Published in the Disability Compliance Bulletin® and National Disability Law Reporter® Volume 24, Issue 8, October 31, 2002
In November 2001, six
plaintiffs, including Fulton County Magistrate Judge Stephanie Davis,
filed a class action in federal court against the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid
Transit Authority . Represented
by attorneys for the nonprofit Disability Law and Policy Center and
cooperating counsel from the Decatur, Ga., law firm Hill, Lord and Beasley,
plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief under the ADA and Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Three plaintiffs are blind, one plaintiff has cerebral palsy and requires
a wheelchair for mobility and two plaintiffs are quadriplegics who also require
wheelchairs for mobility.
Having withdrawn their
motion to certify a class, the plaintiffs in Martin v. MARTA were granted
a preliminary injunction earlier this month, and the parties were directed to
confer in good faith to agree upon a remedies order tailored to address the ADA
violations. Plaintiffs allege a
long list of ADA transportation and effective communication violations
Failing to make information
available to people with disabilities through accessible formats and technology.
Failing to ensure that transit
personnel, such as customer service representatives and bus drivers, are
adequately trained to serve riders with disabilities, and to serve them in a
respectful and courteous manner.
Failing to maintain wheelchair
lifts and other features of vehicles that make them accessible to people with
disabilities and failing to have a system in place for alternative means of
transportation when equipment is not operating correctly.
Failing to announce stops at
transfer points, major intersections and destinations, particularly when a
request is made by a visually impaired rider.
Failing to provide paratransit
services comparable to the level of service provided to persons without
disabilities using MARTA’s fixed route system.
While all the allegations
are serious, of particular interest is the first allegation that MARTA failed to
provide information about their services through accessible formats and
“Under the ADA, MARTA has
a duty to provide bus route and transit information in an accessible format,
said Anil Lewis, chairman of the board of directors for the Disability
Law and Policy Center of Georgia. “MARTA
claims that since the information is on their web site, then it must be
accessible. They have a lack of
knowledge about what it means to have an accessible web site and this is why it
is so integral that MARTA partner with the disability community in the provision
MARTA’s web developer
testified by affidavit that the web site at www.ITSMARTA.com
provides the general public with extensive information on the routes and
schedules for its fixed route services. However,
it is not yet formatted in such a way to make it accessible to persons who are
blind. He stated that MARTA is in
the process of developing a plan to modify its web site so that route and
scheduling information can be displayed in an alternative, plain text format
easily read by assistive computer technology.
If MARTA were informed about
the federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards as
well as the international technical standards developed by industry consensus,
MARTA would not embark on a plain text format as the solution.
Technical standards for accessible web design provide solutions that
benefit not only people who are blind and visually impaired, but also people
with mobility, hearing, and to some extent, cognitive disabilities.
There is not room in this article to also discuss the business benefits
extending beyond this community: enabling people with slow modems, those without
a computer, or those accessing web content using alternate Internet devices such
as cell phones or personal digital assistants.
One plaintiff testified that
although he has never received Braille material as requested, MARTA told him
that they would only provide it if he indicated the specific trip date,
departure time and location, and destination.
MARTA testified that individual Brailled schedules would be provided as
requested, but that it was not feasible, practical or cost effective to provide
the entire 190-route bus service schedule in Braille.
If content on the web was
posted in an accessible format, people who are blind or low vision using
refreshable Braille displays, text browsers or screen readers would be able to
read all the significant content on the web site – not just the schedule
information. A limited
accessibility review by this author of the MARTA website confirms many
violations of the technical standards for web accessibility so this option is
not available. Effective
communication through accessible web technology should be on every attorney’s
checklist for remedy review.
It is no wonder that the
Court held that MARTA violates the ADA mandate of ‘making adequate
communications capacity available, through accessible formats and technology, to
enable users to obtain information and schedule service.’”
Reprinted with permission from Disability Compliance Bulletin® and National Disability Law® Reporter. Copyright 2002 by LRP Publications, 747 Dresher Rd, PO Box 980, Horsham, PA 19044-1980. All rights reserved. Click on the LRP Publications icon below and visit our web site for more information on these and other products; or call us toll-free at 1-800-341-7874, ext. 347.
Copyright © 1998