rules will be in violation of

Title III of the ADA.

4.

Using a non-accessible version of the Nissan Van is a direct violation of Title III of

the ADA. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an

automobile (such as a van), the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). The

ADA is clear: it constitutes discrimination for a private provider of public transportation to

purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity ofless than eight persons, including the

driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless

equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49

C.F.R. § 37.103(d).

5. Moreover, under the Vehicle Supply Agreement with Nissan and the new rules

promulgated to effect that Agreement, the TLC's control of New York City's taxi fleet has

become more extensive and more restrictive than at any time in the history of New York. In fact,

the TLC is now far more than a mere regulator or licensor.

6. In 2007, the TLC announced the Taxi of TomoITow Initiative in order to pursue the

creation of the first purpose-built vehicle to serve as New York City's exclusive taxi.

7. In May of2011, the TLC selected the Nissan Van as the Taxi of TomoITow. On

September 20, 2012, the TLC promulgated rules designating the Nissan Van as the "Official

Taxicab Vehicle." On October 20,2012, the new TLC Rules went into effect.

of the very few individual decisions a taxi medallion owner can make under the TLC's vast web of regulations.

2

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 3 of 31
9. The TLC has committed to Nissan that private taxi medallion owners will purchase Nissan's vans upon retirement of their current vehicles, beginning on October 31, 2013.
10. With this increasingly pervasive control, the TLC had the practical opportunity to make New York City's taxi fleet fully accessible. However it deliberately chose not to do so. Indeed, it has taken affirmative steps to discourage and perpetuate accessibility.
II. Never before has the TLC so inhibited the purchase of accessible vehicles by making such vehicles undesirable. The TLC claims that unrestricted medallion owners may "choose" to purchase an accessible version of the Nissan Van. However, in fact, there is no real choice.
12. The TLC has set the price for the accessible Nissan Van to be 50% higher than that for non-accessible Nissan Vans, in effect imposing a substantial penalty on those who wish to purchase accessible vehicles.
13. The TLC has approved an accessible model that can only carry one additional passenger in addition to the wheelchair user, thus limiting the pool of potential fare-paying riders for the owners of such a vehicle.
14. The TLC has also selected an accessible vehicle that does not come directly from the factory but must be retrofitted by a third party converter to enable a ramp to be added to the rear of the vehicle. The retrofitting is also viewed by medallion owners as resulting in a structurally inferior vehicle.
15. The decision to maintain an inaccessible taxi fleet and approve the use of a van which is not accessible to men, women and children who rely on wheelchairs has profound negative consequences for the more than 500,000 men, women and children with mobility disabilities and over 60,000 wheelchair and scooter users who live in the City, as well as for countless wheelchair-using tourists.
ificantl affects the abili of wheelchair-users to maintain employment and excel in the workplace. Without accessible taxis, they often cannot
3

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 4 of 31
get to last-minute meetings or conferences. They are similarly often not able to work late due to a lack of reliable transportation options to get them home quickly and safely.
17. In a disaster or emergency, the ability to locate and use an accessible taxi can be vital to enabling a wheelchair user to evacuate safely. Taxis play an integral part in the City's emergency evacuation plans and mandating a van that is not wheelchair accessible raises a grave risk that people who use wheelchairs will not be able to evacuate safely.
18. The TLC's decision to approve a non-accessible van will only increase the City's reliance on the use of expensive and inferior alternatives such as paratransit, also known as Access-A-Ride, and Medicaid transportation. It is estimated that the cost of operating Access-ARide for calendar year 2012 was $509 million. Indeed, recent estimates suggest that Access-aRide now costs approximately $60 per trip. These costs would be reduced substantially ifNew York City's taxi system were accessible to wheelchair users.
JURISDICTION 19. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 V.S.C. § 794, et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 V.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and the New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101 et seq. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 V.S.c. §§ 1331 and 1343. 20. This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 V.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.
VENUE
21. Pursuant to 28 V.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in the District in which this Complaint is filed, because Defendants are located within this District, a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District, and the
4

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 5 of 31
PARTIES 22. Plaintiff Christopher Noel is a resident ofNew York City with a mobility disability that causes him to rely on a wheelchair. He is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes and a member of the class. 23. Mr. Noel is employed as outreach manager for a healthcare benefits advising nonprofit in New York City. On a daily basis, his job requires him to travel to various appointments around the city, making presentations to different groups and consulting one-on-one with individuals. .Because he cannot rely on accessible medallion taxis to travel to different parts of the city within any given workday, he must rely on buses and paratransit, which involve extended waits and indirect routes, making his workday much less convenient and far less efficient than it would be ifhe had ready access to medallion taxis. 24. Mr. Noel is otherwise qualified to use hail taxi services provided by medallion taxis in New York City. However, Mr. Noel has difficulty using or is completely unable to use medallion taxi service in New York City by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein. Specifically, the TLC's approval of the use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users subjects Mr. Noel to discrimination, solely by reason of his disability, by excluding him from participation in and denying him the benefits of such hail taxi service. 25. Plaintiff Simi Linton, Ph.D. is a resident of New York City with a mobility disability that causes her to rely on a power wheelchair. She is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes and a member of the class. 26. Dr. Linton is a filmmaker, writer, and consultant who works primarily in New York City. She often travels throughout the city for work, social, and speaking engagements, as well as for doctors' appointments. Because of how difficult it is to obtain an accessible taxi, Dr. Linton must rely on either the bus system, which is slow and unreliable, or a private
cost.
5

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 6 of 31
27. Dr. Linton, a lifelong New Yorker, has attempted to hail taxis on numerous occasions over the years, but has only succeeded in hailing an accessible taxi twice.
28. Dr. Linton is otherwise qualified to use hail taxi services provided by medallion taxis in New York City. However, Dr. Linton has difficulty using or is completely unable to use medallion taxi service in New York City by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein. Specifically, the TLC' s approval of the use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users subjects Dr. Linton to discrimination, solely by reason of her disability, by excluding her from participation in and denying her the benefits of such hail taxi service.
29. Plaintiff United Spinal Association ("United Spinal") is a national disability rights and veterans service organizations founded in 1946. It is a New York based not-for-profit organization that seeks to advance the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities, including those who require transportation services that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
30. United Spinal currently has approximately 40,000 members nationwide. Approximately 900 members of United Spinal reside in New York City and many more visit New York City on a regular basis. Many such members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein, including the TLC's approval of the use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users.
31. The mission of United Spinal is to provide and create access to resources, enabling people with spinal cord injuries to fulfill their potential as active members of their communities. United Spinal drafted significant portions of the ADA and continues to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities through state and federal legislation, the courts, grassroots advocacy, and education.
inal currentl ex ends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect people with disabilities in New York City, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans, such as the Nissan Van, as taxis. The
6

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 7 of 31
comprehensive services offered by United Spinal include: providing assistance to veterans navigating benefit programs; funding spinal cord research and education; organizing the largest annual spinal cord disabilities conference in the country; advocating for the civil rights of its members; keeping members informed oflegislative and advocacy issues; providing technical assistance and repair programs to wheelchair-users; and advocating for accessible travel.
33. United Spinal itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. United Spinal's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices. United Spinal has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
34. In addition, one or more members of United Spinal have been injured as a direct result of Defendants, discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right.
35. United Spinal can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to United Spinal's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
36. Plaintiff The Taxis for All Campaign ("Taxis for All") is a coalition of disability rights organizations and individuals in New York City dedicated to the goal of having all yellow medallion taxis be wheelchair accessible. The member groups of the Taxis for All campaign include the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York, Disabilities Network of New York City, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, 504 Democratic Club, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, New York City Chapter, National Multiple Sclerosis Society and United Spinal Association.
ts advocates who were frustrated by the inaccessibility ofNew York City medallion taxis and the inability of people with disabilities to get around in the city. For the past 14 years Taxis for All has and
7

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 8 of 31
continues to expend substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning transportation difficulties faced by people with disabilities, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans, such as the Nissan Van, as taxis. Their efforts include lobbying for legislative solutions, raising awareness, and organizing roll-in demonstrations at taxi stands to protest the inaccessibility of New York City taxis.
38. Taxis for All itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. Taxis for All's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices, including the TLC's approval of the use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users.
39. In addition, one or more members of Taxis for All have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. Taxis for All can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to its purpose.
40. Plaintiff 504 Democratic Club ("504 Democrats") is a New York City-based coalition of Democrats working towards inclusion of people with disabilities in the political and social fabric of society and was founded in 1983.
41. 504 Democrats has approximately 350 members who are from all five boroughs, and include a diverse group of people with disabilities, public officials, friends and family who support the concepts set forth in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Many of these members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein, including the TLC's approval of the use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users.
ntial time and resources on advocac work concerning policies and practices that affect people with disabilities in New York City, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans, such as the Nissan Van, as taxis. Over the years,
8

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 9 of 31
504 Democrats has provided the leadership for starting many community activities. These activities include the Disability Independence Day March, held on the anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the annual Disability Budget and Policy Agenda, and advocacy work on behalf of city employees with disabilities. 504 Democrats participated in the founding of, and provides much of the leadership for the Taxis for All Campaign, dedicated to bringing wheelchair-accessible taxis and liveries to New York City.
43. 504 Democrats itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. 504 Democrats' interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' policies and practices. 504 Democrats has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
44. In addition, one or more members of 504 Democrats have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. 504 Democrats can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to 504 Democrats' purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
45. Plaintiff Disabled In Action ("DIA"), founded in 1970, is a nonprofit civil rights membership organization committed to ending discrimination against people with all disabilities.
46. DIA consists primarily of, and is directed by, people with disabilities. DIA's members include residents with disabilities throughout New York City. Many ofDIA's members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein, including the TLC's approval of the use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users.
47. DIA's objectives include promoting the ability of persons with disabilities to live
of people with disabilities. In addition, DIA works to educate government officials, community
9

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 10 of 31

leaders and the general public about disability issues and plans and participates in public

demonstrations to draw attention to these issues.

48. DIA has and continues to expend substantial time and resources on advocacy work

concerning policies and practices that affect disabled residents ofNew York City, including

advocating against the use of inaccessible vans such as the Nissan Van as taxis. For instance,

DIA advocated for passage of Local Law 58, the 1987 NYC Building Code amendment

requiring that all commercial and residential buildings include accessible features in common

areas and dwelling units when newly constructed or renovated. DIA also has participated in

legal actions against New York City for its holding a public Town Hall meeting at an

inaccessible site, against the federal government for noncompliance with the ADA at fifteen

federal courthouses in New York City, against the New York City Human Rights Commission

for failure to provide written material in alternate formats, and against the New York City MTA

for not operating Access-A-Ride in compliance with the ADA.

49. DIA itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions

as discussed herein. DIA's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as

it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' policies

and practices. DIA has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration

of its mission.

50. In addition, one or more members ofDIA have been injured as a direct result of

Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own

right. DIA can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are

germane to DIA's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not

require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.

5!. Defendant New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC") is a city

"

"

52. The TLC is run by a nine-member commission, and one of the nine members is

designated as the chairman and chief executive officer. Id. § 2301(a) and (c).

10

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 11 of 31
53. The purpose of the TLC is the "continuance, further development and improvement of taxi and limousine service in the city of New York." NY City Charter § 2300.
54. The Charter further defines the purpose of the TLC as "consonant with the promotion and protection of the public comfort and convenience to adopt and establish an overall public transportation policy governing taxi ... services as it relates to the overall public transportation network of the city; to establish certain rates, standards of service, standards of insurance and minimum coverage; standards for driver safety, standards for equipment safety and design; standards for noise and air pollution; and to set standards and criteria for the licensing of vehicles, drivers and chauffeurs, owners and operators engaged in such services." NY City Charter § 2300.
55. The TLC's jurisdiction also extends to regulating and supervising "transportation of persons by licensed vehicles for hire in the city" over rates of fare, standards, and conditions of service. NY City Charter § 2303(b)(a).
56. The TLC is a "public entity" within the meaning of42 U.S.C. § 12131. 57. Defendant David Yassky, sued here in his official capacity, is Chairman and Commissioner of the TLC and is thus responsible for, and a participant in, the actions and/or omissions of the TLC.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The TLC's Approval ofa Van which Is Not Accessible as the Taxi for New York City.
The Taxi o/Tomorrow Initiative. 58. In 2007, the Department of Citywide Administrative Service introduced the Taxi of Tomorrow ("TOT") Initiative. The purpose of the TOT Initiative was to create the first purposebuilt vehicle to serve as New York City's exclusive taxi to be used by taxi medallion owners for the next ten years, from October 31, 2013 through October 31, 2023.
lection of three finalists in the TOT competition: the Ford Transit Connect, Karsan VI and Nissan NV200 van.
11

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 12 of 31
60. All of these vehicles are characterized and advertised as "vans" by their respective manufacturers. All are considered by the automotive industry to be vans.
61. Of these vehicles, only the Karsan VI was proposed to be built directly from the factory to be accessible to wheelchair users. The Karsan VI was the only vehicle which, had it been selected, would have resulted in a fully accessible medallion fleet.
62. The Ford Transit Connect and Nissan Van vehicles can be modified to be accessible to wheelchair users. However, neither company proposed, nor did the TLC require, that the accessible version of the Transit Connect or Nissan Van be selected as the official Taxi of Tomorrow to be mandated for use by all medallion holders over the next ten years.
63. In May 2011, the TLC selected the Nissan Van to become the Taxi of Tomorrow making the NV200 van the first taxi purpose built for use in New York City and the City's exclusive taxi for the next decade.
64. The Nissan Van, as designed, is not accessible to wheelchair users because it does not include a ramp or lift to allow them to enter the vehicle independently and safely.
The Nissan Van Is a Van. 65. Under Title III of the ADA, when a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile, the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). Specifically, under the ADA, it is discrimination for a provider ofpublic transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity of less than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 121 84(b)(5); see also 49 C.F.R. § 37.l03(d). 66. In order to provide equivalent service to persons with disabilities, taxi providers must ensure that, among other things, wheelchair users can hail a taxi within the same amount of
ntl unable to hail an accessible taxi in the same amount of time as non-disabled individuals.
12

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 13 of 31
67. In fact, taxi providers in New York City do not currently provide equivalent service to the City's men, women and children who use wheelchairs due to, among other things, the significant difference in response times. Even using the "accessible dispatch system," in which wheelchair users can request by telephone an accessible taxi, the average wait time is twenty to twenty-five minutes, a far cry from the average ten minute wait time for most nondisabled passengers.
68. The Nissan NV200 is a van which seats less than eight including the driver. 69. Automotive industry, consumer groups and articles, periodicals and publications uniformly categorize the Nissan Van as a van. 70. The Nissan USA webpage, nissancommercialvehicles.com, lists the NV200 van under the category "Commercial Vans and Trucks". 71. Nissan describes the NV200 on its webpage as a "compact cargo van" and markets the NV200 as a "van" in its markets in the United States and abroad. 72. The Nissan van has been recognized by the automotive industry as a van. The Nissan Van has won multiple awards for Van of the Year, including but not limited to the Professional Van and Light Truck Magazine Van of the Year Award (2010), the International Van of the Year Award in Europe (2010) and the 2010 Commercial Delivery Van of the Year Award in China (2010).
The TLC's New Rules. 73. On September 20,2012 the TLC passed rules for the first time mandating that all unrestricted medallion holders replace their vehicles, as they are retired, with the Nissan Van, starting on October 31, 2013. These rules were promulgated pursuant to sections 1043 and 2303 of the Charter of the City of New York and took effect on October 20,2012. 74. The new rules taking effect on October 20,2012 (the "new TLC Rules") in fact impose substantially greater Gontrol o'l€r the taxi industry by the IT C than ever before. This is the first time in the history of New York City taxi regulation that the TLC will require taxi medallion owners to purchase and use a single brand and model automobile.
13

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 14 of 31
75. The new TLC Rules also are a new major affirmative step toward perpetuating and ensuring the long-term inaccessibility of the New York taxi fleet.
76. Before the new TLC Rules, any unrestricted medallion owner who wanted to purchase an accessible vehicle had a range of choices of such a vehicle. Such medallion owners could select from six different versions of accessible vehicles representing a number of different body configurations and prices. Specifically, a medallion owner could purchase as an accessible vehicle, the 2011 or 2012 MVI Purpose Built Accessible Vehicle, the 2011 accessible Toyota Sienna, or one of three versions of the 2012 accessible Toyota Sienna.
77. This option no longer exists for 11,741 of the current unrestricted medallion holders because, under the new TLC Rules, the TLC only allows up to 469 of the current holders of unrestricted medallions to choose to purchase any accessible vehicle as long as it conforms to the TLC's issued requirements. The remaining 11,741 holders of unrestricted medallions will be required to use the Nissan Van.
78. Prior to the new TLC Rules, an unrestricted medallion owner who wanted an accessible vehicle could purchase a vehicle which was specifically designed and factory built as an accessible vehicle and came from the factory in accessible form without any retrofitting requirements. Vehicles which have been purpose built to be accessible are viewed by medallion owners to be superior to vehicles which have had to be extensively retrofitted in order for a ramp to be installed. This option of a factory built accessible taxi no longer exists for 11,741 of the current unrestricted medallion holders.
79. Prior to the new TLC Rules, all unrestricted medallion owners who wished to purchase an accessible vehicle had several options available to them which would allow a person in a wheelchair to ride in the accessible vehicle with more than one additional passenger. That option also has been taken away by the new TLC Rules which require the remaining 11,741 helders afunf€strict€d medalliolls to use the Nissan Van, a vehicle which, when carrying a person in a wheelchair, can only accommodate one additional passenger.
14

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 15 of 31
80. Prior to the new TLC Rules, all taxi medallion owners could select from several different priced options of accessible vehicles. As described below, all taxi medallion owners who must or who seek to purchase an accessible vehicle must pay a penalty of up to 50% above the price of the non-accessible vehicle.
The TLC Agreement with Nissan. 81. On October 9, 2012 the City ofNew York, on behalf of the TLC, entered into what is termed as a Vehicle Supply Agreement ("Agreement") with Nissan Taxi marketing N.A., LLC ("Nissan"). The Agreement grants Nissan the exclusive right to sell its vehicle, the Nissan Van, to holders of unrestricted medallions. 82. On November 16,2012 the Department of Citywide Administrative Services submitted the Agreement to the Office ofthe Comptroller for registration. Following a thorough review, on December 14, 2012, the Agreement was rejected by the Office of the Comptroller due to the TLC's failure to require that the Nissan Van be accessible to wheelchair users. At this time the City has not issued a formal response to the Comptroller's rejection ofthe contract and it appears that the City intends to move forward with the Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative. 83. The Agreement requires that all Nissan Vans made available for purchase include the following features: (i) premium vinyl seats, (ii) a low-annoyance horn, (iii) a panoramic glass roof panel, (iv) an active carbon lined headliner to neutralize odors, (v) rear passenger reading lamps and (vi) rear passenger charging stations, to allow passengers to charge iPods and cellular phones. 84. Despite the numerous passenger amenities included in the Agreement the TLC did not require that all Nissan Vans include a ramp to make them accessible to and usable by wheelchair users. 85. Under the Agreement, holders of 11,741 unrestricted medallions issued prior to January 1, 2012 must pmehase the Nissan Van V'dlen it is time for their current vehicles to be replaced starting on October 31,2013.
15

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 16 of 31
86. The Agreement details the yearly pricing for each Model Year that the Nissan Van will be mandated for purchase. Under the Agreement the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price for the 2014 Model Year of the Nissan Van is $29,700. This price increases for each subsequent model year.
87. An accessible version of the Nissan Van has been designed but the TLC did not require Nissan to make an accessible version of the vehicle available directly from the factory.
88. Instead, in order to provide medallion holders with the accessible version of the Nissan Van, the vehicle must be sent to a Nissan-approved third party accessibility converter in order to be modified to be accessible to wheelchair users. Medallion holders who purchase the accessible van will have to pay for this conversion.
89. Conversion of the vehicle entails lowering of the floor, modification of the gas tank, fuel lines and seating area and addition of a ramp. This extensive rebuilding, retrofitting and conversion process is viewed by medallion owners to result in a vehicle which is structurally inferior to the original factory built NV200.
90. Moreover, following conversion the Nissan Van is only able to seat one additional passenger in addition to a wheelchair user, thus limiting its pool ofpotential fiue-paying riders for the owners of such a vehicle.
91. The TLC and Nissan agreed in the contract that the cost of the accessible version of the Nissan Van will include a conversion fee. The TLC and Nissan agreed in the contract that the conversion fee can be as much as $14,000 more than the manufacturer's suggested retail price of the non-accessible Nissan Van. This means that while the 2014 Nissan Van that cannot be used by people who use wheelchairs and scooters will sell for $29,700, the accessible version may cost up to $43,700, nearly 50% more than the non-accessible version.
92. Because of its economic and marketing power with Nissan, the relative price of the . ns was within the control of the TLC. The
TLC could have set the price of the accessible vehicle at the same price as the non-accessible vehicle. It chose not to do so.
16

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 17 of 31
93. The increased cost for the accessible version was set by the TLC and Nissan as part of the agreement. This significant additional cost will in fact prevent many medallion holders from being able to afford to purchase the accessible version of the Nissan Van. The TLC's failure to ensure that this cost is reasonable and affordable to medallion holders creates a significant deterrent to, and penalty for, the purchase of accessible vehicles by medallion holders.
94. The Nissan Van can be manufactured directly from the factory in an accessible version. For instance, the Nissan Van will be manufactured direct from the factory in an accessible version for use in London, England's taxi fleet. No separate, increased cost for conversion after manufacturing will be required.
95. By mandating the use of an inaccessible van, failing to require that Nissan make available an accessible version of the Nissan Van directly from the factory and by requiring unrestricted medallion holders to pay nearly 50% more for a vehicle that they view to be inferior and that can carry only one additional passenger with a wheelchair user, the TLC is inhibiting medallion owners from purchasing an accessible vehicle.
96. Although the City of New York profits to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars from its involvement with the taxi industry, the City has chosen to offer no subsidies or incentives to encourage the purchase of accessible taxis or to defray the penalty which owners have to pay in order to acquire an accessible Nissan Van.
97. Although the City has multiple incentives and benefits that it can make available to encourage the purchase of a particular type of vehicle, such as what occurred in New York with respect to hybrid vehicles, the TLC has deliberately chosen to provide no such incentives for the purchase of accessible vehicles.
98. The TLC sets what is known as the "standard lease cap" which establishes the amount an owner of a taxi can charge to a driver to lease the taxi. Despite the filct that the accessible version ofllie Nissan Van may cost almost 50% more than the non-accessible version of the Nissan Van, the TLC does not permit taxi owners to lease the accessible version of the Nissan Van for more than the non-accessible version of the Nissan Van. Under the newly passed
17

