UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

_________________________________________

)

JOANNE DANIELS-FINEGOLD, ROGERA )

ROBINSON, GENE SMITH, REGINALD

)

CLARK, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN,

)

MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MAUREEN CANCEMI, )

ANDREW FORMAN, DANFORD LARKIN, )

ROBERT PARK, THOMAS GILBERT,

)

and BOSTON CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT )

LIVING, individually and as class representatives, )

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

vs.

)

)

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION )

AUTHORITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

__________________________________________)

C.A. No. 02 CV 11504 MEL

SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Introduction On July 25, 2002, the plaintiffs brought this civil action for declaratory and injunctive
relief against the MBTA (“the Lawsuit”). On February 17, 2004, the Court certified the plaintiffs’ proposed class in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs and the MBTA desire to settle fully and finally any and all differences and disputes between them pertaining to the subject matter of the lawsuit by entering into this agreement. In entering into this agreement, the MBTA does not admit any wrongdoing or liability to the plaintiffs, and this agreement will not be construed as an admission of wrongdoing or liability.

This agreement is based on a shared vision between plaintiffs and the MBTA to make the MBTA a model transit system accessible to all. There is a mutual commitment and desire to comply not only with the letter but also the spirit of the Americans with Disabilities Act, with the complete understanding that all people with disabilities must have every opportunity to be fully participating members of our community and that fundamental to this opportunity is the right and ability to use public transportation in an equal, effective, and dignified manner.
In consideration for the mutual promises contained herein, the plaintiffs and the MBTA agree as follows: Bus Operations 1. All MBTA buses will be operated in a manner that makes them readily accessible and usable
by persons with disabilities. Proper operation includes, but is not limited to, following official MBTA procedures in: a. collecting fares, including purchasing and maintaining accessible automated fare system b. using appropriate language; c. treating passengers with disabilities with courtesy and respect; d. assisting passengers who are blind and visually impaired upon request; e. assisting passengers with hearing impairments upon request; f. recognizing and assisting passengers with mobility impairments upon request; g. requesting passengers without disabilities who occupy priority seats to vacate these seats
for a passenger with a disability. h. pulling buses into curbs at bus stops; i. using lifts, ramps or kneelers for passengers with disabilities who do not use wheelchairs; j. assisting passengers with hidden disabilities upon request;
- 2 -

k. offering and using lifts and ramps for passengers using wheelchairs and scooters; l. providing and using securement devices for passengers using wheelchairs and scooters; m. maintaining all signage, including scrolling marquees in clean, visible and operable
condition; n. maintaining both interior and exterior audio announcement equipment in audible and
operable condition; o. providing cards in Braille and print indicating the bus route and destination; p. accommodating and assisting passengers using service animals; and, q. assisting with obtaining appropriate alternative transportation when required. 2. The MBTA shall revise the Bus Operations Rules for Operators and other Employees of Bus Operations (October 1, 2001) and any regulations, general and special orders, or bulletins related to the procedures set forth in paragraph 1 in accordance with the terms of Addendum A to this agreement. 3. The badge number of the bus operator for each MBTA bus shall be displayed prominently while the bus is in service. Bus Maintenance 4. All accessibility equipment and devices on buses will be maintained in operable condition and in compliance with the highest accessibility standards. All accessibility equipment and features on buses will be cleaned as required to ensure proper functioning at all times. Lifts, kneelers and ramps shall be cleaned on a daily basis. Ramps and lifts shall be vacuumed, at a minimum, every six weeks. In addition, the lifts on the Zero Series buses shall be vacuumed at least once per week during the winter months. All signage shall be cleaned at a minimum, weekly, and more often during the winter and severe weather conditions to ensure that the
- 3 -

route, destination and bus number is clearly visible at all times during operations. Securement belts, shoulder straps and flip seats shall be cleaned on a monthly basis or more often if warranted, and shall be replaced immediately when they cannot be cleaned, are worn significantly, are torn or otherwise damaged irreplaceably. 5. The MBTA shall establish and shall continue to employ a system of regular and frequent maintenance checks of all accessibility features on all buses. The system for maintenance checks shall include records documenting the operation, inspection, maintenance and repair of all accessibility devices including the date of any action or observation, a description of actions taken, and the names of employees involved. The items checked shall include, but not be limited to: a. Lifts and ramps b. Securement belts, shoulder straps and flip seats c. Public address systems or annunciators and variable message systems d. Stop request systems e. Clear and lighted destination and bus route number signs f. Kneelers g. Internal and external decals h. Lift and stairwell lights 6. With respect to lifts and ramps, the maintenance checks shall include daily lift and ramp cycling to occur at the onset of each service day. Every bus with a lift or a ramp shall be cycled at least once per week at the end of the day. If the maintenance checks disclose an inoperative lift on a vehicle, the MBTA shall immediately remove that vehicle from service
- 4 -