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 18 of 31
TLC rules, the standard lease cap for the Nissan Van either non-accessible or accessible is the same $1114 weekly. See 35 RCNY § 58-21(c)(3)(iii).
99. Any purported "choice" of a medallion owner in selecting an accessible van is false. In fact, there is no real choice. No medallion owner would seek to pay 50% more for an accessible taxi in order to provide taxi service at the same rate as non-accessible taxis, using what medallion owners view as a structurally inferior vehicle that when carrying a wheelchair user has room for only one additional passenger.
The TLC's Increasing Control Over New York City's Taxi Fleet. 100. The TLC Agreement with Nissan and the new TLC Rules represent an unprecedented increase in the TLC's control of the New York City taxi fleet. Never has the TLC has exerted more control over New York City's taxi industry and more so than any other city or jurisdiction. 101. The TLC has moved beyond merely setting specifications for vehicles to signing an agreement with a single vehicle manufacturer to provide the identical vehicle at a set price to taxi medallion owners for the next decade. Indeed the TLC has committed to Nissan that private medallion owner will purchase Nissan' s vans. 102. The TLC has taken away virtually all independent decision-making from the taxi medallion owners. The TLC has now expanded its rules to control taxi medallion owners even more by limiting any individual choice of the majority of taxi medallion owners as to which vehicle they may purchase. The purchase of such vehicles is not a private or an individualized transaction between a vehicle manufacturer and a taxi medallion owner. The TLC is inextricably intertwined in the purchasing relationship. No longer may the TLC hide behind the facade of a mere "regulator" or "licensor." Through the Vehicle Supply Agreement and the new TLC Rules, the TLC has vastly expanded its control ofNew York City taxi service. 103. Furthermore, with this pervasive control, the TLC inhibits the purchase of accessible vehicles. Instead of mandating a fully accessible fleet, the TLC offers an "accessible version" which is more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically
18

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 19 of 31
undesirable, leaving taxi medallion owners with no actual choice but to purchase a van that is inaccessible.
TLC Approval of Other Non-Accessible Vans for Use as Taxis. 104. The Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative is not the first time that the TLC has approved a non-accessible van to serve as a taxi, causing taxi medallion owners to violate Title III of the ADA. 105. As required under the New York City Charter, the TLC promulgates rules that set forth the specifications with which vehicles must comply with in order to operate as medallion taxis. 106. The TLC has found that the Ford Transit Connect, the Toyota Sienna, the Honda Odyssey and the Dodge Grand Caravan vehicles comply with these specifications and has allowed them to serve as taxis in New York City. 107. These vehicles are considered by their respective manufacturers, as well as the industry, to be vans. The TLC has not required that medallion owners purchase the version of these vans that are accessible to wheelchair users. Instead, despite the fact that all of these vans may be modified to be accessible, the TLC has allowed the non-accessible versions for use as medallion taxis. 108. The Ford Transit Connect is referred to as a "Transit Van" on the manufacturer's website, ford. com. The Transit Connect Taxi is certified to Ford Light Commercial Vehicle Durability Standards and was awarded Van of the Year (2004) by Professional Van and Light Truck Magazine. The Transit Connect was also awarded the North American Truck of the Year Award at the North American International Auto Show in 2010. 109. The Toyota Sienna is a van; it is referred to as a "Minivan" on the manufacturer's website, Toyota.com. The Sienna received the Most Dependable Minivan Award from J.D.
SSOCla es in
19

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 20 of 31
110. The Honda Odyssey is a van; it is characterized as a "Minivan" on the manufacturer's website, Honda.com. The Odyssey won MotorWeek's 2012 Drivers' Choice Award for "Best Minivan" for 2011 and 2012.
111. The Dodge Grand Caravan is a van; it is referred to as a "Minivan" on the manufacturer's website, dodge.com. It is characterized as the bestselling and most awarded minivan ever.
112. These non-accessible vans are currently in operation today and will continue to operate as taxis until they are replaced with the inaccessible Nissan Van.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS lB. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated and all residents in and visitors to New York City with mobility disabilities who have been and are currently being discriminated against by Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. The class the named Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all people with mobility disabilities who need and want to use New York City medallion taxis. 114. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court. 115. Data from the United States Census conducted in 2000 indicate that more than 1.6 million residents over the age of21 in New York City self-identify as having a disability. Such data further show that more than 220,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a sensory disability, which includes visual disabilities, and more than 588,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a physical disability, which includes mobility disabilities
20

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 21 of 31
116. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions oflaw and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented, in that Plaintiffs' members and individuals in the class will continue to be denied access to medallion taxis.
117. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including the question of whether affirmatively sanctioning and, in the case of the Nissan Van requiring, the purchase of a van that is not accessible to wheelchair users in violation of the Title III of the ADA violates the TLC's obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the ADA and the NYCHRL and discriminates against individuals with disabilities.
118. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, or their members, are typical and are not in conflict with the interests of the class as a whole. Defendants' course of conduct and violation of the law as alleged herein has caused Plaintiffs and class members to be deprived of the opportunity to effectively utilize Defendants' program, service and/or activity. Therefore, all class members will suffer the same or similar injuries for the purposes of the injunctive and declaratory relief sought. Plaintiffs' claims are thereby representative of and co-extensive with the claims of the class.
119. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they and/or their members do not have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and will prosecute the case vigorously on behalf of the class.
120. The attorneys representing the class are experienced both in disability law and in class action institutional litigation. Counsel representing the Plaintiff class is qualified to fully prosecute this litigation and possesses adequate resources to see this matter through to resolution. Counsel will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
121. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect
122. On August 10, 20 II the Court issued an order granting the parties' request to stipulate to class certification. The order defines the class as "All persons using wheelchairs or
21

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 22 of 31
scooters who reside in or visit New York City who are persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and/or City Human Rights law and who seek to use New York City medallion taxis."
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 794, ET SEQ. 123. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 122 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 124. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.c. § 794(a). 125. An "individual with a disability" is defined under the statute, in pertinent part, as "an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual." 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102). "Qualified" means, with respect to services, a person who meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of such services. 28 C.F.R. § 41.32. 126. Plaintiffs' members include, and Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the applicable statutes. 127. The TLC has jurisdiction over "assistance to the business community and industry of public transportation affected by this chapter in aid of continuation, development and improvement of service and the safety and convenience of the public, including assistance in securing federal and state grants." NY City Charter § 2303(b)(10). 128. The TLC has received federal financial assistance.
22

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 23 of 31
129. Using a non-accessible version of the Nissan Van is a direct violation of Title III of the ADA. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a van), the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). The ADA is clear: it constitutes discrimination for a private provider of public transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity of less than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.c. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49 C.F.R. § 37.1 03(d). Neither the TLC nor the taxi medallion owners currently provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities because, among other things, the Accessible Dispatch System still results in far greater response times for disabled passengers needing an accessible taxi.
130. The TLC's policies and requirements are causing the underlying violation of the Title 1II of the ADA. As discussed above, because the TLC has ensured that the accessible version of the Nissan Van is more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, private medallion owners effectively have no choice but to purchase an inaccessible version of the Nissan Van. Thus, through its actions, the TLC is causing private medallion owners to violate Title III of the ADA.
131. By approving the use of, and in fact requiring the purchase of, an inaccessible van in violation of Title III of the ADA, the TLC is causing discrimination against individuals with disabilities for whom the vans which are now allowed, and which will be allowed, are inaccessible and for whom no equivalent service for medallion taxi service is provided in violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As described herein, the actions of the TLC constitute discrimination on the basis of disability against Plaintiffs and class members.
132. The TLC is further violating the RehabIlItatIon Act by denymg meaningIiIl"a'"cc"'e"'s"'s-----to persons using wheelchairs. As discussed above, through the Agreement with Nissan and the new TLC Rules, the TLC has exerted more control than ever over New York City's taxi industry.
23

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 24 of 31
TLC's increasingly pervasive control over the taxi industry has essentially transfonned a private taxi industry into a "program or activity" of a public entity. The TLC does far more than simply license and/or regulate taxis in New York City.
133. As a public entity, the TLC must provide meaningful access to its programs and activities. However, the TLC is failing to do so. Rather the TLC's pervasive control inhibits the purchase of accessible vehicles since, as discussed above, they are more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, leaving taxi medallion owners with no actual choice but to purchase a van that is inaccessible.
134. By requiring the purchase of an inaccessible van, the TLC has ensured that the vast majority of the New York City taxi fleet will violate Title III of the ADA and in tum will remain largely inaccessible to wheelchair users for the next ten years. The TLC's actions result in a clear and outright denial of meaningful access to the taxi fleet of New York City.
135. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief herein is granted, Plaintiffs and their members will suffer irreparable hann in that they will continue to be discriminated against and denied access to the program or activity operated and overseen by Defendants.
136. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §794(a).
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,
42 U.S.c. § 12131, ET SEO.
137. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in I -_____,);laragra);lhs 1 through 136 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
138. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.c. §12132, provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from
24

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 25 of 31
participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be sUbjected to discrimination by any such entity."
139. The term "disability" includes physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). The named Plaintiffs, members of organizational Plaintiffs, and the class Plaintiffs represent are people who have mobility disabilities that substantially limit the major life activities of walking, standing, and/or moving about in their communities without mobility aids. Thus, Plaintiffs' members are, or Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12102,42 U.S.c. § 12131, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
140. A "public entity" includes state and local govermnents, their agencies, and their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.c. § 12131(1). Defendants qualify as a public entity within the meaning of 42 U.S.c. § 12131 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
141. Using a non-accessible version of the Nissan Van is a direct violation of Title III of the ADA. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a van), the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). The ADA is clear: it constitutes discrimination for a private provider of public transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity ofless than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.c. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49 C.F.R. § 37.1 03(d). Neither the TLC nor the taxi medallion owners currently provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities because, among other things, the Accessible Dispatch System still results in far greater response times for disabled passengers needing an accessible taxi.
142. The TLC's policies and requirements are causing this underlying violation of the Title III of the ADA. As discussed above, because the TLC has ensured that the accessible version of the Nissan Van is more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and
25

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 26 of 31
economically undesirable, private medallion owners effectively have no choice but to purchase an inaccessible version of the Nissan Van. Thus, through its actions, the TLC is causing private medallion owners to violate Title III of the ADA.
143. By approving the use of, and in fact requiring the purchase of, an inaccessible van in violation of Title III of the ADA, the TLC is causing discrimiuation against individuals with disabilities for whom the vans which are now allowed, and which will be allowed, are inaccessible and for whom no equivalent service for medallion taxi service is provided in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. § 12131, et. seq. As described herein, the actions of the TLC constitute discrimination on the basis of disability against Plaiutiffs and class members.
144. Congress directed the Department of Justice ("DOJ") to write regulations implementing Title II's prohibition against discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12134. Pursuant to this mandate, the DOJ has issued regulations defining the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title II ofthe ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 et. seq. One such regulation requires that "a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7). Here the TLC has adopted new policies, practices and procedures in conjunction with the Agreement with Nissan and new TLC Rules. However, the TLC has failed to make reasonable modifications to its policies as required by 28 C.F.R. §35.130(b)(7) to ensure this program or activity does not discriminate against persons with disabilities, namely wheelchair users who require accessible taxicabs.
145. The TLC is further violating the ADA by denying meaningful access to persons using wheelchairs pursuant to Subtitle A of Title II of the ADA. As discussed above, through the Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative, the TLC has exerted more control than ever over New York City's taxi industry. TLC's increasingly pervasive control over the taxi industry has essentially
26

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 27 of 31

transfonned a private taxi industry into a "program, service or activity" of a public entity. The

TLC does far more than simply license andlor regulate taxis in New York City.

146. As a public entity, the TLC must provide meaningful access to its programs and

activities. However, the TLC is failing to do so. Rather the TLC's pervasive control inhibits the

purchase of accessible vehicles since, as discussed above, they are more expensive and viewed as

structurally inferior and economically undesirable, leaving taxi medallion owners with no actual

choice but to purchase a van that is inaccessible.

147. By requiring the purchase of an inaccessible van, the TLC has ensured that the vast

majority of New York City taxi fleet will violate Title III ofthe ADA and in tum will remain

largely inaccessible to wheelchair users for the next ten years. The TLC's actions result in a

clear and outright denial of meaningful access to the taxi fleet of New York City.

148. The TLC is also violating Subtitle B of Title II of the ADA. Subtitle B mandates

that "if a public entity operates a demand responsive system, it shall be considered

discrimination ... for such an entity to purchase or lease a new vehicle for use on such a system .

. . that is not readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities, including

individuals who use wheelchairs, unless such a system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a

level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service such system provides to

individuals without disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12144.

149. Through contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the private taxi

medallion owners, there is little question that the TLC now "operates" New York City's taxi fleet

and is subject to Subtitle B. As discussed above, the TLC has taken away virtually all

independent decision-making from the taxi medallion owners. The TLC has now expanded its

1-----~rules-t0-e0ntf0l-ta*i-m@da1li()n-()wners-~¥en-mOIe_b~-limiting-<lay~ruliYLd~u~a~1~C~h~Ol~c'""e"-,o",f~t",h,,e_ _ _ _ _ _ __

majority of taxi medallion owners as to which vehicle they may purchase. Moreover, the TLC

I
I

does not provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities because, among other things,

27

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 28 of 31

the Accessible Dispatch System still results in far greater response times for disabled passengers needing an accessible taxi.
150. Given the TLC's pervasive control, it can and should require all taxis purchased by

medallion owners to be wheelchair accessible. In fact, any exemptions for taxi accessibility do

not apply to the taxi medallion owners because the TLC is forcing them to purchase vans, not

automobiles. As discussed above, when using a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a

van), taxi medallion owners must ensure that it is accessible to wheelchair users. 49 C.F.R. §

37.29(b).

151. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief herein is granted,

Plaintiffs and their members will suffer irreparable harm in that they will continue to be

discriminated against and denied access to the program or activity operated and overseen by the

TLC.

152. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to section 203 of

the ADA, 42 U.S.c. §12133, and attorneys' fees.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW,
N,Y.C. ADMIN. CODE § 8-101, ET SEQ.

153. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in

paragraphs 1 through 152 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.

154. The New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-

107(4)(a), provides that "[ilt shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being

the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or

provider of public accommodation because of the actual or perceived ... disability ... status of

any person directly or indirectly, to refuse, withho

person any onupe--------

accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof ...."

28

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 29 of 31
155. The term "person" includes governmental bodies or agencies. N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1). The TLC is a governmental body or agency and thus Defendants qualify as a person within the meaning ofN.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1). The TLC is, at the very least, a manager of a provider of public accommodation.
156. The term "place or provider of public accommodation" includes providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available. N.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-102(9). Medallion taxi service constitutes a public accommodation and is a service, accommodation, advantage, or privilege offered to the general public and thus falls within the meaning ofN.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-102(9).
157. The NYCHRL additionally requires that any person prohibited from discriminating under Section 8-107 on the basis of disability "shall make reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to ...enjoy the right or rights in question provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the covered entity." N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15). The term "covered entity" is defined as a person required to comply with any provision of Section 8-107 which includes Defendants under N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-102(1).
158. The TLC's failure to require more accessible taxis than the current less than 2% of the taxi fleet, as well as the TLC' s approval of vans for use in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, serve to directly and indirectly refuse, withhold from and/or deny people with mobility disabilities access to the public accommodation of medallion taxi service in violation ofN.Y.C. Admin. Code § 8-l07(4)(a).
159. The TLC is a covered entity and must make the reasonable accommodations necessary to ensure that all vehicles, including vans approved for use as medallion taxis, are
29

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 30 of 31
accessible to wheelchair users and allow people with mobility disabilities to enjoy the right of access to the public accommodation of medallion taxi service as required by N. Y. C. Admin. Code § 8-107(15).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 160. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 159 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 161. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed and are failing to comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.c. § 794, et seq., Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101, et seq. 162. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' contention. 163. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly. 164. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows, including but not limited to:
A. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' policies and practices affirmatively sanctioning the use of vans in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, in the context of the facts pleaded in this Complaint, violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
B. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' policies and practices affirmatively sanctioning the use of vans in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessiDTeto wneelcnau users, including tJre-NissaJrVan;irrihe-context-o>ff----the facts pleaded in this Complaint, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act;
30

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD Document 104 Filed 04/05/13 Page 31 of 31

C. For an order fmding and declaring that Defendants' policies and practices affinnatively maintaining a taxi fleet which is over 98% inaccessible and sanctioning the use of vans in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, in the context of the facts pleaded in this Complaint, violate the New York City Human Rights Law.
D. For injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to violate the
Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City
Human Rights Law; E. An award ofPlaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and F. Such other andfurther relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: NewYork,NY

By:

OVER (JMP333)

ability Rights Advocates

560 Broadway, 10th Floor

New York, NY 10036

Telephone: (212)644-8644

Facsimile: (212) 644-8636

Email:

general@dralegal.org

SID WOLINSKY (CA Bar No. 33716)*

MARY-LEE SMITH (CA Bar No. 239086)*

KARA lJANSSEN (CA Bar No. 274762)*

Disability Rights Advocates

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

TTY:

(510) 665-8716

Email:

general@dralegal.org

*Admitted pro hac vice

Attwneys fill Plaintiffs

31

 </s> Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 1 of 13
Exhibit A

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 2 of 13

LINITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonprofit organization, DR. SIMI LINTON, an individual, UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION,
a nonprofìt organization,

-against-

Plaintiffs,

No. I l-cv-0237 (GBD)

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency, MEERA JOSHI, in her officialcapacity as chair and commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and BILL DE BLASIO, in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York,

Defendants,

PROPOSED STIPULATION AND ORDER OF SETTLEMENT AND DISMISSAL

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 3 of 13

CLASS SETTLEMENT STIPULATION AND RELEASE

L Introduction.

1 L

This Settlement Stipulation ("Stipulation") is entered into by

Plaintifß THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonprofit organization, DR, SIMI

LINTON, an individual, UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofÏt

organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN

ACTION, a nonprofit organization, (collectively the "Named Plaintiffs")

individually and on behalf of themselves and a class of individuals as defined in

paragraph 3.12, as well as between NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE

COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency, MEERA JOSHI, in her official capacity

as chairman and commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine

Commission, THE CITY OF NEW YORK and BILL DE BLASIO, in his official

capacity as Mayor of the City of New York (collectively "Defendants.")

1.2 Defendants and the Named Plaintiffs shall be referred to
individually as a "PaÍty" and jointly as "Parties." This document is herein sometimes referred to as this "Stipulation."

1.3 The procedural history of the suit was as follows:

1.3.1 Named Plaintiffs filed a complaint against
Defendants in the Southern District of New York on January 13,2011 (he "Lawsuit"). The Lawsuit was assigned to the Honorable George B.
Daniels, U.S.D.J.

1.3.2 Class certification was granted by Order on August
10,2011 , The class encompassed in this certiflrcation includes the same members as the Plaintiff Class that is now settling the claims set forth in
the Lawsuit.

1.3.3 Litigation ensued between the Parties between
201I and the present. After the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed a decision of the U.S.D.J., on or about April 5,2013, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental and amended complaint. Plaintiffs again filed a further supplemental and amended complaint on July 22,2Q13.
Thereafter, the Parties litigated motions and cross-motions for summary judgment between August and October 2013. The cross motions for
summary judgment were argued before the District Court on October 1 l,
2013.

1r3.4 The Parties have mutual goals of settling this action
to avoid additional protracted and expensive litigation.
L3.5 A proposed Stipulation, embodied in a
Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), dated November 27,2013 along with an Implementation Agreement, dated November 27,2073, entered into by the Parties, was filed with the District Court on December 6,2013, and by Memo Endorsement dated December 9,2013 the District Court stayed the litigation at the request of all Parties. See Dkt No. 161 .

2

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 4 of 13

1,4 Consistent with the MOU, on March 25,2014, Defendants again
published rules proposing to amend Title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York by adding a new seðtion, 58-50.' This proposed amendment describes the agreedupon phaled in transition to a 50Yo accessible medallion taxi fleet in New York City. A hearing on these rules was held before the TLC on April 30,2014.
1.5 The TLC rule, codified in 35 RCNY $ 58-50 was unanimously
adopted by the TLC commissioners in a vote held on April 30, 2014.
L6 The final rule will be published in the City Record in
2014 and will take effect thirty days thereafter.
1,7 The Parties now wish to effectuate a complete resolution and
settlement of all claims, disputes, and controversies relating to the allegations of the Named Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Class, and to resolve their differences and
disputes by settling the Lawsuit,
1.8 Plaintiffs believe that a resolution of their claims, as set forth in
this Stipulation, accomplishes the goals reasonably achievable through litigation of their claims.
1.9 To that end, upon the Effective Date of this Stipulation, the parties
hereby withdraw any pending motions, and stipulate to the action being dismissed with prejudice. The Court will retain jurisdiction over the litigation only as set forth in Paragraphs 8.3 and 11,1.

2

No Admission of Liability.

2.1 By agreeing to and voluntarily entering into this Stipulation, there
is no admission or concession by Defendants, direct or indirect, express or implied, that there is any violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act,42
U.S.C. $ 1213l, et. seq., or any of its implementing regulations ("ADA"), the federal Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U,S.C. ç 794, et. seq. (the "Rehabilitation Act"), the New York City Human Rights Law, New York City Administrative
Code $ 8-101, et, seq., the constitutions or any other statutes, ordinances, rules or regulations of the United States, the State of New York, or any other rules, regulations or bylaws of any department or subdivision of the City of New York,

Ja .

Definitions.

In addition to the terms defined elsewhere in the Stipulation, the following terms shall have the meanings set forth below.
3.I "Accessible" means a Taxicab Vehicle that includes a ramp and other features to allow a wheelchair user to board safely and independently, if

I As part of their obligations under the MOU, on or about December 23,2013, TLC published a
proposed rule seeking to amend title 35 of the RCNY to implement the Stipulation. That
publication was superseded by the proposed rules published on March 25,2014, which became the Rule Adopted when it passed on April 30,2014.

3

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 5 of 13

able to do so, and to ride safely, Such features shall comply with the relevant laws including the U,S. Department of Transportation regulations implementing the Americans with Disabilities Act contained in 49 C.F.R. $ 38.23,
3.2 "Class Counsel" means Disability Rights Advocates, including
attorneys Sid Wolinsky, Julia Pinover, and Kara Janssen, and Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, including attorneys Daniel Brown and Sarah Aberg,

3.3 "Dispute Resolution" means the process described inParagraphT
herein,

3.4 "District Court" means the United States District Court in the
Southern District of New York that is assigned to decide matters related to this
Lawsuit.

3,5 "Effective Date" means the latter of either: (l) the expiration of the
time for f,rling an appeal from the Court's Final Approval of this Stipulation
without the hling of a notice of appeal; or (2) if an appeal if filed, the final
resolution of the appeal (including any requests for rehearing and/or petitioners for a writ of certiorari), resulting in final judicial approval of the Stipulation and
Order.

3.6 "Final Approval" means the approval of this Stipulation as fair,
reasonable, and adequate by a United States District Judge by any final
appropriate order.

3.7 "lmplementation Agreement" means and refers to the stipulation
entitled "Implementation Agreement" signed by the Parties on November 27, 2013, and filed with the District Court on December 6,2013,

3.8 "Medallion O'wner" shall mean any individual or business entity
licensed by TLC to own and operate one or more Taxicab Vehicle,

3.9 "Medallion Operators" shall mean Medallion Owners or those who operate taxi medallions, including, but not limited to, taxi agents. ¡

10 3.

"MOLJ" means and refers to the stipulation entitled

"Memorandum of Understanding" signed by the Parties on November 27,2013,

and filed with the District Court on December 6,2013,

I 3. I "Notice" means notice to the Named Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Class, and
other organizations and individuals who may be interested in the terms of this Stipulation provided in Paragraph 10 herein.

3.12 "Plaintiff Class" means "All persons using wheelchairs or scooters
who reside in or visit New York City who are persons with disabilities under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act, and/or New York City
Human Rights Law and who seek to use New York City medallion taxis" as was Ordered by the District Court on August 11,2011, and agreed to by the Parties. See Dkt No. 33, Order Granting Class Certification.

3.13 "Preliminary Approval" means the initial approval by the District
Court of the terms of this Stipulation prior to the Fairness Hearing.

4

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 6 of 13

3.14 "Rule Adopted" means title 35 of the Rules of the City of New
York ("RCNY"), section 58-50, which the TLC adopted on April 30,2074, and which will require taxicab medallion owners to utilize Accessible Taxicab Vehicles on a phase-in schedule as set forth therein, until at least 50% of the
Taxicab Vehicle fleet is comprised of wheelchair accessible vehicles.

5 3. I "Rules of the Taxi and Limousine Commission" or "TLC Rules"
means Title 35 of the Rules of the City of New York,

l6 3.

"Start Date" means the date on which the period for converting

50% of all Taxicab Vehicles to accessible vehicles begins. The Start Date shall be

the earlier of either: (l) the date on which there is a commercially available

vehicle that also meets the requirements of New York City Administrative Code $ l9-533,and which can also be converted to accommodate the transportation of

persons who use wheelchairs in accordance with the ADA; or (2) January 1,2016.

3.17 "Stay of Litigation" refers to the fact that the District Court has
deferred and adjourned all future litigation dates and deadlines, as set forth in a December 9,2013 memorandum endorsement. See Dkt, No. 161.

3,18 "Taxicab Vehicle" means a vehicle, yellow in color, bearing a
medallion indicating that it is licensed by TLC to carry up to five passengers for hire and authorized to accept hails from persons on the street, as defined in 35 RCNY $ 5 I -03. The set of Taxicab Vehicles operating in the city is referred to herein as the "medallion taxi fleet."

3,19 "Transition Period" means the period of time when medallion
owners will transition Accessible vehicles into the medallion taxi fleet, and
concluding on the date, no later than December 31,2020, when 50% of all Taxicab Vehicles in the medallion taxi fleet are Accessible, The Transition Period
shall begin on the Start Date.

4. Conditions Precedent.

4.1 If, by July I ,2074, the parties have failed to jointly submit this
Stipulation to the District Court and request Preliminary Approval, approval of a
Notice of Settlement, and the scheduling of a Fairness Hearing in compliance
with Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), either Party may request that that the District Court lift
the Stay of Litigation so that either party may resume litigation.

5

Accessibilify of New York City's Medallion Taxicab Vehicles.

5.1 The 50% accessibility requirement for the medallion taxi fleet
contemplated by this Stipulation shall be phased in during the course of the
regular retirement schedule as set forth in the TLC Rules as of the date this
Stipulation is signed, including the Rule Adopted, Accessible Taxicab Vehicles
shall be phased in to replace inaccessible Taxicab Vehicles as follows: Commencing on the S.tart Date, not fewer than 50%o of Taxicab Vehicles put in
servlce ln any year will be Accessible; provided, however, that if as of any particular date after the Start Dafe,50Yo or more of all Taxicab Vehicles.pui into
service since the Start Date are Accessible, there shall be no violation of this Stipulation if in any given calendar year fewer than 50Yo of the new Taxicab Vehicles put into service are Accessible

5

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 7 of 13
5.1,1 Notwithstanding any other provision of this
Stipulation, TLC Rules shall ensure that 50Yo of all Taxicab Vehicles are Accessible vehicles by no later than January 1,2020; provided, however, that if, as of such date: (1) 50Yo or more of Taxicab Vehicles put into service since the Start Date are Accessible; and (2) inaccessible vehicles scheduled to be retired and replaced with Accessible vehicles during the year 2020 are sufficient to get to 50Yo of the total fleet, then the Term of the Stipulation shall be extended to December 31 ,2020.
5.2 No Medallion Owner or Medallion Operator will be required to
retrofit their Taxicab Vehicles used in taxicab service prior to the date such Medallion Owner or Medallion Operator is required to purchase an Accessible vehicle under the terms of the Rule Adopted, Medallion Owners and Medallion Operators who are not required under the Rule Adopted to purchase an Accessible Taxicab Vehicle shall be permitted during the Transition Period to purchase any TLC-approved model for use as a taxicab regardless of its accessibility features.
5.3 The 50% accessibility requirement shall not be considered a
ceiling on the number of Accessible Taxicab Vehicles that are included in the medall ion taxi fleet.
5.4 The commitment to accessibility contained in this document is not
linked to the Nissan NV200 Taxi, the Taxi of Tomorrow Program, or to any other particular vehicle or program.
5.5 Notwithstanding any inconsistent or conflicting provision of state
or local law, or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, accessible vehicles shall be transitioned in accordance with the Rule Adopted and Paragraphs 5,I and 5.1.1, supra.
6. Reporting.
6.1 Defendants shall provide periodic reports as described in this
paragraph (Paragraph 6) concerning compliance with this Stipulation. The District
Court will retain jurisdiction for enforcement of the terms of this Stipulation
relating to such Reports.
6.2 Defendants shall provide Class Counsel with bi-annual reports (the
"Reports") on June 3Oth and December 31st of each year of the Transition Period,
6.3 The Reports shall detail the total number of: Taxicab Vehicles that
have been retired from the medallion taxi fleet during, at a minimum, the prior six-month period, including a sub category for the total number of retired Taxicab Vehicles that were Accessible vehicles; new Taxicab Vehicles that have been brought into the medallion taxi fleet in the prior six-month period, including a sub category for the total number of Accessible Taxicab Vehicles that have been brought into the medallion taxi fleet in the past year; Accessible Taxicab Vehicles in the medallion taxi fleet as of the date of the Report; Taxicab Vehicles scheduled to be retired in the six-month period; Accessible Taxicab Vehicles projected to be brought into the fleet in the next six-month period; Taxicab Vehicles retired since the Start Date of the Transition Period; Accessible Taxicab Vehicles brought into the fleet since the Start Date of the Transition Period and; the total number of Taxicab Vehicles.
6

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 8 of 13

7. Dispute Resolution. 7.1 Any disputes relating to this Stipulation shall be resolved
according to the following procedure.

7 .1.1 Notification in V/riting: Counsel for each Party
shall notify counsel for the other Party in writing of any perceived non-
compliance by either Party.

7.1.2 Meet and Confer: Unless otherwise agreed to by
the Parties, with respect to any particular dispute, the Parties agree to meet and confer in good faith, within ten (10) business days after a written notification of a dispute is raised (as set forth in Paragraph 7 ,1.1 infra) by any of the Parties to discuss and try to resolve such dispute without the
assistance of the Court.

7 .1.3 Submission to Court: Failing resolution of a dispute
by the Parties, any Party may, within thirty (30) days of the final meet and
confer, submit the issue to the District Court for decision,

7 .1.4 Only Class Counsel and Counsel for Defendants
may bring a motion to enforce any provision of this Stipulation, including
a motion alleging a violation of the Stipulation for contempt.

8

Attorneys' Fees and Costs.

8.1 By entering into this Stipulation, Plaintifß do not waive their right
to seek attorneys' fees or costs and Defendants do not waive their right to oppose
any such request.

8.2 If, after 60 days from Final Approval, the Parties are unable to
reach agreement regarding attorneys' fees and costs, Class Counsel may file a
motion for attorneys' fees and costs to be decided by the District Court presiding over this Lawsuit. Defendants will be free to oppose the amount of fees and costs sought in any such motion. The District Court will retain jurisdiction for purposes
ofadjudicating any claim for fees and costs.

8.3 The District Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for
enforcement under Paragraph I 1 .I of this Stipulation and for determination and
award of attorneys' fees and costs. Attorneys' fees and costs awards shall be determined in accordance with the standards set forth in existing U,S, Supreme Court precedent as to prevailing party status and calculation of such fees and
costs,

9

Preliminary Approval, Objections, Fairness and Final Approval Hearing.

9.1 Counsel for the Parties agree that they will take all reasonable
steps to ensure that this Stipulation is approved by the Court and becomes
effective. Specifically, the Parties will request that the Court grant Preliminary
Approval of this Stipulation, schedule a Fairness Hearing, and provide notice in the form and manner approved by the Court to the Plaintiff Class and other potentially interested organizations and individuals of the proposed settlement
terms and their opportunity to object thereto, after which the Parties shall move the Court for Final Approval of this Stipulation,

7

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 9 of 13

9.2 The complaint shall be dismissed with prejudice upon Final
Approval of this Stipulation, subject to the District Court's retention of
jurisdiction as described in Paragraphs 8,3 and 11,1 of this Stipulation.
10. Notice.

10.1 Notice shall be provided to the Plaintiff Class and other potentially
interested organizations and individuals as agreed upon by the parties and
approved by the District Court. Notice of the terms of this settlement shall be in a form agreed to by the Parties and approved by the District Court. Such Notice shall include or be accompanied by a separate document that indicates: (1) the manner, form, and deadline for any objections regarding this Stipulation; (2) the manner in which Class Counsel and Defense Counsel will obtain copies of such
objections and provide them to the Court; (3) the manner in which Class Counsel
and Defense Counsel will respond to such objections; and (4) the process by
which a person who has filed an objection may appear at the Fairness Hearing.

l1 Final Approval and Dismissal.

.1 1 I

The Parties agree that the District Court will retain jurisdiction to

enforce and administer this Stipulation and for purposes of awarding attorneys'

fees and costs, if any,

ll.2 If any collateral challenge to the settlement or this Stipulation and
Order arises in any court, including a challenge to the Rules Adopted as a result of
this Stipulation, the Parties are obligated to inform one another of such a challenge and defend each and every term, The representatives of the Class, Class Counsel, the Defendants, and the Office of the Corporation Counsel each agree that they shall use their best efforts to defend this settlement and Stipulation and Order from any legal challenge, whether by objection, appeal or collateral
attack.

1.3 1

The Parties agree that this Stipulation and Order is subject to Rule

108 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. It is therefore the Parties' understanding

that the Stipulation and Order is not admissible to prove Defendants' liability for

any of the individual or Class Claims that allege that Defendants violated any

laws, rules, or regulations of the United, States, the State of New York, or the City

of New York.

11.4 The terms and conditions contained herein do not constitute an
official policy or practice of the City of New York for purposes other than enforcement of this Stipulation.

12, Release of Claims.
12.1 Subject to the District Court's retention ofjurisdiction under
Paragraphs 8.3 and 11.1 of this Stipulation, and effective on the Effective Date, Named Plaintiffs and all Plaintiff Class members and each of their executors, successors, heirs, assigns, administrators, agents, and representatives, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally do fully and flrnally release, acquit, and discharge Defendants and their present and former parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and
8

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 10 of 13
each of their respective present, formet, or future officers, directors, employees, shareholders, administrators, executors, affrliates, sugcessors, and assigns (collectively the "Defendant Parties"), as well as all Eligible Medallion Owners, Eligible Medallion Operators, and Eligible Medallion Owner groups and their present and former parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates, and each of their iespective present, former, or future officers, directors, employees, shareholders, administrators, executors, affiliates, successors, members, medallions operated by those members, and assigns (collectively with the Defendant Parties, the "Released Parties"), from the Class-Wide Released Claims, as defined below in Paragraph 12,2.
12.2 The "Class-Wide Released Claims" are any and all claims, rights,
demands, charges, complaints, actions, suits, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for injunctive,
declaratory, or other non-monetary relief, however described, relating to claims
against the Released Parties regarding all claims that have been or could have been asserted in this litigation arising out of the same factual predicate alleged in the First Supplemental Amended Complaint, including the accessibility of Taxicab Vehicles for wheelchair users, that arise prior to and during the Transition Period.
12.3 Subject to the District Court's retention ofjurisdiction under Paragraphs 8,3 and 1l,l of this Stipulation, and effective on the Effective Date,
Named Plaintiffs, in consideration of the relief set forth herein, the sufficiency of which is expressly acknowledged, unconditionally do fully and finally release,
acquit, and discharge the Released Parties from the "Named Plaintiff Released Claims" as defined below in Paragraph 12.4.
12.4 The "Named Plaintiff Released Claims" are any and all claims,
rights, demands, charges, complaints, actions, suits, and causes of action, whether known or unknown, suspected or unsuspected, accrued or unaccrued, for monetary relief or damages regarding all claims that have been or could have been asserted in this litigation arising out of the same factual predicate alleged in the First Supplemental Amended Complaint, including the accessibility of Taxicab Vehicles for wheelchair users, that arise prior to and during the Transition Period,
12.5 Paragraphs 12.2 and 12.4 of The Stipulation apply only to those
Medallion Owners and Medallion Owner groups who are Eligible Medallion Owners, Eligible Medallion Operators, and Eligible Medallion Owner groups, "Eligible Medallion Owners," "Eligible Medallion Operators," and "Eligible Medallion Owner groups" mean those Medallion Owners, Medallion Operators, or Medallion Owner groups, including their current or future members and medallions operated by those members, who agree to enter into a covenant not to object to this Stipulation or otherwise challenge the implementation of this Stipulation, the MOU, or the Implementation Agreement in any way, including in any state or federal court. The Eligible Medallion Owners, Eligible Medallion Operators, and Eligible Medallion Owner groups who are covered by these provisions also agree to enter into a covenant not to challenge the Rule Adopted in any way, including in any state or federal court, The Eligible Medallion Owners, Eligible Medallion Operators, and Eligible Medallion Owner groups who are entitled to the releases set forth in Paragraphs 12.2 and 12.4 of this Stipulation shall be all entities who notify both Class Counsel and Defense Counsel of their intent to so covenant by no later than ten days after this Stipulation is signed. A
9

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 11 of 13
separate document reiterating the terms of such covenant and the signatures of both Parties as well as all Eligible Medallion Owners, Eligible Medallion Operators, and Eligible Medallion Owner groups shall be in a form agreed to by
the Parties.
12,6 Any Medallion Owner, Medallion Operator, or Medallion Owner
group who directly or collaterally attacks, objects to, or otherwise challenges this Stipulation or the Rule Adopted, shall not be released in the manner described in Paragraphs 72.2 and 12.4 of the Stipulation, regardless of whether that Medallion Owner, Medallion Operator, or Medallion Owner group initially entered into the covenant anticipated by Parugraph 12.5 of this Stipulation so as to be an Eligible Medallion Owner, Eligible Medallion Operator, or Eligible Medallion Owner group.
13. Entire Stipulation.
13,1 This Stipulation, along with the MOU and Implementation
Agreement, contain all the stipulations, agreements, conditions, promises, and covenants among Defendants, the Named Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiff Class, regarding matters set forth in it and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous stipulations, drafts, representations, or understandings, either written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of the present Stipulation,
t4 Partial Unenforceability
14.l If any provision of this Stipulation, the Rule Adopted, the MOU, or
the Implementation Agreement is rendered unenforceable in whole or in part for any reason, the Parties agree, within 10 business days of such a determination of unenforceability, to meet and confer in good faith in order to fashion an alternative provision or mechanism to replace such part as has been found unenforceable.
14,2 If the Parties are unable to reach agreement on such alternative
provision, either Party may utilize the dispute resolution process contained in Paragraph 7.1.3 of this Stipulation.
14.3 In the event that resort to the Court is made in accordance with
Paragraph 7 .l .3, either Party may request, and in the discretion of the Court, the Court may grant, a delay of up to 90 days of any deadline set forth in this Stipulation. Nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed as precluding any Party from seeking additional extension of this or any other deadline set forth in this Stipulation or the Court from granting such extensions on good cause shown.
15, Communications to Defendants and Class Counsel.
15.1 Unless otherwise indicated in the Stipulation, all notices or
communications required by this Stipulation shall be in writing by facsimile and
l0

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 12 of 13
U.S, Mail or overnight delivery service addressed as follows, unless counsel for either Party notifies counsel for the other Party in writing of any change:
l5.l,l To Class Counsel:
Julia Pinover Disability Rights Advocates 40 Worth Street, 1Oth Floor
New York, NY 10013
15.1,2 To Defendants
Michelle Goldberg-Cahn Office of the Corporation Counsel of City of New York 100 Church Street
New York, NY 10007
16. Modification. 16.1 Prior to Final Approval, this Stipulation can only be amended by
written agreement of the Parties hereto. Following Final Approval, no modification of this Stipulation shall be effective unless it is made pursuant to court order.
t7, Drafting of this Stipulation.
17.l This Stipulation is deemed to have been drafted by all Parties
hereto, as a result of arm's length negotiations among the Parties, Whereas all Parties have contributed to the preparation of this Stipulation, it shall not be construed more strictly against one Party than another,
l8 Execution by Facsimile and in Counterparts.
18.1 This Stipulation may be executed by the Parties hereto by facsimile
and in separate counterparts, and all such counterparts taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same Stipulation.
19. Class Action Fairness Act.
19.1 Defendants will provide information concerning the Stipulation in
compliance with 28 U.S.C, $ 1715, the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), to the U.S. Department of Justice and all applicable state Attorneys General offices.
20. Deadlines. 20.1 The Parties recognize that from time to time unforeseen events,
such as exigent business circumstances, labor disputes, natural disasters, personnel issues, and negotiations with third parties, cause delays in the accomplishment of objectives no matter how well-intentioned and diligent the Parties may be. Accordingly, with regard to the provisions of this Stipulation that require that certain acts be taken within specified periods, the Parties agree that
ll

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 196-1 Filed 06/06/14 Page 13 of 13
court approval shall not be required for reasonable extensions ofdeadlines, In the event thât any Party determines that an action required by this Stipulation cannot be taken witliin the specified time period, that Party shall promptly notify the other Parties that it anticipates a delay, the reasons for the delay, and offer a proposed alternative deadline. The Parties shall endeavor to cooperate in reasonably rescheduling such deadlines. However, if the other Party does not agree to the proposed delay, the Parties shall submit the matter to Dispute Resolution as set forth in Paragraph 7 of this Stipulation,
IN V/ITNESS V/HEREOF, the Parties hereto have caused the Stipulation to be executed,
Dated: New York, NY May 30,2014

DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES Counsel for Plaintiffs 40 Worth Street, lOth Floor New York, New York 10013 (212) 644-8644 Email : jpinover@dralegal.org

ZACHARY V/. CARTER Corporation Counsel of the
City of New York Attorney for Defendants
100 Church Street
New York, New York 10007 (212) 3s6-2tee Email: migoldbe@law.nyc. gov

By Mi Assi

Counsel

By:

Julia Pinover. Esq. SO ORDERED: Hon. George B. Daniels, U,S,D,J
l2

 </s> I '·

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 1 of 33

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

X ---------------------------------------------~----------·
THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a nonprofit organization, DR. SIMI LINTON, an individual, UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a nonprofit organization, 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a nonprofit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a nonprofit organization,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11-cv-0237 (GBD)

-against-

NEW YORK CITY TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION, a charter mandated agency, DAVID YASSKY, in his official capacity as chairman and commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, THE CITY OF NEW YORK, and MICHAEL BLOOMBERG, in his official capacity as x Mayor of the City of New York,

Defendants.

FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs submit this Supplemental Amended Complaint pursuant to Rule 15(a)(2) and Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to challenge the affirmative discriminatory policies of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC"), Commissioner Yassky, in his official capacity, the City of New York ("the City") and Mayor Bloomberg, in his official capacity (collectively "Defendants"), which have caused, and continue to cause, taxi service in New York City to be inaccessible to men, women and children who use wheelchairs.

1

·.

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 2 of 33

2. In spite of repeated broken promises of improvement by defendants, less than 2% of medallion taxis in New York City are currently accessible to wheelchair users. With the socalled Taxi of Tomorrow arriving on the streets in 2013, absent judicial action, this inaccessibility will be perpetuated for the next decade.
3. The City's Vehicle Supply Agreement with Nissan to provide the Taxi of Tomorrow requires that, for the next ten (10) years, Nissan will supply the City's taxi medallion owners with the Taxi of Tomorrow NV 200 vehicle ("Nissan Van"). Defendants negotiated all of the specifications of this vehicle with Nissan. In addition, the TLC passed rules requiring that unrestricted medallion holders must purchase the Nissan Van. Neither the Agreement nor the TLC rules require the Nissan Van to include a ramp or a lift which would make it useable by wheelchair users.
4. As a public entity, the City cannot enter into agreements or contracts which do not comply with the law. However, the City's Agreement with Nissan selects a non-accessible van to serve as a taxi which is in direct violation of Title III of the ADA.
5. As a licensing and regulatory agency, the TLC has an obligation to issue rules which comply with the law. However, the TLC's approval of the non-accessible version of the Nissan Van means that taxi medallion owners who follow the TLC's rules will be in violation of Title III of the ADA.
6. The City's Agreement with Nissan as well as the TLC's mandated purchase and mandated use of a non-accessible v~rsion of the Nissan Van is a direct violation of Title III of the ADA. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a van), the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.P.R.§ 37.29(b). The ADA is clear: it constitutes discrimination for a private provider of public transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity of less than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49 C.P.R.§ 37.103(d).