for repairs and the MBTA shall not utilize the vehicle for service until the lift is repaired, except under the circumstances outlined in 49 C.F.R. §37.163(e) (i.e., the 3-day rule). 7. When a lift is discovered to be inoperative after a vehicle is in service it shall be removed from service at the end of the operator’s run and cannot start a new service day before the lift is repaired, except under the circumstances outlined in 49 C.F.R. §37.163(e) (i.e., the 3-day rule). Any bus with an inoperable lift that is in service for the purpose of completing the operator’s run, or under the circumstances outlined in 49 C.F.R. §37.163(e), shall stop at any stop where there is a customer who appears to require the use of a lift for boarding to explain why service cannot be provided on that bus and arrange for alternative transportation, if necessary, pursuant to 49 C.F.R. §37.163(f) and paragraphs 72 to 74. 8. All repairs to accessibility equipment must be made promptly, as required by 49 C.F.R. §37.16 1(b). The MBTA shall maintain a sufficient stock of repair parts and equipment to meet the requirement for prompt repairs. Equipment that cannot be repaired must be replaced promptly. In the event that inoperable accessible equipment reduces the general level of accessibility of any service, this shall trigger appropriate provisions for alternative services. Bus Purchase and Rehabilitation 9. The MBTA shall purchase new low-floor buses so that it may, at least, maintain its current fleet size and existing service levels but comply with the following schedule for removing existing buses from its service fleet: a) all buses without lifts retired within 90 days after the effective date of this agreement, except for the existing inaccessible trackless trolleys which shall be replaced by new low-floor trackless trolleys by July 1, 2006 (except for five of the existing inaccessible trackless trolleys, which the MBTA may continue to use as a contingency fleet); b) all 8000 series buses (including all GMC and TMC buses, series 84
- 5 -

through 89) with lifts retired by January 1, 2007; and c) all 94 and 95 Nova buses retired in accordance with the schedule attached hereto as Addendum D. All future new low-floor buses shall provide an MBTA system map and locations for the display of pertinent information such as bus route maps, schedules and other system-wide information, and handles and grab bars in adequate quantity and of contrasting color and texture throughout the vehicles. The MBTA agrees to engage in a discussion with the plaintiffs about designing future new low-floor buses so that: (1) there is the highest degree of maneuverability possible for passengers using wheelchairs and scooters from the front door to the designated seating area: and (2) the wheelchair seating area exceeds 48” long to accommodate scooters and full size power wheelchairs. 10. All Nova buses with lifts must have new state-of-the-art lifts (VE-2 models or equivalent) installed by June 30, 2007, except for the following: (a) Nova buses that have already had new state-of-the-art lifts installed on them through either the Midwest contract or at the MBTA’s Everett shops, through the in-house rehabilitation effort; and (b) the contingency fleet of up to 50 Nova buses which the MBTA intends to maintain. 11. The MBTA shall establish a group of qualified personnel independent of garage maintenance personnel, who shall conduct random surprise bus lift inspections on an ongoing basis. Such inspections shall be conducted for 10% of the fleet every month, the results of such inspections to be reported to senior management of each garage and senior agency management. Emergencies 12. The MBTA shall ensure that there is a timely and effective response to any access-related emergencies or problems that arise while passengers are using bus services, to include the
- 6 -