2

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 3 of 33
7. Under the City's Vehicle Supply Agreement with Nissan and the new TLC rules promulgated to effect that Agreement, Defendants are mandating private providers of taxi service to violate the ADA, and in so doing, Defendants are themselves violating the ADA. Moreover, the TLC's control of New York City's taxi fleet has become more extensive and more restrictive than at any time in the history of New York. In fact, the TLC is now far more than a mere regulator or licensor.
8. In 2007, Defendants announced the Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative in order to pursue the creation of the first purpose-built vehicle to serve as New York City's exclusive taxi.
9. In May of2011, Defendants selected the Nissan Van as the Taxi of Tomorrow. 10. On September 20,2012, the TLC promulgated rules designating the Nissan Van as the "Official Taxicab Vehicle." On October 20,2012, the new TLC Rules went into effect. These rules require purchase of the identical vehicle for all taxis, taking away one of the very few individual decisions a taxi medallion owner can make under the TLC's vast web of regulations. 11. In 2012, the City entered into a Vehicle Supply Agreement with Nissan where it committed to ensuring that private taxi medallion owners purchase the Nissan's Van upon retirement of their current vehicles, beginning on October 31, 2013. Defendants actively participated in negotiating the terms of the Agreement with Nissan. 12. With this increasingly pervasive control, Defendants had the practical opportunity to make New York City's taxi fleet fully accessible. However, they deliberately chose not to do so. Indeed, Defendants have taken affirmative steps to discourage and perpetuate accessibility. 13. Defendants have also inhibited the purchase of accessible vehicles by making such vehicles undesirable. Defendants claim that unrestricted medallion owners may "choose" to purchase an accessible version of the Nissan Van. However, in fact, there is no real choice. 14. There is no real choice because Defendants have set the price for the accessible Nissan Van to be 50% higher than that for non-accessible Nissan Vans, in effect imposing a substantial penalty on those who wish to purchase accessible vehicles.
3

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 4 of 33
15. There is no real choice because Defendants have approved an accessible model that can only carry one additional passenger in addition to the wheelchair user, thus limiting the pool of potential fare-paying riders for the owners of such a vehicle.
16. There is no real choice because Defendants have also selected an accessible vehicle that does not come directly from the factory but must be retrofitted by a third party converter to enable a ramp to be added to the rear of the vehicle. The retrofitting is also viewed by medallion owners as resulting in a structurally inferior vehicle.
17. Defendants' decision to maintain an inaccessible taxi fleet and approve the use of a van which is not accessible to men, women and children who rely on wheelchairs has profound negative consequences for the more than 500,000 men, women and children with mobility disabilities and over 60,000 wheelchair and scooter users who live in the City, as well as for countless wheelchair-using tourists.
18. The lack of accessible taxis significantly affects the ability of wheelchair-users to maintain employment and excel in the workplace. Without accessible taxis, they often cannot get to last-minute meetings or conferences. They are similarly often not able to work late due to a lack of reliable transportation options to get them home quickly and safely.
19. In a disaster or emergency, the ability to locate and use an accessible taxi can be vital to enabling a wheelchair user to evacuate safely. Taxis play an integral part in the City's emergency evacuation plans and mandating a van that is not wheelchair accessible raises a grave risk that people who use wheelchairs will not be able to evacuate safely.
20. Defendants' decision to approve a non-accessible van will only increase the City's reliance on the use of expensive and inferior alternatives such as paratransit, also known as Access-A-Ride, and Medicaid transportation. It is estimated that the cost of operating Access-ARide for calendar year 2012 was $509 million. Indeed, recent estimates suggest that Access-aRide now costs approximately $60 per trip. These costs would be reduced substantially ifNew York City's taxi system were accessible to wheelchair users.
JURISDICTION
4

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 5 of 33

21. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Rehabilitation Act"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and the New York

City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y. C. Admin. Code §8-101 et seq. This Court has

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343. 22. This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§

2201 and 2202.

VENUE

23. Pursuant to 28 U.S. C.§ 1391(b), venue is proper in the District in which this

Complaint is filed, because Defendants are located within this District, a substantial part of the

events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District, and the

property that is the subject of this action is situated in this District.

PARTIES

24. Plaintiff Simi Linton, Ph.D. is a resident of New York City with a mobility

disability that causes her to rely on a power wheelchair. She is a qualified individual with a

disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes and a member of the class. 25. Dr. Linton is a filmmaker, writer, and consultant who works primarily in New

York City. She often travels throughout the city for work, social, and speaking engagements, as

well as for doctors' appointments. Because of how difficult it is to obtain an accessible taxi, Dr.

Linton must rely on either the bus system, which is slow and unreliable, or a private

transportation company, which typically charges more than double the price that a taxi would

cost. 26.

Dr. Linton, a lifelong New Yorker, has attempted to hail taxis on numerous

occasions over the years, but has only succeeded in hailing an accessible taxi twice.

27. Dr. Linton is otherwise qualified to use hail taxi services provided by medallion

taxis in New York City. However, Dr. Linton has difficulty using or is completely unable to use

medallion taxi service in New York City by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged

5

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 6 of 33
herein. Specifically, Defendants' mandate to use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users as taxis subjects Dr. Linton to discrimination, solely by reason of her disability, by excluding her from participation in and denying her the benefits of such hail taxi service.
28. Plaintiff United Spinal Association ("United Spinal") is a national disability rights and veterans service organizations founded in 1946. It is a New York based not-for-profit organization that seeks to advance the rights and well-being of persons with disabilities, including those who require transportation services that are accessible to persons with disabilities.
29. United Spinal currently has approximately 40,000 members nationwide. Approximately 900 members of United Spinal reside in New York City and many more visit New York City on a regular basis. Many such members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein, including Defendants' mandate to use of vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users as taxis.
30. The mission of United Spinal is to provide and create access to resources, enabling people with spinal cord injuries to fulfill their potential as active members of their communities. United Spinal drafted significant portions of the ADA and continues to advocate for the rights of people with disabilities through state and federal legislation, the courts, grassroots advocacy, and education.
31. United Spinal currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect people with disabilities in New York City, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans, such as the Nissan Van, as taxis. The comprehensive services offered by United Spinal include: providing assistance to veterans navigating benefit programs; funding spinal cord research and education; organizing the largest annual spinal cord disabilities conference in the country; advocating for the civil rights of its members; keeping members informed of legislative and advocacy issues; providing technical assistance and repair programs to wheelchair-users; and advocating for accessible travel.
6

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 7 of 33
32. United Spinal itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. United Spinal's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices. United Spinal has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
33. In addition, one or more members of United Spinal have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right.
34. United Spinal can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to United Spinal's purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
35. Plaintiff The Taxis for All Campaign ("Taxis for All") is a coalition of disability rights organizations and individuals inNew York City dedicated to the goal of having all yellow medallion taxis be wheelchair accessible. The member groups of the Taxis for All campaign include the Anti-Discrimination Center of Metro New York, Brooklyn Center for Independence of the Disabled, Center for Independence of the Disabled in New York, Disabilities Network of New York City, Disabled in Action of Metropolitan New York, 504 Democratic Club, New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, New York City Chapter, National Multiple Sclerosis Society and United Spinal Association.
36. Taxis for All was founded in 1996 in New York City by disability rights advocates who were frustrated by the inaccessibility of New York City medallion taxis and the inability of people with disabilities to get around in the city. For the past 14 years Taxis for All has and continues to expend substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning transportation difficulties faced by people with disabilities, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans, such as the Nissan Van, as taxis. Their efforts include lobbying for legislative solutions, raising awareness, and organizing roll-in demonstrations at taxi stands to protest the inaccessibility of New York City taxis.
7

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 8 of 33
37. Taxis for All itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. Taxis for All's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices, including Defendants' mandate to use vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users as taxis.
38. In addition, one or more members of Taxis for All have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. Taxis for All can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to its purpose.
39. Plaintiff 504 Democratic Club ("504 Democrats") is a New York City-based coalition ofDemocrats'working towards inclusion of people with disabilities in the political and social fabric of society and was founded in 1983.
40. 504 Democrats has approximately 350 members who are from all five boroughs, and include a diverse group of people with disabilities, public officials, friends and family who support the concepts set forth in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Many of these members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein, including Defendants' mandate to use vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users as taxis.
41. 504 Democrats currently expends substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect people with disabilities inNew York City, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans, such as the Nissan Van, as taxis. Over the years, 504 Democrats has provided the leadership for starting many community activities. These activities include the Disability Independence Day March, held on the anniversary of the passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the annual Disability Budget and Policy Agenda, and advocacy work on behalf of city employees with disabilities. 504 Democrats participated in the
8

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 9 of 33
founding of, and provides much of the leadership for the Taxis for All Campaign, dedicated to bringing wheelchair-accessible taxis and liveries to New York City.
42. 504 Democrats itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. 504 Democrats' interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' policies and practices. 504 Democrats has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
43. In addition, one or more members of 504 Democrats have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. 504 Democrats can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to 504 Democrats' purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
44. Plaintiff Disabled In Action ("DIA''), founded in 1970, is a nonprofit civil rights membership organization committed to ending discrimination against people with all disabilities.
45. DIA consists primarily of, and is directed by, people with disabilities. DIA's members include residents with disabilities throughout New York City. Many ofDIA's members are having difficulty using or are completely unable to use medallion taxis by virtue of Defendants' acts and/or omissions alleged herein, including Defendants' mandate to use vans which are not accessible to wheelchair users as taxis.
46. DIA's objectives include promoting the ability of persons with disabilities to live independently. To that end, DIA works for the passage oflaws that affirm and defend the rights of people with disabilities. In addition, DIA works to educate government officials, community leaders and the general public about disability issues and plans and participates in public demonstrations to draw attention to these issues.
47. DIA has and continues to expend substantial time and resources on advocacy work concerning policies and practices that affect disabled residents of New York City, including advocating against the use of inaccessible vans such as the Nissan Van as taxis. For instance,
9

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 10 of 33
DIA advocated for passage of Local Law 58, the 1987 NYC Building Code amendment requiring that all commercial and residential buildings include accessible features in common areas and dwelling units when newly constructed or renovated. DIA also has participated in legal actions against New York City for its holding a public Town Hall meeting at an inaccessible site, against the federal government for noncompliance with the ADA at fifteen federal courthouses in New York City, against the New York City Human Rights Commission for failure to provide written material in alternate formats, and against the New York City MTA for not operating Access-A-Ride in compliance with the ADA.
48. DIA itself has been injured as a direct result of Defendants' actions and omissions as discussed herein. DIA's interests are adversely affected because it must expend resources, as it is doing in this lawsuit, advocating for its constituents who are harmed by Defendants' policies and practices. DIA has suffered injury in the form of diversion of these resources and frustration of its mission.
49. In addition, one or more members of DIA have been injured as a direct result of Defendants' discriminatory policies and practices and would have standing to sue in their own right. DIA can bring this action on behalf of its members because the interests at stake are germane to DIA' s purpose and only injunctive and declaratory relief are requested, which do not require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
50. Defendant New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission ("TLC") is a city agency established in 1971 by the New York City Charter ("Charter"). NY City Charter§ 2300.
51. The TLC is run by a nine-member commission, and one of the nine members is designated as the chairman and chief executive officer. !d. § 2301(a) and (c).
52. The purpose of the TLC is the "continuance, further development and improvement of taxi and limousine service in the city ofNew York." NY City Charter§ 2300.
53. The Charter further defines the purpose of the TLC as "consonant with the promotion and protection of the public comfort and convenience to adopt and establish an overall public transportation policy governing taxi ... services as it relates to the overall public
10

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 11 of 33
transportation network of the city; to establish certain rates, standards of service, standards of insurance and minimum coverage; standards for driver safety, standards for equipment safety and design; standards for noise and air pollution; and to set standards and criteria for the licensing of vehicles, drivers and chauffeurs, owners and operators engaged in such services." NY City Charter § 2300.
54. The TLC's jurisdiction also extends to regulating and supervising "transportation of persons by licensed vehicles for hire in the city" over rates of fare, standards, and conditions of service. NY City Charter§ 2303(b)(a).
55. The TLC is a "public entity" within the meaning of42 U.S.C. § 12131. 56. Defendant David Yassky, sued here in his official capacity, is Chairman and Commissioner of the TLC and is thus responsible for, and a participant in, the actions and/or omissions of the TLC. 57. Defendant City of New York is a municipality within New York State. The City of New York is a "public entity" within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131. 58. Representatives of the City of New York, including but not limited to, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner David Yassky, actively participated in negotiating the Agreement between the City and Nissan for Nissan to provide the inaccessible Nissan Van as the Taxi of Tomorrow. Representatives of the City, including but not limited to Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Commissioner David Yassky, are also responsible for determining public transit policy for the City of New York. 59. Defendant Michael Bloomberg, in his official capacity, is the chief executive officer of the City of New York as defmed in New York City Charter, Chapter I, section 3. Pursuant to Chapter I, section 8(a), as Mayor Michael Bloomberg "shall be responsible for the effectiveness and integrity of city government operations and shall establish and maintain such policies and procedures as are necessary and appropriate to accomplish this responsibility including the implementation of effective systems of internal control by each agency and unit
11

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 12 of 33
under the jurisdiction of the mayor." As such, Mayor Bloomberg, in his official capacity, is responsible for the discriminatory actions of governmental agencies within his control.
60. The TLC and its Commissioner, David Yassky, are within the control of the Mayor. Pursuant to the New York City Charter, Chapter 65, section 2301, defendant Michael Bloomberg also appoints the members of the Taxi and Limousine Commission, and also designates one of these commissioners "to act as chairman and chief executive officer" of the Taxi Limousine Commission.
61. Mayor Michael Bloomberg is also ultimately responsible for the negotiation and implementation of the Taxi of Tomorrow program in New York, including the selection of the inaccessible Nissan Van as the mandated Taxi of Tomorrow.
62. References in this document to "Defendants" shall be deemed to include all and each named Defendants: the Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky, in his official capacity, the City of New York, and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS The TLC's Approval of a Van which Is Not Accessible as the Taxi for New York City.
The Taxi ofTomorrow Initiative. 63. In 2007, the Department of Citywide Administrative Service- a branch of the City's government- introduced the Taxi of Tomorrow ("TOT") Initiative. The purpose of the TOT Initiative was to create the first purpose-built vehicle to serve as New York City's exclusive taxi to be used by taxi medallion owners for the next ten years, from October 31, 2013 through October 31,2023. 64. In December 2010, Defendants announced the selection of three finalists in the TOT competition: the Ford Transit Connect, Karsan V1 and Nissan NV200 van. 65. All of these vehicles are characterized and advertised as "vans" by their respective manufacturers. All are considered by the automotive industry to be vans.
12

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 13 of 33
66. Of these vehicles, only the Karsan VI was proposed to be built directly from the factory to be accessible to wheelchair users. The Karsan VI was the only vehicle which, had it been selected, would have resulted in a fully accessible medallion fleet.
67. The Ford Transit Connect and Nissan Van vehicles can be modified to be accessible to wheelchair users. However, neither company proposed, nor did the TLC require, that the accessible version of the Transit Connect or Nissan Van be selected as the official Taxi of Tomorrow to be mandated for use by all medallion holders over the next ten years.
68. In May 2011, Defendants selected the Nissan Van to become the Taxi of Tomorrow- making the NV200 van the first taxi purpose built for use in New York City and the City's exclusive taxi for the next decade.
69. The Nissan Van, as designed, is not accessible to wheelchair users because it does not include a ramp or lift to allow them to enter the vehicle independently and safely.
TheNissan Van/sa Van. 70. Under Title III of the ADA, when a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile, the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). Specifically, under the ADA, it is discrimination for a provider of public transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity of less than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49 C.F.R. § 37.103(d). 71. In order to provide equivalent service to persons with disabilities, taxi providers must ensure that, among other things, wheelchair users can hail a taxi within the same amount of time as their non-disabled counterparts. 49 C.F.R. § 37.105. Wheelchair users are currently unable to hail an accessible taxi in the same amount of time as non-disabled individuals. 72. In fact, taxi providers in New York City do not currently provide equivalent service to the City's men, women and children who use wheelchairs due to, among other things, the significant difference in response times. Even using the "accessible dispatch system," in
13

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 14 of 33
which wheelchair users can request by telephone an accessible taxi, the average wait time is twenty to twenty-five minutes, a far cry from the average ten minute wait time for most nondisabled passengers.
73. The Nissan NV200 is a van which seats less than eight including the driver. 74. Automotive industry, consumer groups and articles, periodicals and publications uniformly categorize the Nissan Van as a van. 75. The Nissan USA webpage, nissancommercialvehicles.com, lists the NV200 van under the category "Commercial Vans and Trucks". 76. Nissan describes the NV200 on its webpage as a "compact cargo van" and markets the NV200 as a "van" in its markets in the United States and abroad. 77. The Nissan van has been recognized by the automotive industry as a van. The Nissan Van has won multiple awards for Van of the Year, including but not limited to the Professional Van and Light Truck Magazine Van of the Year Award (20I 0), the International Van of the Year Award in Europe (2010) and the 2010 Commercial Delivery Van of the Year Award in China (20 10).
The TLC's New Rules. 78. On September 20, 2012, the TLC passed rules for the first time mandating that all umestricted medallion holders replace their vehicles, as they are retired, with the Nissan Van, starting on October 31,2013. These rules were promulgated pursuant to sections 1043 and 2303 of the Charter of the City ofNew York and took effect on October 20,2012. 79. The new rules taking effect on October 20, 2012 (the "new TLC Rules") in fact impose substantially greater control over the taxi industry by the TLC than ever before. This is the first time in the history of New York City taxi regulation that the TLC will require taxi medallion owners to purchase and use a single brand and model automobile. 80. The new TLC Rules also are a new major affirmative step toward perpetuating and ensuring the long-term inaccessibility of the New York taxi fleet.
14

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 15 of 33
81. Before the new TLC Rules, any unrestricted medallion owner who wanted to purchase an accessible vehicle had a range of choices of such a vehicle. Such medallion owners could select from six different versions of accessible vehicles representing a number of different body configurations and prices. Specifically, a medallion owner could purchase as an accessible vehicle, the 2011 or 2012 MVI Purpose Built Accessible Vehicle, the 2011 accessible Toyota Sienna, or one of three versions of the 2012 accessible Toyota Sienna.
82. This option no longer exists for 11,741 of the current unrestricted medallion holders because, under the new TLC Rules, the TLC only allows up to 469 of the current holders of unrestricted medallions to choose to purchase any accessible vehicle as long as it conforms to the TLC' s issued requirements. The remaining 11,741 holders of unrestricted medallions will be required to use the Nissan Van.
83. Prior to the new TLC Rules, an unrestricted medallion owner who wanted an accessible vehicle could purchase a vehicle which was specifically designed and factory built as an accessible vehicle and carne from the factory in accessible form without any retrofitting requirements. Vehicles which have been purpose built to be accessible are viewed by medallion owners to be superior to vehicles which have had to be extensively retrofitted in order for a ramp to be installed. This option of a factory built accessible taxi no longer exists for 11,741 of the current umestricted medallion holders.
84. Prior to the new TLC Rules, all umestricted medallion owners who wished to purchase an accessible vehicle had several options available to them which would allow a person in a wheelchair to ride in the accessible vehicle with more than one additional passenger. That option also has been taken away by the new TLC Rules which require the remaining II,741 holders of unrestricted medallions to use the Nissan Van, a vehicle which, when carrying a person in a wheelchair, can only accommodate one additional passenger.
85. Prior to the new TLC Rules, all taxi medallion owners could select from several different priced options of accessible vehicles. As described below, all taxi medallion owners
15

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 16 of 33
who must or who seek to purchase an accessible vehicle must pay a penalty of up to 50% above the price of the non-accessible vehicle.
New York City's Agreement with Nissan. 86. On October 9, 2012 the City of New York, in consultation with the TLC, entered into what is termed as a Vehicle Supply Agreement ("Agreement") with Nissan Taxi marketing N.A., LLC ("Nissan"). The Agreement grants Nissan the exclusive right to sell its vehicle, the Nissan Van, to holders of unrestricted medallions. 87. On November 16,2012 the Department of Citywide Administrative Services submitted the Agreement to the Office of the Comptroller for registration. Following a thorough review, on December 14, 2012, the Agreement was rejected by the Office of the Comptroller due to Defendants' failure to require that the Nissan Van be accessible to wheelchair users. At this time, none of Defendants have issued a formal response to the Comptroller's rejection of the contract and it appears that the City intends to move forward with the Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative. 88. The Agreement requires that all Nissan Vans made available for purchase include the following features: (i) premium vinyl seats, (ii) a low-annoyance hom, (iii) a panoramic glass roof panel, (iv) an active carbon lined headliner to neutralize odors, (v) rear passenger reading lamps and (vi) rear passenger charging stations, to allow passengers to charge iPods and cellular phones. 89. Despite the numerous passenger amenities included in the Agreement Defendants did not require that all Nissan Vans include a ramp to make them accessible to and usable by wheelchair users. 90. Under the Agreement, the City agreed to mandate the holders of 11,741 unrestricted medallions issued prior to January I, 2012 to purchase the Nissan Van when it is time for their current vehicles to be replaced starting on October 31, 2013. 91. The Agreement details the yearly pricing for each Model Year that the Nissan Van will be mandated for purchase. Under the Agreement the Manufacturer's Suggested Retail Price
16

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 17 of 33
for the 2014 Model Year of the Nissan Van is $29,700. This price increases for each subsequent model year. Defendants negotiated with Nissan to reach this price.
92. An accessible version of the Nissan Van has been designed but Defendants did not require Nissan to make an accessible version of the vehicle available directly from the factory.
93. Instead, in order to provide medallion holders with the accessible version of the Nissan Van, the vehicle must be sent to a Nissan-approved third party accessibility converter in order to be modified to be accessible to wheelchair users. Medallion holders who purchase the accessible van will have to pay for this conversion.
94. Conversion of the vehicle entails lowering of the floor, modification of the gas tank, fuel lines and seating area and addition of a ramp. This extensive rebuilding, retrofitting and conversion process is viewed by medallion owners to result in a vehicle which is structurally inferior to the original factory built NV200.
95. Moreover, following conversion the Nissan Van is only able to seat one additional passenger in addition to a wheelchair user, thus limiting its pool of potential fare-paying riders for the owners of such a vehicle.
96. The City, in consultation with the TLC, and Nissan agreed in the Agreement that the cost of the accessible version of the Nissan Van will include a conversion fee. Defendants negotiated with Nissan agreed in the contract that the conversion fee can be as much as $14,000 more than the manufacturer's suggested retail price of the non-accessible Nissan Van. This means that while the 2014 Nissan Van that cannot be used by people who use wheelchairs and scooters will sell for $29,700, the accessible version may cost up to $43,700, nearly 50% more than the non-accessible version.
97. Because of its economic and marketing power with Nissan, the relative price of the Nissan Van, in its accessible and inaccessible versions, was within the control of Defendants. Defendants could have set the price of the accessible vehicle at the same price as the nonaccessible vehicle. Defendants chose not to do so.
17

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 18 of 33
98. The increased cost for the accessible version was set by the City, in consultation with the TLC, and Nissan as part of the agreement. This significant additional cost will in fact prevent many medallion holders from being able to afford to purchase the accessible version of the Nissan Van. Defendants' failure to ensure that this cost is reasonable and affordable to medallion holders creates a significant deterrent to, and penalty for, the purchase of accessible vehicles by medallion holders.
99. The Nissan Van can be manufactured directly from the factory in an accessible version. For instance, the Nissan Van will be manufactured direct from the factory in an accessible version for use in London, England's taxi fleet. No separate, increased cost for conversion after manufacturing will be required.
100. By mandating the use of an inaccessible van, failing to require that Nissan make available an accessible version of the Nissan Van directly from the factory and by requiring unrestricted medallion holders to pay nearly 50% more for a vehicle that they view to be inferior and that can carry only one additional passenger with a wheelchair user, Defendants are inhibiting medallion owners from purchasing an accessible vehicle.
101. Although the City ofNew York, and by extension, the TLC, profits to the extent of hundreds of millions of dollars from its involvement with the taxi industry, Defendants have not chosen to offer subsidies or incentives to encourage the purchase of accessible taxis or to defray the penalty which owners have to pay in order to acquire an accessible Nissan Van.
102. Although the City and the TLC have multiple incentives and benefits that they can make available to encourage the purchase of a particular type of vehicle, such as what occurred in New York with respect to hybrid vehicles. Defendants have deliberately chosen to provide no such incentives for the purchase of accessible vehicles.
103. The TLC sets what is known as the "standard lease cap" which establishes the amount an owner of a taxi can charge to a driver to lease the taxi. Despite the fact that the accessible version of the Nissan Van may cost almost 50% more than the non-accessible version of the Nissan Van, the TLC does not permit taxi owners to lease the accessible version of the
18

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 19 of 33
Nissan Van for more than the non-accessible version of the Nissan Van. Under the newly passed TLC rules, the standard lease cap for the Nissan Van either non-accessible or accessible is the same $1114 weekly. See 35 RCNY § 58-2l(c)(3)(iii).
104. Any purported "choice" medallion owners are said to have in selecting an accessible van is false. In fact, there is no real choice. No medallion owner would seek to pay 50% more for an accessible taxi in order to provide taxi service at the same rate as nonaccessible taxis, using what medallion owners view as a structurally inferior vehicle that when carrying a wheelchair user has room for only one additional passenger.
Defendants' Increasing Control Over New York City's Taxi Fleet. 105. The City's Agreement with Nissan and the new TLC Rules represent an unprecedented increase in the Defendants' control of the New York City taxi fleet. Never has the City or TLC has exerted more control over New York City's taxi industry and more so than any other city or jurisdiction. 106. Defendants have moved beyond merely setting specifications for vehicles to signing an agreement with a single vehicle manufacturer to provide the identical vehicle at a set price to taxi medallion owners for the next decade, and then promulgating rules to mandate that monopoly arrangement for taxi medallion owners. Indeed Defendants have committed to Nissan that private medallion owner will purchase Nissan's vans. 107. Defendants have taken away virtually all independent decision-making from the taxi medallion owners. The TLC has now expanded its rules to control taxi medallion owners even more by limiting any individual choice of the majority of taxi medallion owners as to which vehicle they may purchase. The purchase of such vehicles is not a private or an individualized transaction between a vehicle manufacturer and a taxi medallion owner. Both the City and the TLC are inextricably intertwined in the purchasing relationship. No longer may the TLC or the City hide behind the facade of a mere "regulator" or "licensor." Through the Vehicle Supply Agreement between the City and Nissan, and the new TLC Rules, Defendants have vastly expanded their control of New York City taxi service.
19

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 20 of 33
108. Furthermore, with this pervasive control, Defendants inhibit the purchase of accessible vehicles. Instead of mandating a fully accessible fleet, Defendants offer an "accessible version" which is more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, leaving taxi medallion owners with no actual choice but to purchase a van that is inaccessible.
Defendants' Approval ofOther Non-Accessible Vans for Use as Taxis. 109. The Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative is not the first time that the TLC has approved a non-accessible van to serve as a taxi, causing taxi medallion owners to violate Title III of the ADA. II 0. As required under the New York City Charter, the TLC promulgates rules that set forth the specifications with which vehicles must comply with in order to operate as medallion taxis. 111. The TLC has found that the Ford Transit Connect, the Toyota Sienna, the Honda Odyssey and the Dodge Grand Caravan vehicles comply with these specifications and has allowed them to serve as taxis in New York City. 112. These vehicles are considered by their respective manufacturers, as well as the industry, to be vans. The TLC has not required that medallion owners purchase the version of these vans that are accessible to wheelchair users. Instead, despite the fact that all of these vans may be modified to be accessible, the TLC has allowed the non-accessible versions for use as medallion taxis. 113. The Ford Transit Connect is referred to as a "Transit Van" on the manufacturer's website, ford.com. The Transit Connect Taxi is certified to Ford Light Commercial Vehicle Durability Standards and was awarded Van of the Year (2004) by Professional Van and Light Truck Magazine. The Transit Connect was also awarded the North American Truck of the Year Award at the North American International Auto Show in 2010.
20

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 21 of 33
114. The Toyota Sienna is a van; it is referred to as a "Minivan" on the manufacturer's website, Toyota.com. The Sienna received the Most Dependable Minivan Award from J.D. Power and Associates in 2011 and in 2012.
115. The Honda Odyssey is a van; it is characterized as a "Minivan" on the manufacturer's website, Honda.com. The Odyssey won Motor Week's 2012 Drivers' Choice Award for "Best Minivan" for 2011 and 2012.
116. The Dodge Grand Caravan is a van; it is referred to as a "Minivan" on the manufacturer's website, dodge.com. It is characterized as the bestselling and most awarded minivan ever.
117. These non-accessible vans are currently in operation today and will continue to operate as taxis until they are replaced with the inaccessible Nissan Van.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 118. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs bring this action for injunctive and declaratory relief on their own behalf, on behalf of their members, and on behalf of all persons similarly situated and all residents in and visitors to New York City with mobility disabilities who have been and are currently being discriminated against by Defendants' actions and omissions as alleged herein. The class the named Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all people with mobility disabilities who need and want to use New York City medallion taxis. 119. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all members of the class is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action is a benefit to the parties and to the Court. 120. Data from the United States Census conducted in 2000 indicate that more than 1.6 million residents over the age of21 in New York City self-identify as having a disability. Such data further show that more than 220,000 non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a sensory disability, which includes visual disabilities, and more than 588,000
21

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 22 of 33
non-institutionalized New York City residents over the age of 16 have a physical disability, which includes mobility disabilities.
121. There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions oflaw and fact involved affecting the parties to be represented, in that Plaintiffs' members and individuals in the class will continue to be denied access to medallion taxis.
122. Common questions of law and fact predominate, including the question of whether affirmatively sanctioning and, in the case of the Nissan Van requiring, the purchase of a van that is not accessible to wheelchair users in violation of the Title III of the ADA violates the TLC's obligations under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the ADA and the NYCHRL and discriminates against individuals with disabilities.
123. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, or their members, are typical and are not in conflict with the interests of the class as a whole. Defendants' course of conduct and violation of the law as alleged herein has caused Plaintiffs and class members to be deprived of the opportunity to effectively utilize Defendants' program, service and/or activity. Therefore, all class members will suffer the same or similar injuries for the purposes of the injunctive and declaratory relief sought. Plaintiffs' claims are thereby representative of and co-extensive with the claims of the class.
124. The named Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they and/or their members do not have any conflicts of interest with other class members, and will prosecute the case vigorously on behalf of the class.
125. The attorneys representing the class are experienced both in disability law and in class action institutional litigation. Counsel representing the Plaintiff class is qualified to fully prosecute this litigation and possesses adequate resources to see this matter through to resolution. Counsel will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the class.
126. Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole, thereby making appropriate final declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole.
22

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 23 of 33
127. On August 10,2011 the Court issued an order granting the parties' request to stipulate to class certification. The order defmes the class as "All persons using wheelchairs or scooters who reside in or visit New York City who are persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and/or City Human Rights law and who seek to use New York City medallion taxis."
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973,
29 U.S.C. § 794, ET SEQ. 128. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 122 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 129. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides that "no otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States ... shall, solely by reason of his or her disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 130. An "individual with a disability" is defined under the statute, in pertinent part, as "an individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual." 29 U.S.C. § 705(20)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102). "Qualified" means, with respect to services, a person who meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of such services. 28 C.P.R. § 41.32. 131. Plaintiffs' members include, and Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of the applicable statutes. 132. The City of New York and Mayor have jurisdiction over the TLC and Commission Yassky. The TLC has jurisdiction over "assistance to the business community and industry of public transportation affected by this chapter in aid of continuation, development and improvement of service and the safety and convenience of the public, including assistance in
23

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 24 of 33
securing federal and state grants." NY City Charter§ 2303(b)(l0). As such, all Defendants are responsible for the development of public transportation policies and practices pursuant to the City Charter.
133. Both the City and the TLC have received federal financial assistance. 134. Using a non-accessible version of the Nissan Van is a direct violation of Title III of the ADA. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a van), the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.P.R.§ 37.29(b). The ADA is clear: it constitutes discrimination for a private provider of public transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity of less than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49 C.P.R. § 37.103(d). Neither Defendants nor the taxi medallion owners currently provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities because, among other things, the Accessible Dispatch System still results in far greater response times for disabled passengers needing an accessible taxi. 135. Defendants' policies and requirements are causing the underlying violation of the Title III of the ADA. As discussed above, because Defendants have ensured that the accessible version of the Nissan Van is more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, private medallion owners effectively have no choice but to purchase an inaccessible version of the Nissan Van. Thus, through its actions, Defendants are causing private medallion owners to violate Title III of the ADA. 136. By approving the use of, and in fact requiring the purchase of, an inaccessible van in violation of Title III of the ADA, Defendants are causing discrimination against individuals with disabilities for whom the vans which are now allowed, and which will be allowed, are inaccessible and for whom no equivalent service for medallion taxi service is provided in
24

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 25 of 33
violation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. As described herein, the actions of the TLC constitute discrimination on the basis of disability against Plaintiffs and class members.
137. Defendants are further violating the Rehabilitation Act by denying meaningful access to persons using wheelchairs. As discussed above, through the Agreement with Nissan and the new TLC Rules, Defendants have exerted more control than ever over New York City's taxi industry. Defendants' increasingly pervasive control over the taxi industry has essentially transformed a private taxi industry into a "program or activity" of the City and the TLC. The City and the TLC do far more than simply license and/or regulate taxis in New York City.
138. As public entities, the City and the TLC must provide meaningful access to their programs and activities. However, the City and the TLC are failing to do so. Rather Defendants' pervasive control inhibits the purchase of accessible vehicles since, as discussed above, they are more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, leaving taxi medallion owners with no actual choice but to purchase a van that is inaccessible.
139. By requiring the purchase of an inaccessible van, Defendants have ensured that the vast majority of the New York City taxi fleet will violate Title III of the ADA and in tum will remain largely inaccessible to wheelchair users for the next ten years. Defendants' actions result in a clear and outright denial of meaningful access to the taxi fleet of New York City.
140. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief herein is granted, Plaintiffs and their members will suffer irreparable harm in that they will continue to be discriminated against and denied access to the program or activity operated and overseen by Defendants.
141. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief and attorneys' fees pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §794(a).
25

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 26 of 33
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,
42 U.S.C. § 12131, ET SEO.
142. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 136 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
143. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12132, provides that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity."
144. The term "disability" includes physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 121 02(2). The named Plaintiffs, members of organizational Plaintiffs, and the class Plaintiffs represent are people who have mobility disabilities that substantially limit the major life activities of walking, standing, and/or moving about in their communities without mobility aids. Thus, Plaintiffs' members are, or Plaintiffs represent, qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of42 U.S. C.§ 12102,42 U.S.C. § 12131, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
145. A "public entity" includes state and local governments, their agencies, and their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Defendants qualify as a public entity within the meaning of42 U.S.C. § 12131 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
146. Using a non-accessible version of the Nissan Van is a direct violation of Title III of the ADA. When a provider of taxi service purchases or leases a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a van), the vehicle is required to be accessible. 49 C.F.R. § 37.29(b). The ADA is clear: it constitutes discrimination for a private provider of public transportation to purchase or lease a new van with a seating capacity ofless than eight persons, including the driver, which is not readily accessible to or usable by individuals with disabilities unless equivalent service is provided to persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12184(b)(5); see also 49
26

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 27 of 33
C.P.R. § 37.1 03(d). Neither the TLC nor the taxi medallion owners currently provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities because, among other things, the Accessible Dispatch System still results in far greater response times for disabled passengers needing an accessible taxi.
147. Defendants' policies and requirements are causing this underlying violation of the Title III of the ADA. As discussed above, because Defendants have ensured that the accessible version of the Nissan Van is more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, private medallion owners effectively have no choice but to purchase an inaccessible version of the Nissan Van. Thus, through their actions, Defendants are causing private medallion owners to violate Title III of the ADA.
148. By approving the use of, and in fact requiring the purchase of, an inaccessible van in violation of Title III of the ADA, Defendants are causing discrimination against individuals with disabilities for whom the vans which are now allowed, and which will be allowed, are inaccessible and for whom no equivalent service for medallion taxi service is provided in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et. seq. As described herein, the actions of Defendants constitute discrimination on the basis of disability against Plaintiffs and class members.
149. Congress directed the Department of Justice ("DOJ'') to write regulations implementing Title II's prohibition against discrimination. 42 U.S.C. § 12134. Pursuant to this mandate, the DOJ has issued regulations defining the forms of discrimination prohibited by Title II of the ADA. 28 C.P.R.§ 35.101 et. seq. One such regulation requires that "a public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability." 28 C.P.R. §35.130(b)(7). Here the TLC has adopted new policies, practices and procedures in conjunction with the Agreement with Nissan and new TLC Rules. However, the TLC has failed to make reasonable
27

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 28 of 33
modifications to its policies as required by 28 C.P.R. §35.130(b)(7) to ensure this program or activity does not discriminate against persons with disabilities, namely wheelchair users who require accessible taxicabs.
150. Defendants are further violating the ADA by denying meaningful access to persons using wheelchairs pursuant to Subtitle A of Title II of the ADA. As discussed above, through the Taxi of Tomorrow Initiative, Defendants have exerted more control than ever over New York City's taxi industry. The City and the TLC's increasingly pervasive control over the taxi industry has essentially transformed a private taxi industry into a "program, service or activity" of these public entities. The City and the TLC do far more than simply license and/or regulate taxis in New York City.
151. As public entities, the City and the TLC must provide meaningful access to their programs and activities. However, the City and the TLC fail to do so. Rather Defendants' pervasive control inhibits the purchase of accessible vehicles since, as discussed above, they are more expensive and viewed as structurally inferior and economically undesirable, leaving taxi medallion owners with no actual choice but to purchase a van that is inaccessible.
152. By requiring the purchase of an inaccessible van, Defendants ensured that the vast majority of New York City taxi fleet will violate Title III of the ADA and in turn will remain largely inaccessible to wheelchair users for the next ten years. Defendants' actions result in a clear and outright denial of meaningful access to the taxi fleet of New York City.
!53. Defendants are also violating Subtitle B of Title II of the ADA. Subtitle B mandates that "if a public entity operates a demand responsive system, it shall be considered discrimination ... for such an entity to purchase or lease a new vehicle for use on such a system . . . that is not readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, unless such a system, when viewed in its entirety, provides a
28

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 29 of 33
level of service to such individuals equivalent to the level of service such system provides to individuals without disabilities." 42 U.S.C. § 12144.
154. Through contractual or other arrangement or relationship with the private taxi medallion owners, there is little question that Defendants now "operate" New York City's taxi fleet and are subject to Subtitle B. As discussed above, Defendants have taken away virtually all independent decision-making from the taxi medallion owners. The City and the TLC have now expanded their control over taxi medallion owners even more by limiting any individual choice of the majority of taxi medallion owners as to which vehicle they may purchase. Moreover, Defendants do not provide equivalent service to individuals with disabilities because, among other things, the Accessible Dispatch System still results in far greater response times for disabled passengers needing an accessible taxi.
155. Given Defendants' pervasive control, it can and should require all taxis purchased by medallion owners to be wheelchair accessible. In fact, any exemptions for taxi accessibility do not apply to the taxi medallion owners because Defendants are forcing them to purchase vans, not automobiles. As discussed above, when using a vehicle other than an automobile (such as a van), taxi medallion owners must ensure that it is accessible to wheelchair users. 49 C.F .R. § 37.29(b).
156. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law, and unless the relief herein is granted, Plaintiffs and their members will suffer irreparable harm in that they will continue to be discriminated against and denied access to the program or activity operated and overseen by Defendants.
157. Consequently, Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief pursuant to section 203 of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12133, and attorneys' fees.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FOR VIOLATION OF THE NEW YORK CITY HUMAN RIGHTS LAW,
N.Y.C. ADMIN. CODE§ 8-101, ET SEQ.
29

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 30 of 33
158. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 152 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein.
159. The New York City Human Rights Law ("NYCHRL"), N.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8107(4)(a), provides that "[i]t shall be an unlawful discriminatory practice for any person, being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager, superintendent, agent or employee of any place or provider of public accommodation because of the actual or perceived ... disability ... status of any person directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from or deny to such person any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof ...."
160. The term "person" includes govermnental bodies or agencies. N.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-102(1). The TLC and the City are govermnental bodies or agencies and thus Defendants qualify as a person within the meaning ofN.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-102(1). Defendants are, at the very least, managers of a provider ofpublic accommodation.
161. The term "place or provider of public accommodation" includes providers, whether licensed or unlicensed, of goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind, and places whether licensed or unlicensed, where goods, services, facilities, accommodations, advantages or privileges of any kind are extended, offered, sold or otherwise made available. N.Y.C. Admin Code§ 8-102(9). Medallion taxi service constitutes a public accommodation and is a service, accommodation, advantage, or privilege offered to the general public and thus falls within the meaning ofN.Y.C. Admin Code § 8-1 02(9).
162. The NYCHRL additionally requires that any person prohibited from discriminating under Section 8-107 on the basis of disability "shall make reasonable accommodation to enable a person with a disability to ...enjoy the right or rights in question provided that the disability is known or should have been known by the covered entity." N.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-107(15).
30

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 31 of 33
The term "covered entity" is defined as a person required to comply with any provision of Section 8-107 which includes Defendants underN.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-102(1).
163. Defendants' failure to require more accessible taxis than the current less than 2% of the taxi fleet, as well as Defendants' mandate to use vans for medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, serve to directly and indirectly refuse, withhold from and/or deny people with mobility disabilities access to the public accommodation of medallion taxi service in violation ofN.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-107(4)(a).
164. The City and TLC are covered entities and must make the reasonable accommodations necessary to ensure that all vehicles, including vans approved for use as medallion taxis, are accessible to wheelchair users and allow people with mobility disabilities to enjoy the right of access to the public accommodation of medallion taxi service as required by N.Y.C. Admin. Code§ 8-107(15).
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 165. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 159 inclusive, as though fully set forth herein. 166. Plaintiffs contend that Defendants have failed and are failing to comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against persons with disabilities in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, et seq., Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, et seq., and the NYCHRL, N.Y.C. Admin. Code §8-101, et seq. 167. Defendants dispute Plaintiffs' contention. 168. A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate at this time in order that each of the parties may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly. 169. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for relief as set forth below.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
31

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 32 of 33

Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows, including but not limited to: A. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' policies and practices affirmatively sanctioning the use of vans in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, in the context of the facts pleaded in this Complaint, violate the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; B. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' policies and practices affirmatively sanctioning the use of vans in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, in the context of the facts pleaded in this Complaint, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act; C. For an order finding and declaring that Defendants' policies and practices affirmatively maintaining a taxi fleet which is over 98% inaccessible and sanctioning the use of vans in providing medallion taxi service which are not accessible to wheelchair users, including the Nissan Van, in the context of the facts pleaded in this Complaint, violate the New York City Human Rights Law. D. For injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from continuing to violate the Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law; E. An award of Plaintiffs' reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and F. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: July 12, 2013 New York, NY

By:

ER (JMP333)

isability R hts Advocates

40 Worth S eet, lOth Floor

New York, NY 10013

Telephone: (212)644-8644

Facsimile: (212) 644-8636

Email:

general@ dralegal.org

SID WOLINSKY (CA Bar No. 33716)*

32

Case 1:11-cv-00237-GBD-DCF Document 116 Filed 07/12/13 Page 33 of 33

MARY-LEE SMITH (CA Bar No. 239086)*

KARA J. JANSSEN (CA Bar No. 274762)*

Disability Rights Advocates

2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704

Telephone: (510) 665-8644

Facsimile: (510) 665-8511

TTY:

(510) 665-8716

Email:

general @dralegal.org

*Admitted pro hac vice

DANIEL BROWN SARAH ABERG 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 39th Floor New York, NY 10112 Tel: (212) 634-3095 Fax: (212) 653-8701 Email: Dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs.