provision of alternative transportation under the terms in paragraphs 72 to 74, as necessary. The MBTA shall develop procedures for evacuation of persons with disabilities in the event of an emergency. Performance Monitoring By the MBTA 13. The MBTA shall devise and implement an internal system for monitoring bus operator compliance with the Bus Operations Rules for Operators (as amended) and any applicable regulations, general and special orders, or bulletins. The monitoring shall specifically assess performance in the areas covered by paragraph 1. Reports of the results of monitoring shall be compiled on a quarterly basis, with the first results reported six months after the effective date of this agreement. 14. The MBTA shall review all current systems for monitoring bus operations, including ride checks, observations done following training and observations made as a result of complaints and modify those systems to incorporate observations about passenger service in general and service to individuals with disabilities in particular. Reports of the results of these observations shall be compiled on a quarterly basis, with the first results reported six months after the effective date of this agreement. 15. Reports summarizing complaints regarding bus services to passengers with disabilities (see paragraph 75 regarding complaints) shall be compiled according to nature of the complaint, bus route, operator, location and time of day on a quarterly basis. 16. The independent monitor appointed under paragraph 89 shall submit quarterly reports regarding bus operator performance. The first such quarterly report shall be submitted within 6 months after the effective date of this agreement. 17. Immediately following the receipt of the second quarterly reports under paragraphs 13 to 16
- 7 -

the MBTA and the plaintiffs shall meet for the purpose of establishing a benchmark for bus operator compliance with Rules for Bus Operators, any applicable regulations, general and special orders, or bulletins and the performance standards for the areas set forth in paragraph 1 The benchmark will include quantitative and qualitative measures of performance. 18. The MBTA’s goal for bus operations is to ensure that bus operators comply with the requirements of paragraph 1 at all times. The MBTA will be considered in compliance with this agreement if bus operator performance improves from the level established by the benchmark set under paragraph 17 during the first two years that this agreement is in effect. Following the expiration of two years the MBTA will be considered out of compliance with paragraph 1 if bus operators fail to meet the requirements of that paragraph more than an insubstantial number of times during any one month period. Any dispute regarding the degree of compliance shall be resolved in accordance with the dispute resolution procedures in paragraph100. 19. The results of all bus operations monitoring as set forth in paragraphs 13 to 18 shall be taken into consideration in all performance evaluations of bus operations management and supervisory personnel. Bus Service Planning 20. The Service Planning department, in conjunction with Bus Operations, Marketing or any other appropriate department, shall explicitly consider the transportation needs of persons with disabilities in planning for bus services done under the 1997 Service Delivery Policy or any subsequent planning policies. Any outreach done in conjunction with bus service planning shall include outreach to persons with disabilities.
- 8 -

21. The MBTA shall develop a methodology to measure and count the number, general location, routes and time of day of passengers with disabilities, including passengers with disabilities that are not apparent, riding the fixed route bus and subway/light rail systems and shall use this information in the planning of route patterns, headways and other service planning considerations
Train Operations 22. Trains (subway and light rail) must be operated in a manner that makes them readily
accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. Proper operation includes, but is not limited to, following official MBTA procedures in: a. collecting fares; b. using appropriate language; c. treating passengers with disabilities with courtesy and respect; d. assisting passengers who are blind and visually impaired upon request; e. assisting passengers with hearing impairments upon request; f. recognizing and assisting passengers with mobility impairments upon request; g. offering and using mobile lifts, “mini-high” platforms, ramps and other accessibility
devices as needed or requested; h. assisting passengers with cognitive impairments upon request; i. assisting passengers with hidden disabilities upon request; j. requesting passengers without disabilities who occupy priority seats to vacate these seats
for a passenger with a disability; k. maintaining all signage in clean, visible and operable condition; l. maintaining audio and visual announcement equipment in audible and operable
- 9 -

condition; m. taking reasonable steps to eliminate any gaps between station platforms and vehicle
floors that are in excess of the amount permitted by applicable regulations in accordance with paragraph 24; n. assisting passengers using service animals; and, o. assisting with obtaining appropriate alternative transportation when required. 23. The MBTA shall revise the Subway Operations Rules for Trainpersons – Heavy Rail (July 1, 2004) and the Rules for Trainpersons – Light Rail (January 1, 2000) and any regulations, general and special orders, or bulletins related to the procedures set forth in paragraph 1 in accordance with the terms of Addendum A to this agreement. 24. The MBTA shall conduct quarterly inspections of all Red, Orange, and Blue line stations to determine whether any gaps between station platforms and vehicle floors that are in excess of the amount permitted by applicable regulations. The MBTA shall conduct quarterly inspections of all Red, Orange and Blue line rail cars to determine if any defects need to be repaired or any adjustments made to address excessive platform gaps. Any excessive gap, identified through quarterly inspections or otherwise, shall be promptly addressed through track adjustments, subway car suspension adjustments and any other necessary means. The MBTA and the plaintiffs shall jointly investigate new technology and other methods to eliminate excessive platform gaps. 25. The MBTA shall, within six months after the effective date of this agreement, install fixed ramps and platforms (i.e. “mini-high” platforms) for use in boarding light rail vehicles other than the Type 8 – Breda vehicles as follows : BU Central (1),Washington St. (2), St. Mary’s (1), Coolidge Corner (1), Washington Square (1), Brookline Hills (2), Newton Center (1),
- 10 -