33

 </s> Disability Rights Advocates Case: Noel v. TLC (Taxi and Limo... Page 1 of 4
NOEL V. TLC (TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION) LANDMARK DECISION: NEW YORK TAXI AND LIMOUSINE COMMISSION’S OPERATION OF INACCESSIBLE TAXI FLEET DISCRIMINATES AGAINST NEW YORKERS WITH DISABILITIES
New York, NY – December 23, 2011 – In a major victory for wheelchair users, a Federal Court ruled today that the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission’s (TLC) operation of an overwhelmingly inaccessible taxi fleet constitutes discrimination against people with disabilities. The groundbreaking decision is the first of its kind in the country and is the culmination of over a decade of advocacy by persons with disabilities. The ruling is expected to have national implications.
Federal Judge George B. Daniels held: “[t]he acknowledged lack of meaningful access is a direct result of the policies, practices, and regulations of the TLC. The TLC’s exercise of its regulatory authority alone has created the discriminatory effects on disabled riders who require the use of wheelchairs. Only the proper exercise of that authority can fix the problem that it created and neglected in the past. The disabled who seek meaningful access to taxicab services have nowhere else to turn to enforce their civil rights.”
Judge Daniels further noted that “meaningful access for the disabled to public transportation is not a utopian goal or political promise, it is a basic civil right.”
Judge Daniel’s then ordered that “[t]he TLC must propose a comprehensive plan to provide meaningful access to taxicab service for disabled wheelchair bound passengers...Until such a plan is proposed and approved by this Court, all new taxi medallions sold or new streethail livery licenses or permits issued by the TLC must be for wheelchair accessible vehicles.”
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/Noel_v_TLC.php 6/29/2012

Disability Rights Advocates Case: Noel v. TLC (Taxi and Limo... Page 2 of 4
The federal class action lawsuit, which seeks no damages, was filed in January 2011 by a coalition of people with disabilities, including: United Spinal Association, 504 Democratic Club, Taxis for All Campaign, and Disabled In Action. Disability Rights Advocates, a non-profit legal center specializing in class action litigation, and Outten & Golden represent the Plaintiffs.
New York City has more taxis than any city in America. Yet only 232 (1.8%) out of 13,237 taxis are accessible to people who use wheelchairs. Because multiple modes of transportation, including subway stations are also inaccessible, the lack of accessible taxis has left wheelchair users with no viable way to travel in New York City. A non-disabled person is over 25 times more likely to get a taxi within ten minutes than is a person who uses a wheelchair, and the TLC admits there is no reason why it could not require that more taxis be accessible.
This decision is the first in the country in which a court has found that a city’s taxi system must be wheelchair accessible. London’s taxi fleet of over 19,000 cabs has been 100% wheelchair accessible for many years.
In October 2011, the United States Department of Justice took the rare step of filing a brief supporting Disability Rights Advocates’ position that the Americans with Disabilities Act requires the New York taxi fleet to be wheelchair accessible.
Edith Prentiss of the Taxis for All Campaign said, “This is a great day for New Yorkers with disabilities. This ruling means that persons with disabilities will now have equal rights to taxis just like everyone else.”
Plaintiff Simi Linton, Ph.D., a lifelong New Yorker and power wheelchair user said, “This is a huge victory for New Yorkers with disabilities who live in a city with few accessible transportation options. The ability to travel throughout the city in a taxi is vital for getting to work,
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/Noel_v_TLC.php 6/29/2012

Disability Rights Advocates Case: Noel v. TLC (Taxi and Limo... Page 3 of 4
medical appointments, and cultural events. It is particularly important at night and in emergencies.”
Julia Pinover of Disability Rights Advocates said, “This decision is the best Christmas present my clients could ask for. The ruling today means that soon, New Yorkers who use wheelchairs will be able to participate in City life, in a way not possible before.”
Chris Noel, an individual plaintiff who has been using a wheelchair for nearly ten years said, “I have longed for the ability to hail a taxi cab the way I used to before I became disabled and am ecstatic about this win. My job requires an extensive amount of timely travel within the city so I would use taxis almost every day if they were accessible.”
Sid Wolinsky, Director of Litigation of Disability Rights Advocates said, “Mayor Bloomberg has so far been remarkably insensitive to the needs of seniors, veterans, and disabled people. He has thumbed his nose at the U.S. Department of Justice and mocked people who use wheelchairs. We hope that today’s decision helps him understand that New Yorkers and tourists who use wheelchairs and scooters are also entitled to use the City’s public transportation.”
Jean Ryan of the Plaintiff organization, the Disabled In Action said, “This is a triumph for people with disabilities who have sought equal access to taxis for over a decade; with perseverance we have ultimately prevailed in this struggle.”
Files Available for Downloading:
Read the Fact Sheet Read the Court's Decision Read the Press Release Read the Complaint
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/Noel_v_TLC.php 6/29/2012

Disability Rights Advocates Case: Noel v. TLC (Taxi and Limo... Page 4 of 4
©2000-2012 Disability Rights Advocates. All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer
ADDRESS: 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor, Berkeley California 94704-1204
PHONE: 510-665-8644 | EMAIL: general@dralegal.org Website Design by Collaborint
http://www.dralegal.org/cases/public_entities/Noel_v_TLC.php 6/29/2012

 </s> Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 1 of 35
CLOSED,CASREF,ECF,MEDTFR2
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York (Foley Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11−cv−00237−GBD−DCF

The Taxis for All Campaign et al v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission et al Assigned to: Judge George B. Daniels Referred to: Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman
Case in other court: US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 12−00041−cv
Cause: 42:12131 Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/13/2011 Date Terminated: 09/16/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Christopher Noel TERMINATED: 06/26/2013

represented by Allegra Louise Fishel Allegra L. Fishel, Attorney at Law 15 West 28th Street, Suite 7A New York, NY 10001 (646) 513−3318 Fax: (877) 513−8341 Email: allegra.fishel@gmail.com TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Dana Gale Sussman Safe Horizon Anti− Trafficking Program 50 Court Street, 8th Floor Brooklyn, NY 11201 718−943−8641 Fax: 718−943−8653 Email: dsussman@outtengolden.com TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Julia Miriam Pinover Disabilities Right Advocates 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor New York, NY 10013 (212) 644−8644 Fax: (212) 644−8636 Email: jpinover@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Werner Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, Fourth Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 665−8644 Fax: (510) 665−8511 Email: kara.janssen@drlcenter.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith Disability Rights Advocates 2001 Center Street, 3rd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704 (510) 665−8644 Fax: (510) 665−8511 Email: mkimber@dralegal.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sid Wolinsky Disability Rights Advocates

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 2 of 35

2001 Center Street, 4th floor Berkley, CA 94704 (510)−665−8644 Fax: (510)−665−8511 Email: swolinsky@dralegal.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Dr. Simi Linton an individual

represented by Allegra Louise Fishel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Dana Gale Sussman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Daniel L. Brown Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &Hampton, LLP (NYC) 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 24th Fl. New York, NY 10112 (212)−332−3879 Fax: (212)−332−3888 Email: dlbrown@sheppardmullin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Miriam Pinover (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Werner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Elizabeth Aberg Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton, LLP 30 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10112 (212) 634−3091 Fax: (212) 655−1727 Email: saberg@sheppardmullin.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sid Wolinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
United Spinal Association a nonprofit organization

represented by Allegra Louise Fishel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Dana Gale Sussman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 3 of 35

Daniel L. Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Miriam Pinover (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Werner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Elizabeth Aberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sid Wolinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
The Taxis For All Campaign a nonprofit organization

represented by Allegra Louise Fishel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Dana Gale Sussman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Daniel L. Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Miriam Pinover (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Werner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Elizabeth Aberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sid Wolinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 4 of 35

504 Democratic Club a nonprofit organization

represented by Allegra Louise Fishel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Dana Gale Sussman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Daniel L. Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Miriam Pinover (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Werner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Elizabeth Aberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sid Wolinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Disabled in Action a nonprofit organization

represented by Allegra Louise Fishel (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Dana Gale Sussman (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/28/2013

Daniel L. Brown (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Julia Miriam Pinover (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kara Jane Werner (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mary−Lee Kimber Smith (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Sarah Elizabeth Aberg (See above for address)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 5 of 35
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sid Wolinsky (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission a charter mandated agency
Defendant David Yassky in his official capacity as Chairman and Commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission TERMINATED: 05/20/2014
Defendant The City of New York
Defendant Michael Bloomberg in his official capacity as Mayor of the City of New York TERMINATED: 05/20/2014 Defendant Mayor Bill de Blasio
Defendant Meera Joshi Taxi and Limousine Chairwoman and Commissioner

represented by Robin Binder NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 788−0818 Fax: (212) 791−9714 Email: rbinder@law.nyc.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn NYC Law Department, Office of the Corporation Counsel (NYC) 100 Church Street New York, NY 10007 (212) 356−2199 Fax: (212) 791−9714 Email: migoldbe@law.nyc.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robin Binder (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 6 of 35

Intervenor Defendant Committee for Taxi Safety
Intervenor Defendant Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade
Intervenor Defendant Colonial Cab Corp.

represented by Roberta Ann Kaplan Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &Garrison LLP (NY) 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 212−373−3086 Fax: 212−373−2037 Email: rkaplan@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robyn F. Tarnofsky Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &Garrison LLP (NY) 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10019 (212)−373−3090 Fax: (212)−373−2359 Email: rtarnofsky@paulweiss.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth S. Saylor Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP 600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 212−763−5000 Fax: 212−763−5001 Email: esaylor@ecbalaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hayley Horowitz Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP 600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 (212)−763−5000 Fax: (212)−763−5001 Email: hhorowitz@ecbalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Richard D. Emery Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady, LLP 600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor New York, NY 10020 212−763−5000 Fax: 212−763−5001 Email: remery@ecbalaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Elizabeth S. Saylor (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hayley Horowitz (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 7 of 35
Richard D. Emery (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Objector
Greater New York Taxi Association
Interested Party
United States Of America U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY 86 Chambers Street Third Floor New York, NY 10007 (212) 637−2741

V.
Amicus
Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association

represented by Richard D. Emery (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/13/2011
01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011 01/13/2011
01/14/2011
01/24/2011
01/24/2011 02/01/2011

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity), David Yassky(as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission). (Filing Fee $ 350.00, Receipt Number 925598)Document filed by The Taxis For All Campaign, Simi Linton, Disabled in Action, 504 Democratic Club, Christopher Noel, United Spinal.(mro) (ama). (ama). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
SUMMONS ISSUED as to New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity), David Yassky(as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission). (mro) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman is so designated. (mro) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
Case Designated ECF. (mro) (Entered: 01/13/2011)
2 RULE 7.1 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. No Corporate Parent. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal.(mro) (ama). (Entered: 01/13/2011)
3 ORDER FOR INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE: Initial Conference set for 3/16/2011 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge George B. Daniels. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/14/11) (rjm) (Entered: 01/14/2011)
4 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Robin Binder on behalf of New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity), David Yassky(as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission) (Binder, Robin) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
5 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn on behalf of New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity) (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 01/24/2011)
6 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission served on 1/19/2011, answer due 2/9/2011; David Yassky(in his official capacity) served on 1/19/2011, answer due 2/9/2011; David Yassky(as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission) served on 1/19/2011, answer due 2/9/2011. Service was accepted by R. Comeyers. Document filed by The Taxis

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 8 of 35

02/02/2011 02/03/2011
02/07/2011 02/10/2011 02/14/2011 02/14/2011 02/22/2011 02/25/2011 03/03/2011 03/03/2011 03/11/2011 03/16/2011 03/23/2011 03/24/2011

For All Campaign; Simi Linton; Disabled in Action; 504 Democratic Club; Christopher Noel; United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 02/01/2011)
8 MOTION for Kara Werner to Appear Pro Hac Vice for plaintiffs. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal.(cd) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
7 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Robin Binder dated 2/1/11 re: Request for an extension of time until 3/10/11 for defendant to respond to the complaint. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission answer due 3/10/2011; David Yassky(in his official capacity) answer due 3/10/2011; David Yassky (as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission) answer due 3/10/2011. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/3/11) (db) (Entered: 02/03/2011)
9 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION. granting 8 Motion for Kara Werner to Appear Pro Hac Vice. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/7/2011) (rjm) (Entered: 02/07/2011)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 02/01/2011, Receipt Number 928048. (jd) (Entered: 02/10/2011)
10 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Allegra Louise Fishel on behalf of 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal (Fishel, Allegra) (Entered: 02/14/2011)
11 MOTION for Sid Wolinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal.(mro) (Entered: 02/16/2011)
12 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE ON WRITTEN MOTION granting 11 Motion for Sid Wolinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice for plaintiffs. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/22/11) (cd) (Entered: 02/22/2011)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 11 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $25.00, paid on 02/14/2011, Receipt Number 930021. (jd) (Entered: 02/25/2011)
13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). Responses due by 3/17/2011(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
14 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint.. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 03/03/2011)
15 SCHEDULING ORDER:, CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN: Amended Pleadings due by 7/1/2011. Joinder of Parties due by 7/1/2011. Discovery due by 8/26/2011. Joint Pretrial Order due by 10/28/2011. So Ordered (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/11/11) (js) (Entered: 03/11/2011)
16 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 03/16/2011)
17 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint.. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 03/23/2011)
18 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated 3/23/2011 re: Counsel respectfully request that the Court set a new oral argument, as is convenient for Your Honor's calendar, on 5/10, 11, 12, 16 or 17. ENDORSEMENT: The oral argument is adjourned to May 17, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. So Ordered. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/24/2011) (jfe) (Entered:

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 9 of 35

05/09/2011 05/12/2011 05/25/2011 05/25/2011 06/07/2011 06/07/2011 06/16/2011 06/17/2011
06/23/2011
06/23/2011
06/23/2011
07/13/2011

03/24/2011)
19 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated 5/6/2011 re: Counsel writes to request permission to use several demonstrative visual aids during the 5/17/2011 hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/9/2011) (ab) (Entered: 05/09/2011)
20 ORDER: The oral argument currently scheduled for 5/17/2011, is ADJOURNED until 5/24/2011 at 10:30 AM. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/11/2011) (ab) (Entered: 05/12/2011)
21 ORDER denying 13 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission and David Yassky (in his official capacity). (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/24/2011) (ab) (Entered: 05/25/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Oral Argument held on 5/25/2011. Plaintiff and Defense counsel present. Court Reporter also present. Next conference set for 8/10/11 at 9:30. (jfe) (Entered: 05/31/2011)
22 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity).(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
23 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity).(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 06/07/2011)
24 ORDER that defendants' letter request to modify the Court's order dated 5/24/11 and certify this matter for intelocutory appeal is DENIED, as further set forth in this document. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/15/11) (cd) (Entered: 06/16/2011)
25 AMENDED CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER: Amended Pleadings due by 7/1/2011. Joinder of Parties due by 7/1/2011. Fact Discovery due by 10/16/2011. Expect Discovery due by 10/16/2011. Dispositive Motions due by 11/16/2011. Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/15/2011. The parties shall be ready for trial within 48 hours notice. The estimated trial time is 5 days. This is a non−jury trial. Case Management Conference set for 8/10/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/17/2011) (ab) (Entered: 06/17/2011)
26 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 5/24/2011 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Carol Ganley, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/18/2011. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/28/2011. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/26/2011.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
27 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 5/24/2011 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
28 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 5/24/2011 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 06/23/2011)
29 MOTION for Mary−Lee Kimber Smith to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 10 of 35

07/15/2011 07/21/2011 07/22/2011 07/26/2011 08/10/2011
08/10/2011 08/15/2011
08/26/2011

Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal.(pgu) (Entered: 07/14/2011)
30 ORDER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE, granting 29 Motion for Mary−Lee Kimber Smith to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Additional relief as set forth in this Order. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/15/11) (pl) Modified on 7/15/2011 (pl). (Entered: 07/15/2011)
31 JOINT STIPULATION EXTENDING EXPERT DISCLOSURE DEADLINE. IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the respective parties in the above captioned matter that the deadline for Plaintiffs' expert reports along with the required material relied upon, shall be extended from August 1, 2011 to August 15, 2011. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/21/11) (rjm) (Entered: 07/21/2011)
CASHIERS OFFICE REMARK on 29 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in the amount of $200.00, paid on 07/13/2011, Receipt Number 11488. (jd) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
32 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia M. Pinover dated 7/26/2011 re: Counsel for the Plaintiff writes to request permission for attorney Sid Wolinsky to appear via telephone for the Initial Pretrial Conference scheduled for 8/10/2011. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/26/2011) (ab) (Entered: 07/26/2011)
33 STIPULATION AND ORDER GRANTING CLASS CERTIFICATION. (1) The class is defined as "All persons) using wheelchairs or scooters who reside in or visit New York City who are persons with disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act, Rehabilitation Act and/or City Human Rights Law and who seek to use New York City medallion taxis." (2) Disability Rights Advocates and Outten and Golden, LLP are designated as class counsel for the Plaintiffs. (3) Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, Ph.D., United Spinal Association, The Taxis for All Campaign, 504 Democratic Club, and Disabled In Action are designated as Plaintiff Class Representatives (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/10/11) (djc) (Entered: 08/10/2011)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Conference held on 8/10/2011. Plaintiff's counsel and defense counsel present. Court reporter present. Next Conference set for 12/6/2011 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. (mro) (Entered: 08/16/2011)
34 SCHEDULING ORDER:Plaintiff's moving papers due 8/26/2011. Defendants' opposition papers due 9/23/2011. Plaintiffs' reply papers due 10/3/2011. In the event of a cross−motion by defendants, plaintiffs' opposition papers are due 10/11/2011 and defendants reply papers are due 10/18/2011. All fact discovery shall be completed by 12/15/2011. Expert discovery to be completed by 11/3/2011. The parties shall be ready for trial within 48 hours notice on or after (TBD by the Court). The estimated trial time is 5 days. This is a non−jury trial. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/15/2011) (mro) (Entered: 08/15/2011)
35 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − FIRST MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. Responses due by 9/23/2011 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 2 Supplement Rule 56.1 Statement of Undisputed Facts, # 3 Supplement Declaration of Julia Pinover in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 22 Supplement Declaration of Susan Dooha in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 25 Supplement Declaration of Douglas Kruse in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 27 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 28 Supplement Declaration of Christopher Noel in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, # 29 Supplement Declaration of Simi Linton in

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 11 of 35

08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011
08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/26/2011 08/30/2011
09/23/2011 09/23/2011

Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 8/26/2011 (db). (Entered: 08/26/2011)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Julia Miriam Pinover to RE−FILE Document 35 FIRST MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, eacy receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. Responses due by 9/23/2011(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
37 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
38 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
39 DECLARATION of Julia M. Pinover in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
40 DECLARATION of Susan Dooha in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
41 DECLARATION of Douglas Kruse in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
42 DECLARATION of Christopher Noel in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
43 DECLARATION of Simi Linton in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/26/2011)
44 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated 8/26/11 re: Counsel for the plaintiffs request that the Court hold a hearing on their recently filed motion for partial summary judgment. Plaintiffs request that the Court schedule a hearing some time during the period of 11/7−11/10. ENDORSEMENT: So ordered. The conference is adjourned to November 9, 2011 at 10:00 a.m.Set Deadlines/Hearing as to 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment:( Motion Hearing set for 11/9/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/30/2011) (mro) Modified on 8/31/2011 (mro). (Entered: 08/30/2011)
45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). Responses due by 10/11/2011(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
46 DECLARATION of Deputy Commissioner Chhabra in Opposition re: 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment., 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 12 of 35

09/23/2011 09/23/2011 09/23/2011
09/28/2011
10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/03/2011 10/11/2011 10/11/2011

Yassky(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
47 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
48 COUNTER STATEMENT TO 38 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
49 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment., 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. Memo of Law in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/23/2011)
50 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated 9/28/2011 re: The parties have agreed and jointly request that the hearing date for the motion and cross−motion for summary judgment be set for November 22, 2011 at 10am. ENDORSEMENT: The oral argument is set for November 22, 2011 at 10:00 a.m. ( Oral Argument set for 11/22/2011 at 10:00 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/28/2011) (pl) (Entered: 09/28/2011)
51 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
52 DECLARATION of Julia M. Pinover in Support re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 . Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. Responses due by 10/17/2011(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
54 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
55 DECLARATION of Julia M. Pinover in Support re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
56 DECLARATION of Douglas Kruse in Support re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/03/2011)
57 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY (SEE DOCUMENT #58) − REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) Modified on 10/12/2011 (ldi). (Entered: 10/11/2011)
58 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/11/2011)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 13 of 35

10/11/2011 10/13/2011 10/13/2011 10/14/2011
10/28/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011 10/28/2011
10/28/2011 11/04/2011 11/15/2011
11/16/2011 11/16/2011

59 COUNTER STATEMENT TO 47 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 10/11/2011)
60 BRIEF re: 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Statement of Interest of the United States of America. Document filed by United States Of America.(Kuehler, Natalie) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
61 DECLARATION of Natalie N. Kuehler in Support re: 60 Brief. Document filed by United States Of America. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Kuehler, Natalie) (Entered: 10/13/2011)
62 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Robin Binder dated 10/14/2011 re: Counsel for the defendants request that their time to submit a reply memorandum of law be enlarged by 10 days, from October 18 to October 28, 2011. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Replies due by 10/28/2011.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/14/2011) (ft) (Entered: 10/14/2011)
63 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
64 DECLARATION of Deputy Commissioner Ashwini Chhabra in Opposition re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K through O)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
65 DECLARATION of Robin Binder in Opposition re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P through V)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
66 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
67 DECLARATION of Deputy Commissioner Ashwini Chhabra in Support re: 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K through O)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
68 REPLY AFFIRMATION of Robin Binder in Support re: 45 CROSS MOTION for Summary Judgment.. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit P through V)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2011)
69 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 .. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 11/04/2011)
70 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: Movant Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association shall show cause as to why an Order should not be issued granting Movant's motion for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae. Show Cause Hearing set for 11/22/2011 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 21D, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Robert W. Sweet. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet − Part I on 11/14/2011) (djc) Modified on 11/15/2011 (djc). (Entered: 11/15/2011)
71 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Richard D. Emery on behalf of Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association (Emery, Richard) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
72 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − NOTICE of Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae. Document filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association. (Emery, Richard) Modified on 11/18/2011 (kco).

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 14 of 35

11/16/2011
11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011 11/16/2011
11/17/2011
11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/18/2011 11/23/2011
11/23/2011 11/23/2011 12/07/2011

(Entered: 11/16/2011)
73 FILING ERROR − WRONG DOCUMENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − BRIEF re: 72 Notice (Other) in Support of Motion for Leave to File Brief of the Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association as Amicus Curiae. Document filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association.(Emery, Richard) Modified on 11/17/2011 (ka). (Entered: 11/16/2011)
74 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae. Document filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association.(Emery, Richard) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
75 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 74 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae.. Document filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association. (Emery, Richard) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
76 DECLARATION of Julia Einbond in Support re: 74 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae.. Document filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Emery, Richard) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
77 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 74 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 11/16/2011)
78 ORDER: The order directing the Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association to show cause before the Court on November 22 is hereby vacated. The parties are to proceed as instructed by Judge Daniel's chambers. (Signed by Judge Robert W. Sweet, Part I on 11/17/2011) (lmb) Modified on 11/17/2011 (lmb). (Entered: 11/17/2011)
79 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Robyn F. Tarnofsky on behalf of Committee for Taxi Safety (Tarnofsky, Robyn) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
80 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Roberta Ann Kaplan on behalf of Committee for Taxi Safety (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
81 MOTION to Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. Document filed by Committee for Taxi Safety.(Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
82 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 81 MOTION to Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.. Document filed by Committee for Taxi Safety. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
83 DECLARATION of David L. Beier in Support re: 81 MOTION to Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.. Document filed by Committee for Taxi Safety. (Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
84 ANSWER to 1 Complaint,. Document filed by Committee for Taxi Safety.(Kaplan, Roberta) (Entered: 11/18/2011)
85 ORDER granting 74 Motion for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association. The Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association's Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief is granted. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/22/2011) (mro) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
86 ORDER denying 81 Motion to Intervene. The Committee for Taxi Safety's Motion to Intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 is denied without prejudice. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/22/2011) (mro) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
87 ORDER denying 53 Motion to Strike. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike Portions of the Declaration of Ashwini Chhabra is denied. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/22/2011) (mro) (Entered: 11/23/2011)
88 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 11/22/2011 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jerry Harrison, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 15 of 35

12/07/2011
12/23/2011
12/30/2011 01/03/2012 01/03/2012

due 1/3/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 1/12/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 3/9/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
89 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 11/22/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 12/07/2011)
90 MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER; Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Title II, subtitle B claim is denied. The TLC's cross−motion for summary judgment on its Title II, subtitle B claim is granted. The TLC's cross−motion for summary judgment on its Title II, subtitle A, Rehabilitation Act, and NYCHRL claims is denied. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Title II, subtitle A claim is granted. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/23/2011) (ae) (Entered: 12/23/2011)
91 NOTICE OF APPEAL from 90 Order. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity), David Yassky(as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission). Filing fee $ 455.00, receipt number 465401025684. Form C and Form D are due within 14 days to the Court of Appeals, Second Circuit. (tp) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Certified Copy of Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals re: 91 Notice of Appeal. (tp) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
Appeal Record Sent to USCA (Electronic File). Certified Indexed record on Appeal Electronic Files for 25 Case Management Plan, 58 Response in Opposition to Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 88 Transcript, 71 Notice of Appearance filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association, 6 Affidavit of Service Complaints, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 33 Stipulation and Order, 12 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 84 Answer to Complaint filed by Committee for Taxi Safety, 28 Notice of Filing Transcript, 89 Notice of Filing Transcript, 42 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 91 Notice of Appeal, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 21 Order on Motion to Dismiss, 87 Order on Motion to Strike, 11 MOTION for Sid Wolinsky to Appear Pro Hac Vice, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 77 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 32 Endorsed Letter, 82 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Committee for Taxi Safety, 79 Notice of Appearance filed by Committee for Taxi Safety, 1 Complaint, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 10 Notice of Appearance filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 5 Notice of Appearance filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 63 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 39 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 57 Reply Memorandum of Law in Oppisition to Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 90 Order, 52 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 34 Scheduling Order, 81 MOTION to Intervene Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. filed by Committee for Taxi Safety, 14 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 61 Declaration in Support, filed by United States Of America, 85 Order on Motion for Leave to File Document, 45 CROSS

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 16 of 35
MOTION for Summary Judgment. filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 19 Endorsed Letter, 9 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 15 Scheduling Order, Case Management Plan, 4 Notice of Appearance filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 53 MOTION to Strike Document No. 46 . filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 26 Transcript, 8 MOTION for Kara Werner to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 31 Stipulation and Order, 48 Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 3 Order for Initial Pretrial Conference, 60 Brief filed by United States Of America, 54 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 18 Endorsed Letter, Set Hearings, 20 Order, Set Hearings, 30 Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice, 73 Brief, filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association, 51 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 68 Reply Affirmation in Support of Motion, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 35 FIRST MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 80 Notice of Appearance filed by Committee for Taxi Safety, 36 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 16 Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 55 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 46 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 66 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 86 Order on Motion to Intervene, 44 Endorsed Letter, Set Motion and RRDeadlines/Hearings, 13 MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint. filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 70 Order to Show Cause, 78 Order, 76 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association, 50 Endorsed Letter, Set Hearings,, 49 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 83 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by Committee for Taxi Safety, 22 Answer to Complaint filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 72 Notice (Other) filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association, 41 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 38 Rule 56.1 Statement filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 17 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 65 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 47 Rule 56.1 Statement filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 56 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 74 MOTION for Leave to File a Brief as Amicus Curiae. filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association, 67 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 43 Declaration in Support of Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 7 Endorsed Letter, Set Deadlines, 75 Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by Taxicab, Limousine &Paratransit Association, 64 Declaration in Opposition to Motion, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 23 Answer to Complaint filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 27 Notice of Filing Transcript,, 24 Order, 69 Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 37

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 17 of 35

01/06/2012 01/11/2012
01/11/2012
01/11/2012 01/18/2012 01/19/2012 02/06/2012 02/17/2012
02/17/2012

Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 29 MOTION for Mary−Lee Kimber Smith to Appear Pro Hac Vice. filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 62 Endorsed Letter, Set Deadlines,, 40 Declaration in Support of Motion, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 2 Rule 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, 59 Counter Statement to Rule 56.1 filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign were transmitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals. (tp) (Entered: 01/03/2012)
92 ORDER: A conference in this matter is scheduled for January 17, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( Status Conference set for 1/17/2012 at 02:15 PM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/6/2012) (mro) (Entered: 01/06/2012)
93 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: MOTION held on 11/22/2011 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Jerry Harrison, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 2/6/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 2/17/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 4/13/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
94 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a MOTION proceeding held on 11/22/11 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
95 ORDER: The conference in this matter is scheduled for January 17, 2012 is adjourned to January 18, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( Status Conference set for 1/18/2012 at 02:15 PM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/11/2012) (lmb) (Entered: 01/11/2012)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Oral Argument held on 1/18/2012. Plaintiff's counsel and Defense counsel present. Court reporter present. (ab) (Entered: 02/02/2012)
96 ORDER: Defendants' letter request for a stay pending appeal of this Court's 12/23/2011 order is DENIED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/18/2012) (ft) (Entered: 01/19/2012)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO E−MAIL PDF. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (ama) (Entered: 02/06/2012)
97 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: Conference held on 1/18/2012 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Karen Gorlaski, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 3/12/2012. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/22/2012. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/21/2012.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/17/2012)
98 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a Conference proceeding held on 1/18/2012 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 02/17/2012)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 18 of 35

02/24/2012 06/28/2012
10/01/2012
10/01/2012 02/27/2013 03/05/2013 03/07/2013 04/04/2013 04/04/2013 04/05/2013
05/03/2013 05/16/2013

USCA Case Number 12−41−cv from the US Court of Appeals, Second Circuit assigned to 91 Notice of Appeal, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission. (nd) (Entered: 02/24/2012)
99 TRUE COPY OPINION of USCA as to 91 Notice of Appeal, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission USCA Case Number 12−0041. The District Court's temporary injunction is vacated. The case is remanded with instructions for the district court to grant summary judgment to defendants on the Title II(A) claim and for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 06/28/2012. (nd) (Entered: 06/28/2012)
100 MANDATE of USCA (Certified Copy) as to 91 Notice of Appeal, filed by David Yassky, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission USCA Case Number 12−0041. Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the judgment of the District Court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED in accordance with the opinion of this Court. Catherine O'Hagan Wolfe, Clerk USCA for the Second Circuit. Issued As Mandate: 10/01/2012. (nd) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
Transmission of USCA Mandate/Order to the District Judge re: 100 USCA Mandate,. (nd) (Entered: 10/01/2012)
101 ORDER: A conference is scheduled in this matter on March 7, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. Status Conference set for 3/7/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/27/2013) (ft) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
102 ORDER: Partial Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiff's Title II(A) claim is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 3/5/2013) (ja) (Entered: 03/05/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 3/7/2013. Plaintiff counsel: Julia Pinover, Mary−Lee Smith, Sid Wolinsky; Defense counsel: Robin Binder and Court reporter present. The next conference is scheduled in April 4, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 03/07/2013)
103 ORDER: Plaintiffs' request to file an Amended Supplemental Complaint is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept Plaintiffs' Amended Supplemental Complaint for filing. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs' Amended Supplemental Complaint by May 3, 2013. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 4/4/2013) (ja) (Entered: 04/04/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 4/4/2013. Plaintiffs counsel: Sid Wolinsky, Julia Pinover Defense counsel: Robin Binder, Michelle Goldberg−Cahn and court reporter present. The next conference is scheduled for June 4, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/05/2013)
104 SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED COMPLAINT amending 1 Complaint, against New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity), David Yassky(as commissioner of the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission). Document filed by The Taxis For All Campaign, Simi Linton, Disabled in Action, 504 Democratic Club, Christopher Noel, United Spinal. Related document: 1 Complaint, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign.(ft) Modified on 4/10/2013 (ft). (Entered: 04/10/2013)
105 ANSWER to 104 Amended Complaint,,. Document filed by New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky(in his official capacity).(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 05/03/2013)
106 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 4/4/2013 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Denise Richards, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 6/10/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 6/20/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 8/19/2013.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 05/16/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 19 of 35

05/16/2013 06/03/2013
06/19/2013 06/26/2013
06/27/2013 06/27/2013 06/28/2013

107 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 4/4/13 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 05/16/2013)
108 CIVIL CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN AND SCHEDULING ORDER FOR PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED COMPLAINT: In order to address the new allegations and claims in the Supplemental Amended Complaint, the parties agree that further discovery is necessary. Consequently, the parties have consulted and propose the following Civil Case Management Plan and Scheduling Order for Plaintiffs' Supplemental Amended Complaint, pursuant to Rules 16 and 26(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: No additional parties may be joined after July 1, 2013. No amendment of the pleadings will be permitted after July 1, 2013. All fact discovery shall be completed by October 25, 2013. Expert discovery to be completed by January 17, 2014. Dispositive motions may be filed at any time, but no later than February 28, 2014. The parties shall be ready for on or after May 1, 2014 unless dispositive motions are currently pending. The estimated trial time is 5 days. This is a non−jury trial. (See Order). Amended Pleadings due by 7/1/2013. Joinder of Parties due by 7/1/2013. Motions due by 2/28/2014. Fact Discovery due by 10/25/2013. Expert Discovery due by 1/17/2014. Ready for Trial by 5/1/2014. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/3/2013) (ja) (Entered: 06/03/2013)
109 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels, from Julia Pinover, dated 6/14/2013, re: propose dates to the Court for a Case Management Conference in July or August. The Parties propose convening a conference at the Court's convenience on July 29th, August 1, or August 6th. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is scheduled for July 29, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. ( Case Management Conference set for 7/29/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/19/2013) (ja) (Entered: 06/19/2013)
110 STIPULATION AND ORDER AMENDING CAPTION: By and between the undersigned that Christopher Noel be withdrawn from this case as a named representative Plaintiff, and that the caption of Noel et al. v. Taxi and Limousine Commission, et al. is to be amended to remove Plaintiff Noel. The Plaintiffs' side of the new caption will read: THE TAXIS FOR ALL CAMPAIGN, a non−profit organization, DR. SIMI LINTON, an individual, UNITED SPINAL ASSOCIATION, a non−profit organization, DISABLED IN ACTION, a non−profit organization, and 504 DEMOCRATIC CLUB, a non−profit organization. Any and all future court records for this case shall reflect this change. IT IS SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/26/2013) (ja) (Entered: 06/26/2013)
111 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Supplemental and Amended Complaint Unopposed. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal.(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
112 DECLARATION of Julia M. Pinover in Support re: 111 MOTION for Leave to File First Amended Supplemental and Amended Complaint Unopposed.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/27/2013)
113 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION OF COUNSEL; STIPULATION AND ORDER: that the law firm of Sheppard Mullin Richter &Hampton LLP (and attorney Daniel L. Brown) hereby are substituted in place of the law firm Outten &Golden, LLP (and attorneys Allegra L. Fishel, Dana Sussman and Molly A. Brooks) as counsel of record for plaintiffs Dr. Simi Linton, United Spinal, The Taxis for All Campaign, 504 Democratic Club and Disabled in Action in the above−captioned action; that the law firm Outten &Golden, LLP (and attorneys Allegra L. Fishel, Dana Sussman and Molly A. Brooks) should be removed from the docket and terminated from receiving future ECF notices in this case. PLEASE TAKE

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 20 of 35

07/10/2013 07/12/2013
07/17/2013 07/26/2013
08/06/2013 08/15/2013 08/16/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013 08/28/2013

FURTHER NOTICE that all future ECF notices, pleadings, notices of hearing and other filings in this matter should be served upon the Incoming counsel set forth herein. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/28/2013) (ja) (Entered: 06/28/2013)
114 ORDER granting 111 Motion for Leave to File Document. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for leave to amend complaint and file the first amended supplemental and amended complaint (ECF No. 111) is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/10/2013) (lmb) (Entered: 07/10/2013)
116 FIRST SUPPLEMENTAL AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF amending 104 Amended Complaint against New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky (in his official capacity), The City of New York, Michael Bloomberg. Document filed by The Taxis For All Campaign, Simi Linton, Disabled in Action, 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal Association. Related document: 104 Amended Complaint, filed by 504 Democratic Club, United Spinal, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign.(ja) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
115 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE A FIRST AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL AND AMENDED COMPLAINT: IT IS SO ORDERED that Plaintiffs are granted leave to file their first amended supplemental and amended complaint, and defendants are granted 30 days from Plaintiffs filing to respond. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/17/2013) (ja) (Entered: 07/17/2013)
117 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated 7/26/2013 re: Per the Court's request following the adjournment of the July 29, 2013 Case Management Conference, we write to propose dates to the Court for a Case Management Conference in September 2013. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. The conference is adjourned to September 18, 2013 at 9:30 a.m., ( Case Management Conference set for 9/18/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 7/26/2013) (ama) (Entered: 07/26/2013)
118 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Julia Miriam Pinover on behalf of All Plaintiffs. New Address: Disability Rights Advocates, 40 Worth Street, 10th Floor, New York, New York, United States 10013, 212−644−8644. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/06/2013)
119 ANSWER to 116 Amended Complaint,,. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 08/15/2013)
120 STIPULATION AND ORDER REGARDING CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL...regarding procedures to be followed that shall govern the handling of confidential material... (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/16/2013) (ja) (Entered: 08/16/2013)
121 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. Responses due by 9/11/2013 Return Date set for 9/18/2013 at 09:30 AM. (Attachments: # 1 Brief)(Brown, Daniel) Modified on 8/29/2013 (db). (Entered: 08/28/2013)
122 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 08/28/2013)
123 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − NOTICE of Request for Judicial Notice re: 121 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2, # 2 Part 3, # 3 Part 4)(Brown, Daniel) Modified on 8/29/2013 (db). (Entered: 08/28/2013)
124 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Kara Janssen in Support re: 121 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 21 of 35

08/28/2013
08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013 08/29/2013
08/29/2013

Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H PART 1, # 9 Exhibit H PART 2, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L)(Brown, Daniel) Modified on 8/29/2013 (db). (Entered: 08/28/2013)
125 FILING ERROR − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY − DECLARATION of Paul Sheridan in Support re: 121 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B PART 1, # 3 Exhibit B PART 2, # 4 Exhibit B PART 3, # 5 Exhibit B PART 4, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H)(Brown, Daniel) Modified on 8/29/2013 (db). (Entered: 08/28/2013)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Daniel L. Brown to RE−FILE Document 121 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. ERROR(S): Supporting Documents are filed separately, each receiving their own document #. (db) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Daniel L. Brown to RE−FILE Document 124 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Document linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Daniel L. Brown to RE−FILE Document 125 Declaration in Support of Motion. ERROR(S): Document linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − DEFICIENT DOCKET ENTRY ERROR. Note to Attorney Daniel L. Brown to RE−FILE Document 123 Notice (Other), Notice (Other). ERROR(S): Document linked to filing error. (db) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. Responses due by 9/13/2013 Return Date set for 9/20/2013 at 09:30 AM.(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
127 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
128 DECLARATION of Kara Janssen in Support re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H PART 1, # 9 Exhibit H PART 2, # 10 Exhibit I, # 11 Exhibit J, # 12 Exhibit K, # 13 Exhibit L)(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
129 DECLARATION of Paul Sheridan in Support re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B PART 1, # 3 Exhibit B PART 2, # 4 Exhibit B PART 3, # 5 Exhibit B PART 4, # 6 Exhibit C, # 7 Exhibit D, # 8 Exhibit E, # 9 Exhibit F, # 10 Exhibit G, # 11 Exhibit H)(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2013)
130 NOTICE of Request for Judicial Notice re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 PART 2, # 2 PART 3, # 3 PART 4)(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 08/29/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 22 of 35

09/03/2013
09/04/2013
09/04/2013 09/18/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013

131 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Michelle Goldberg−Cahn dated 8/29/2013 re: Counsel requests a modification of the deadlines governed by Local Rule 6.1 in connection with yesterday's filing of plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment. This application is made with the consent of all parties. ENDORSEMENT: The oral argument is adjourned to November 13, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. (Oral Argument set for 11/13/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/3/2013) (ft) (Entered: 09/03/2013)
132 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover, dated 8/28/2013, re: Today, August 28, 2013, Plaintiffs filed their motion for partial summary judgment. As required under the Court's individual practices, Plaintiffs write to request oral argument on this motion. Because Plaintiffs' motion was filed on August 28, Defendants Opposition will be due on September 11, and Plaintiffs' reply will then be due September 18. Plaintiff are unavailable the week of October 21st but request that the Court set a hearing date for this motion. ENDORSEMENT: The oral argument is adjourned to October 16, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. SO ORDERED. (Oral Argument set for 10/16/2013 at 02:00 PM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Responses due by 9/11/2013, Replies due by 9/18/2013.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/3/2013) (ja) (Entered: 09/04/2013)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 132 Endorsed Letter. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (ja) (Entered: 09/09/2013)
133 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels, from Michelle Goldberg−Cahn, dated 9/13/2013, re: request an adjournment of the Case Management Conference scheduled for Wednesday, September 18, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. The conference is adjourned to December 12, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. ( Case Management Conference set for 12/12/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/17/2013) (ja) (Entered: 09/18/2013)
134 DECLARATION of Deputy Commissioner Ashwini Chhabra in Opposition re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A and B (pt 1), # 2 Exhibit B (pt 2))(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
135 DECLARATION of Peter Bedrosian in Opposition re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − E, # 2 Exhibit F, # 3 Exhibit G, pt 1, # 4 Exhibit G, pt 2, # 5 Exhibit G, pt 3)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
136 DECLARATION of Expert Donald D. Parker (in 3 parts) in Opposition re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Attachments: # 1 Part 2 of Parker Expert Dec, # 2 Part 2 of Parker Expert Dec)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. Responses due by 10/4/2013(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
138 DECLARATION of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn in Opposition re: 137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment., 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − C, # 2 Exhibit D, pt 1, # 3 Exhibit D, pt 2, # 4 Exhibit D, pt 3, # 5 Exhibit E − G)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
139 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment., 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered:

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 23 of 35

09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/25/2013 09/26/2013
10/02/2013 10/02/2013 10/02/2013
10/02/2013 10/02/2013 10/02/2013 10/02/2013 10/09/2013

09/25/2013)
140 COUNTER STATEMENT TO 122 Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
141 RULE 56.1 STATEMENT. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
142 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 130 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/25/2013)
143 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sid Wolinsky, dated 9/25/2013, re: The Court has given the parties in the above captioned case revised possible times for oral argument. The available time slots that are acceptable to Plaintiffs are October 10th or 11th, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. The oral argument is adjourned to October 11, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. ( Oral Argument set for 10/11/2013 at 10:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/26/2013) (ja) (Entered: 09/26/2013)
144 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
145 DECLARATION of Kara Janssen in Support re: 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit M, # 2 Exhibit N)(Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
146 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Cross−Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Updated Summary of Undisputed Facts)(Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
147 REPLY re: 141 Rule 56.1 Statement Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' Rule 56.1 Statement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
148 REPLY re: 130 Notice (Other), Notice (Other) Reply In Support of Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
149 MOTION to Strike Document No. 136 Motion to Strike the Declaration of Donald D. Parker. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
150 DECLARATION of Julia Pinover in Support re: 149 MOTION to Strike Document No. 136 Motion to Strike the Declaration of Donald D. Parker.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Werner, Kara) (Entered: 10/02/2013)
151 REPLY AFFIRMATION of Robin Binder in Support re: 137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/09/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 24 of 35

10/09/2013 10/09/2013 10/09/2013 10/11/2013
10/21/2013
10/28/2013 10/28/2013 11/15/2013 11/20/2013

152 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
153 DECLARATION of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn in Opposition re: 149 MOTION to Strike Document No. 136 Motion to Strike the Declaration of Donald D. Parker.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − F)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
154 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 149 MOTION to Strike Document No. 136 Motion to Strike the Declaration of Donald D. Parker.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Oral Argument held on 10/11/2013 re: 137 CROSS MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by David Yassky, The City of New York, Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, 126 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment. filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, United Spinal Association, The Taxis For All Campaign. Plaintiff Counsel: Sid Wolinsky, Julia Pinover, Daniel Bauin Def Counsel: Robin Binder, Michelle Goldberg−Cahn, and Court Reporter Present. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/11/2013)
155 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels, from Julia Pinover, dated 10/18/2013, re: Joint Request for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. The close of fact discovery is set for October 25, 2013, and exchange of expert disclosures is set for November 1, 2013.... Should it please the Court, this would mean that fact discovery would close November 25, 2013 and expert reports would be disclosed on December 1, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Fact Discovery due by 11/25/2013.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 10/21/2013) (ja) (Entered: 10/21/2013)
156 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: MOTION held on 10/11/2013 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Andrew Walker, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 11/21/2013. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 12/5/2013. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/29/2014.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
157 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a MOTION proceeding held on 10/11/2013 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/28/2013)
158 ORDER: The parties shall appear for a conference on November 26, 2013 at 9:30am. ( Status Conference set for 11/26/2013 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/12/2013) (mro) (Entered: 11/15/2013)
159 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Kara Janssen, dated 11/18/2013, re: Joint Request for Extension of Discovery Deadlines. In the above−captioned case the close of fact discovery is set for November 25, 2013, and exchange of expert disclosures is set for December 1, 2013. Defendants also currently have responses to discovery demands due to Plaintiffs on November 22, 2013. After a meet and confer both parties request that each of these deadlines be moved back by ten (10) days. Should it please the Court, this would mean that fact discovery would close December 5, 2013, expert reports would be disclosed on December 11, 2013 and Defendants' responses to Plaintiffs' Sixth Request for the Production of Documents would be due to Plaintiffs on December 2, 2013. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Fact Discovery due by 12/5/2013.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/20/2013) (ja) (Entered: 11/20/2013)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 25 of 35

12/06/2013
12/09/2013
12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/20/2013 12/27/2013
01/08/2014 01/14/2014 01/14/2014

160 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated Dec. 6, 2013 re: Settlement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Executed Memorandum of Understanding, # 2 Exhibit Executed Implementation Agreement)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 12/06/2013)
161 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on 160 Letter, filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, United Spinal Association, The Taxis For All Campaign re settlement having been reached. ENDORSMENT: The conference is adjourned to 2/27/2014 at 9:30 a.m. (Conference reset for 2/27/2014 at 09:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/9/2013) (cd) (Entered: 12/09/2013)
162 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Richard D. Emery on behalf of Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade, Colonial Cab Corp.. (Emery, Richard) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
163 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Hayley Horowitz on behalf of Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Horowitz, Hayley) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
164 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Elizabeth S. Saylor on behalf of Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade.(Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
166 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
167 DECLARATION of Elizabeth Saylor in Support re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4, # 5 Exhibit 5 (Proposed Answer))(Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
168 DECLARATION of Peter M. Mazer in Support re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
169 DECLARATION of Ronald Sherman in Support re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
170 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Elizabeth Saylor dated December 20, 2013 re: Oral Argument on Motion to Intervene. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade.(Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/20/2013)
171 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants. addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Daniel L. Brown dated December 27, 2013. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 12/27/2013)
172 ORDER granting 171 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants. SO ORDERED. Responses due by 1/14/2014. Replies due by 1/24/2014. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/8/2014) (ja) (Entered: 01/08/2014)
173 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
174 DECLARATION of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn in Opposition re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Michael Bloomberg, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, David Yassky.

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 26 of 35

01/14/2014 01/23/2014 01/23/2014 01/24/2014 01/24/2014 02/18/2014 02/24/2014 02/26/2014 02/27/2014 02/28/2014 03/13/2014
03/13/2014
05/15/2014

(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
175 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Werner, Kara) (Entered: 01/14/2014)
176 LETTER MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Elizabeth Saylor dated January 23, 2014. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade.(Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
177 Order granting 176 Letter Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 1/23/2014) (tn) Modified on 1/23/2014 (tn). (Entered: 01/23/2014)
178 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
179 REPLY AFFIDAVIT of Peter M. Mazer in Support re: 165 MOTION to Intervene as Defendants.. Document filed by Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 6, # 2 Exhibit 7)(Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 01/24/2014)
180 ORDER terminating 126 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the open motion at ECF No. 126 (motion for summary judgment) as having been rendered moot by the parties' settlement. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/18/2014) (lmb) (Entered: 02/18/2014)
181 STATUS REPORT. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 02/24/2014)
182 STATUS REPORT. SUPPLEMENTAL Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 02/26/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Interim Pretrial Conference held on 2/27/2014. Plaintiff Counsel: Julia Miriam Pinover, Sid Wolinsky; Defense Counsel: Robin Binder, Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn and Court Reporter present. The next conference is scheduled for May 23, 2014 at 3:00pm (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 02/27/2014)
183 ORDER denying 165 Motion to Intervene. The Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade and Colonial Cab Corp.'s Motion to Intervene (ECF 165) is DENIED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 2/27/2014) (mro) (Entered: 02/28/2014)
184 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 2/27/2014 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Griffing, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 4/7/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 4/17/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 6/16/2014.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
185 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 2/27/14 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 03/13/2014)
186 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sid Wolinsky dated May 15, 2014 re: Caption Change. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 05/15/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 27 of 35

05/16/2014 05/20/2014 05/23/2014 05/28/2014 05/28/2014 05/29/2014 06/05/2014 06/05/2014
06/06/2014

187 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sid Wolinsky dated May 16, 2014 re: May 23, 2014 Status Conference. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Final Version of Rules)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 05/16/2014)
188 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 186 Letter filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, United Spinal Association, The Taxis For All Campaign. ENDORSEMENT: SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/20/2014) (mro) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Settlement Conference held on 5/23/2014. Plaintiff Counsel: Julia Miriam Pinover, Sid Wolinsky ; Defense Counsel: Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn, Jessica Taylor and Court Reporter present. The next conference is scheduled for June 9, 2014 at 2:30p.m. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 05/30/2014)
189 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Sid Wolinsky dated 05/27/14 re: Facilitated Negotiation. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
190 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated 05/28/14 re: Joint Request for Distribution of Settlement Approval Objections to Counsel of Record. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
191 ORDER DISTRIBUTING OBJECTIONS TO COUNSEL IT IS SO ORDERED that any objections, letters in support, or position papers submitted to the Court in reference to the settlement of the above−captioned case shall be distributed to all counsel of record. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 5/29/2014) (mro) (Entered: 05/29/2014)
192 NOTICE of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/05/2014)
193 FILING ERROR − WRONG EVENT TYPE SELECTED FROM MENU − MOTION for Settlement Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Declaration of Sid Wolinsky, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Sid Wolinsky, Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit Declaration of Sid Wolinsky, Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Sid Wolinsky, Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Sid Wolinsky, Exhibit D, # 6 Affidavit Declaration of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn, # 7 Affidavit Declaration of Julia Pinover, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Julia Pinover, Exhibit A, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Julia Pinover, Exhibit B, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Julia Pinover, Exhibit C, # 11 Affidavit Declaration of Simi Linton, # 12 Affidavit Declaration of Edith Prentiss, # 13 Affidavit Declaration of James Weisman, # 14 Affidavit Declaration of Ronnie Ellen Raymond, # 15 Affidavit Declaration of Jean Ryan, # 16 Affidavit Declaration of Joseph Rappaport, # 17 Affidavit Declaration of David Koffman, # 18 Text of Proposed Order)(Pinover, Julia) Modified on 6/6/2014 (db). (Entered: 06/05/2014)
***NOTE TO ATTORNEY TO RE−FILE DOCUMENT − EVENT TYPE ERROR. Note to Attorney Julia Miriam Pinover to RE−FILE Document 193 MOTION for Settlement Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. (1) Use the event type Memorandum in Support of Motion found under the event list Replies, Opposition and Supporting Documents. (2) All of the attached Declarations in Support of Motion must also be filed separately as individual supporting documents. (3) Refile the 192 Notice AS THE MOTION for Settlement, then file and link all supporting documents. (db) (Entered: 06/06/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 28 of 35

06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/06/2014

194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
195 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
196 DECLARATION of Sid Wolinsky in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
197 DECLARATION of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
198 DECLARATION of Julia Pinover in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
199 DECLARATION of Simi Linton in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
200 DECLARATION of Edith Prentiss in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
201 DECLARATION of James Weisman in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
202 DECLARATION of Ronnie Ellen Raymond in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
203 DECLARATION of Jean Ryan in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
204 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Michelle Goldberg−Cahn dated June 6, 2014 re: Questions Asked by the Court. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
205 DECLARATION of Joseph G. Rappaport in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 29 of 35

06/06/2014 06/06/2014 06/09/2014 06/10/2014
06/10/2014 06/11/2014 06/16/2014

Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
206 DECLARATION of David Koffman in Support re: 194 MOTION for Settlement Notice of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
207 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Julia Pinover dated June 6, 2014 re: Response to Letter by Objectors Greater New York Taxi Association. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 06/06/2014)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge George B. Daniels: Settlement Conference held on 6/9/2014. Plaintiff Counsel: Julia Miriam Pinover, Sid Wolinsky;Defense Counsel: Michelle L. Goldberg−Cahn, Jessica Taylor and Court Reporter present. The next conference is scheduled for September 8, 2014 at 11:00 a.m. (Vega, Elizabeth) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
208 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT granting 194 Motion for Settlement. Having read the papers submitted and carefully considered the arguments and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The Court hereby preliminarily approves the Settlement Stipulation. The Court finds on a preliminary basis that the Settlement Stipulation is fair, adequate, and reasonable to all potential class members, as well as industry third−parties. It further appears that extensive evaluation of the merits has been conducted such that the attorneys for the Parties are able to reasonably evaluate their respective positions. It also appears to the Court that settlement at this time will avoid substantial additional costs to all Parties, as well as avoid the delay and the risks presented by further litigation regarding issues addressed by the Settlement Stipulation, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Sid Wolinsky in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. It further appears that the Settlement Stipulation has been reached as the result of intensive, prolonged, serious, and non−collusive arms−length negotiations, including multiple in−person and telephonic settlement sessions. The Court hereby approves, as to form and content, the proposed Notice, attached as Exhibit B to the Declaration of Sid Wolinsky in Support of the Motion for Preliminary Approval of the Settlement Agreement. The Court finds that the distribution of notice in the manner and form set forth therein, with the following additions set forth below, meets the requirements of both due process and Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This notice is the best practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. The Parties shall submit declarations to the Court as a part of the motion for Final Approval confirming compliance with the notice provisions; as set forth herein. August 29, 2014: Plaintiffs shall file a motion for final approval of the Settlement Stipulation. Both parties shall file statements of compliance with the applicable notice requirements. November 7, 2014: Class Counsel will file a motion for approval of attorneys' fees and costs if the parties have been unable to successfully negotiate this matter. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/10/2014) (mro) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Motions due by 11/7/2014. (mro) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
209 JOINT LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Michelle Goldberg−Cahn dated June 11, 2014 re: Rescheduling Fairness Hearing. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 06/11/2014)
210 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 209 Letter, filed by The City of New York, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, Meera Joshi, Bill de Blasio. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned to September 16, 2014 at 12:00

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 30 of 35

06/19/2014 06/26/2014
06/26/2014
06/26/2014
06/26/2014
08/12/2014 08/22/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014

p.m. ( Fairness Hearing set for 9/16/2014 at 12:00 PM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 6/16/2014) (mro) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
211 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Steven G. Mintz dated May 9, 2014 re: Taxis for All Campaign, et al. v. New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, et al., Case No. 11−cv−0237, Objection to Proposed Settlement. Document filed by Greater New York Taxi Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit 2)(Pomerantz, Mark) (Entered: 06/19/2014)
212 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 5/23/2014 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Rose Prater, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/21/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/31/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2014.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
213 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 5/23/14 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
214 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: CONFERENCE held on 6/9/2014 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Ann Hairston, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 7/21/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/31/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2014.(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
215 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a CONFERENCE proceeding held on 6/9/14 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(Rodriguez, Somari) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
216 NOTICE of Appendix of Settlement Objections. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
217 NOTICE of Compliance with Notice Requirements. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 08/22/2014)
218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
219 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval. . Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
220 DECLARATION of Sid Wolinsky in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 31 of 35

08/29/2014
08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 08/29/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/02/2014 09/09/2014

221 DECLARATION of Julia Pinover in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O)(Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
222 DECLARATION of Edith Prentiss in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
223 DECLARATION of Howard Chabner in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
224 DECLARATION of Jean Ryan in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
225 DECLARATION of Jim Weisman in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
226 DECLARATION of Joseph Rappaport in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
227 DECLARATION of Josh McDermott in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
228 DECLARATION of Ronnie Raymond in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
229 DECLARATION of Simi Linton in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Pinover, Julia) (Entered: 08/29/2014)
230 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Elizabeth S. Saylor on behalf of Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. New Address: Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady LLP, 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York, USA 10020, 212−763−5000. (Saylor, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
231 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Hayley Horowitz on behalf of Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. New Address: Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady LLP, 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, New York, United States 10020, 212−763−5000. (Horowitz, Hayley) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
232 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS by Richard D. Emery on behalf of Colonial Cab Corp., Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade. New Address: Emery Celli Brinckerhoff &Abady LLP, 600 Fifth Avenue, 10th Floor, New York, NY, United States 10020, 212−763−5000. (Emery, Richard) (Entered: 09/02/2014)
233 DECLARATION of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn in Support re: 218 MOTION for Settlement Final Approval.. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A through E)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 09/09/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 32 of 35

09/16/2014
09/16/2014 10/03/2014
10/03/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014 11/06/2014

234 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT granting 218 Motion for Settlement: The Court hereby grants final approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement Stipulation. The Court finds that the distribution of notice by all parties was done in a manner and form consistent with the Court's June 10, 2014 Preliminary Approval Order, and meets the requirements of both due process and Rules 23(c)(2) and 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The notice provided was the best practicable under the circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons entitled thereto. The Court retains continuing jurisdiction over this matter for a period of time up through December 31, 2020, as set forth in the Settlement Stipulation, in order to supervise the implementation, enforcement, construction, and interpretation of the Settlement Stipulation and this Order, and to be able to determine the amount of an award of attorneys' fees and costs, if any, to which Class Counsel is entitled. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/16/2014) (tn) (Entered: 09/16/2014)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (tn) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
235 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings re: conference held on 9/16/2014 before Judge George B. Daniels. Court Reporter/Transcriber: Steven Greenblum, (212) 805−0300. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Redaction Request due 10/27/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 11/6/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 1/4/2015.(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
236 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT Notice is hereby given that an official transcript of a conference proceeding held on 9/16/2014 has been filed by the court reporter/transcriber in the above−captioned matter. The parties have seven (7) calendar days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. If no such Notice is filed, the transcript may be made remotely electronically available to the public without redaction after 90 calendar days...(McGuirk, Kelly) (Entered: 10/03/2014)
237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
238 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. . Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
239 DECLARATION of Sid Wolinsky in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
240 DECLARATION of Daniel Brown in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
241 DECLARATION of Wayne N. Outten in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
242 DECLARATION of Richard M. Pearl in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 33 of 35

11/06/2014 11/10/2014 11/10/2014
11/12/2014 11/12/2014 11/18/2014 11/24/2014 11/26/2014 12/09/2014
12/10/2014 12/15/2014 12/23/2014

243 NOTICE of Request for Judicial Notice re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 11/06/2014)
***DELETED DOCUMENT. Deleted document number 244 ORDER. The document was incorrectly filed in this case. (djc) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
246 ORDER: It is hereby ORDERED that the issue of attorneys' fees and costs is referred for mediation to the Court−annexed Mediation Program. The parties are notified that Local Rule 83.9 shall govern the mediation and are directed to participate in the mediation in good faith. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs is hereby referred to Magistrate Judge Freeman for determination if mediation is unsuccessful. The above−entitled action is eligible for mediation, pursuant to the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan. This action is eligible for mediation subject to the limitations and restrictions as noted: ONLY SPECIFIC ISSUE(S) IS/ARE ELIGIBLE. Please reference the following when corresponding with the Mediation Office. E−mail MediationOffice@nysd.uscourts.gov, telephone (212) 805−0643, and facsimile (212) 805−0647. Mediator to be Assigned by 11/20/2014. Mediator Expertise Request due by 11/17/2014. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/10/2014) (djc) Modified on 11/13/2014 (djc). (Entered: 11/13/2014)
245 ORDER REFERRING CASE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for Specific Non−Dispositive Motion/Dispute. Referred to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman. Motions referred to Debra C. Freeman. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 11/10/2014) (djc) (Entered: 11/12/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Initial Conference set for 1/22/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels. (tro) (Entered: 11/13/2014)
247 FIRST LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time on Consent addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Michelle Goldberg−Cahn dated November 18, 2014. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
NOTICE OF MEDIATOR ASSIGNMENT − Notice of assignment of mediator. Mediator Schedule due by 12/24/2014.(cda) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
248 ORDER granting 247 Letter Motion for Extension of Time. Opposition to the fee application to be filed by 12/11/14; reply, if any, by 1/8/15. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman)(Text Only Order) (Freeman, Debra) (Entered: 11/26/2014)
249 SECOND LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Seeking Stay or in Alternative Extension of Time addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Michelle Goldberg−Cahn dated December 9, 2014. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
250 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Sid Wolinsky dated Dec. 10, 2014 re: Opposition to Defendants Second Request for Extension. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
251 ORDER granting 249 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. This request alternative relief is granted. (The Clerk of Court is directed to close Dkt. 249, in light of this ruling.) Responses due by 1/30/2015. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 12/15/2014) (mro) (Entered: 12/15/2014)
MEDIATOR SESSION SCHEDULED First Mediation Session scheduled for 1/15/15, 9:00 AM at Mediator's Office.(ms) (Entered: 12/23/2014)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 34 of 35

01/06/2015 01/22/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 01/30/2015 02/02/2015
02/05/2015 02/19/2015 02/23/2015 02/27/2015 02/27/2015
04/02/2015
08/06/2015
08/07/2015

252 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 01/06/2015)
MEDIATOR SESSION NOT HELD Mediator Session scheduled for 01/15/2015 at Mediator's Office was NOT held.(ms) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
253 DECLARATION of Michelle Goldberg−Cahn in Opposition re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − D)(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
254 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Opposition re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. . Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio. (Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
255 OPPOSITION BRIEF re: 243 Notice (Other), Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice. Document filed by Meera Joshi, New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission, The City of New York, Bill de Blasio.(Goldberg−Cahn, Michelle) (Entered: 01/30/2015)
256 LETTER MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply (Unopposed) addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Sid Wolinsky dated February 2, 2015. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
257 ORDER granting 256 Letter Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Granted. (This resolves Dkt. 256). Replies due by 2/27/2015. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman on 2/5/2015) (mro) (Entered: 02/05/2015)
MEDIATOR SESSION SCHEDULED First Mediation Session scheduled for 2/19/15, 9:00 AM at Mediator's Office.(ms) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
Mediator Session Held on 02/19/2015 at Mediator's Office.(ms) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
258 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. . Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
259 DECLARATION of Sid Wolinsky in Support re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs.. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F)(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 02/27/2015)
261 LETTER MOTION for Conference re: 237 MOTION for Attorney Fees and Costs. Request for Hearing on Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Sid Wolinsky dated April 2, 2015. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 04/02/2015)
262 FIRST LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman from Sid Wolinsky dated 8/6/15 re: Withdrawing Motion for Fees. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Wolinsky, Sid) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
263 ORDER finding as moot 261 Letter Motion for Conference. This Court had scheduled a conference for 8/6/15, but canceled it at counsel's request, based on their representation that they had reached an agreement to resolve their fee dispute and that the Plaintiffs intended to withdraw the pending fee application. (HEREBY ORDERED by Magistrate Judge Debra Freeman)(Text Only Order) (Freeman, Debra) (Entered: 08/07/2015)

Case: 1:11-cv-237 As of: 07/14/2016 12:08 PM EDT 35 of 35

08/10/2015
09/29/2015 09/30/2015
09/30/2015 12/15/2015 12/15/2015

264 ORDER: The Court having been advised that the parties have reached an agreement to resolve Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and costs, and that the parties have agreed to withdraw this motion, the Clerk of the Court is hereby ORDERED to close the motion at ECF No. 237. A conference in this matter is scheduled for October 1, 2015 at 10:30 a.m. (Status Conference set for 10/1/2015 at 10:30 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 8/10/2015) (kko) (Entered: 08/10/2015)
265 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Daniel L. Brown dated September 9, 2015 re: Joint Request for Adjournment of October 1, 2015 Conference. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 09/29/2015)
266 MEMO ENDORSEMENT on re: 265 Letter filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Christopher Noel, Simi Linton, United Spinal Association, The Taxis For All Campaign. ENDORSEMENT: The conference is adjourned to December 16, 2015 at 10:15 a.m. SO ORDERED., ( Status Conference set for 12/16/2015 at 10:15 AM before Judge George B. Daniels.) (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 9/30/2015) (ama) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
Terminate Transcript Deadlines (ama) (Entered: 09/30/2015)
267 LETTER addressed to Judge George B. Daniels from Daniel L. Brown dated December 15, 2015 re: Joint Request for Cancellation of Dec. 16, 2015 Status Conference. Document filed by 504 Democratic Club, Disabled in Action, Simi Linton, Christopher Noel, The Taxis For All Campaign, United Spinal Association.(Brown, Daniel) (Entered: 12/15/2015)
268 ORDER: The conference scheduled for December 16, 2015 is canceled. (Signed by Judge George B. Daniels on 12/15/2015) (kl) (Entered: 12/15/2015)


[CONTENT] January 13, 2011 | New York | the U.S. District Court | the Southern District | New York ||| the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission | Americans | ADA | the Rehabilitation Act | 1973 | the New York City Human Rights Law ||| TLC | NYC ||| only 1.8% | New York City ||| the Taxi & Limousine Commission | Nissan | NYC |||  ||| TLC | early March ||| George B. Daniels | TLC ||| August 10, 2011 | Daniels |||  ||| Amicus Curiae ||| December 23, 2011 | Daniels | Title II | ADA |||  ||| 837 | 268 |||  |||  ||| June 28, 2012 | the U.S. Court of Appeals | the Second Circuit ||| Court | TLC | New York City | Title II ||| 687 | 63 ||| Title II(B | the Rehab Act | the New York City Human Rights Law |||  ||| October 11, 2013 |||  ||| February 18, 2014 | Daniels | June 10, 2014 ||| TLC | at least 50% | the year 2020 | 50% | 2020 |||  ||| Daniels |||  [SUMMARY] On January 13, 2011, New York wheelchair users and several disability rights organizations filed this class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.  The plaintiffs sued the the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Represented by Disabilities Right Advocates, the plaintiffs claimed the TLC failed to give meaningful access to persons with disabilities when issuing its regulations for the design of the next generation of NYC taxicabs. 

According to the complaint, only 1.8% of taxis were accessible to persons with mobility disabilities, which deprived them of meaningful access to New York City without using more expensive alternatives. In addition, the Taxi & Limousine Commission had recently approved of specific Nissan models of SUVs and hybrid automobiles for the next generation of NYC taxicabs. The complaint alleged that the SUVs were too high for wheelchair access and that the hybrids' trunk space could not accommodate a wheelchair, including the folding model. 

The TLC responded in early March by filing a motion to dismiss. Judge George B. Daniels held an oral argument over the motion and denied the TLC's motion, as well as their motion for interlocutory appeal. The case proceeded with discovery and, on August 10, 2011, Judge Daniels granted the plaintiff's motion for class certification. 

The plaintiffs then filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment, and several interested parties filed Amicus Curiae briefs in response to the motion. On December 23, 2011, Judge Daniels entered partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, holding the defendants liable under Title II of the ADA, and granted plaintiffs a temporary restraining order. The order required all new taxi medallions and livery services to be limited to accessible vehicles until TLC came up with a plan for meaningful access to persons who use wheelchairs. 837 F.Supp.2d 268.

The defendants filed another interlocutory appeal, which was granted. The injunction was stayed pending the appeal.  On June 28, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated both the temporary restraining order and the partial summary judgment.  The Court concluded that although the TLC exercised "pervasive control" over the taxi industry in New York City, it was not mandated by Title II to provide meaningful access to taxis. 687 F.3d 63.

The case was remanded to determine the plaintiffs' claims under Title II(B) (which governs public transportation), the Rehab Act, and the New York City Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and another motion for partial summary judgment. The district court heard oral arguments on the motion for summary judgment on October 11, 2013.  The parties entered settlement discussions shortly thereafter, and as a result the court did not make a formal ruling on the matter. 

Instead, on February 18, 2014, the court terminated the summary judgment motion as moot due to settlement, which was approved by Judge Daniels on June 10, 2014.  

In the settlement, TLC agreed that at least 50% of the new taxicab vehicles put into circulation from the time of the settlement until the year 2020 would be wheelchair accessible, with the goal of having 50% of the fleet accessible by 2020. The defendants also agreed to regularly report their progress to the plaintiffs.

The parties did not agree on attorneys fees in the settlement, and the matter was subsequently referred to the court-annexed mediation program by Judge Daniels. Before the completion of the mediation, however, the parties reached a private agreement on fees, and the case was closed.  