Museum (1), Cleveland Circle (1) and Fenway (1). The commitments in this paragraph are contingent on the MBTA receiving any needed variances from the Architectural Access Board or any other permitting authority and are also contingent on the MBTA not encountering any unexpected circumstances, such as underground utility conflicts, in attempting to implement the mini-highs. 26. The MBTA shall perform a study concerning the future operation of the Mattapan HighSpeed Trolley, including an assessment of whether to make the Mattapan High-Speed Trolley accessible. 27. The MBTA shall implement a regular and thorough preventive maintenance program for all mobile lifts that remain in operation after the date of this agreement. Each mobile lift shall be inspected on a daily basis and the inspection shall include actual operation of the lift. All MBTA personnel with any responsibility regarding mobile lifts shall be given training on their use and shall be given refresher training as needed. Train operators or station personnel shall notify the operations control center whenever a passenger boards using a lift and arrangements shall be made to have an official available at the passenger’s destination waiting with a mobile lift at the door if no other means of disembarking is available. A monitoring system tracking all use of lifts and recording the amount of time taken to board or leave the train and any problems encountered shall be established. 28. The MBTA shall include one low-floor Type 8 Breda car in each train set or consist on the Green Line, to the extent such cars are actually available for service, following completion of any work necessary to enable Type 8 cars to run on each branch. All work necessary to enable Type 8 cars to operate on the D and E branches shall be completed as soon as possible.
- 11 -

29. The MBTA shall ensure that there is a timely and effective response to any access-related emergencies or problems which arise while passengers are using train services. The MBTA shall develop procedures for evacuation of persons with disabilities in the event of an emergency.
30. In the event that the automated announcement system aboard a rail vehicle is not operating, or in the event that one is not installed, rail crewmembers will be required to make manual announcements, with a PA system if installed or by speaking in a loud, clear voice if there is not a PA on the vehicle.
31. The MBTA shall develop detailed procedures governing the provision of, and shall provide, alternative transportation services for passengers forced to detour because of failure of any piece of accessibility related equipment aboard any rail vehicle or at any rail station which results in the inaccessibility of an otherwise accessible station accordance with the requirements of 49 C.F.R. § 37.161(b).
32. All accessibility equipment and devices on trains must be maintained in operable condition. This includes regular preventative maintenance programs, daily checks, signage checks, prompt repair of equipment failures, the stocking of a reasonable supply of repair parts and maintaining a comprehensive maintenance record keeping system.
Stop Announcements 33. Pending the introduction of automated stop announcement devices, bus drivers and train
operators will announce stops at transfer points with other fixed routes, major intersections, approaching train stations, the name of the station when the train is standing, destination points and at intervals along routes sufficient to enable passengers with visual impairments and other disabilities to be oriented to their location. The route number and destination of
- 12 -

buses must be announced at stops serving more than one route. Stop announcements should include the names of commonly known landmarks near stops wherever practical. Stop announcements shall also be made for any stop at the request of an individual with a disability. 34. The MBTA shall develop a standardized list of all fixed, required announcement points for all bus routes within the system, and shall use this list in the training of bus operators and the monitoring stop announcement compliance. The list shall be developed in consultation with the plaintiffs and shall be reviewed and revised on a biannual basis or more often as needed, and coordinated with the MBTA’s biannual service plan update. The list shall be revised each time an individual route changes its routing and the MBTA should include key landmarks and new developments, such as post offices and shopping centers, in the stop announcements along each route wherever practical. 35. Operators who fail to comply with stop announcement policy shall be periodically retested to determine if they are complying with the policy. MBTA disciplinary policy must be applied consistently to operators who fail to comply with the stop announcement policy. 36. In all cases in which an automated announcing system has been installed in a vehicle, the MBTA shall develop procedures to ensure that the device is operational and properly configured for all routes a bus will be operating on for that service day and shall ensure that the enunciator is set to make announcements with sufficient volume that they can be heard throughout the bus, regardless of the ambient noise within the bus, and that the announcements can be heard by passengers standing outside on the curb, waiting for the bus. 37. In the event that an installed automatic stop enunciator is not working, the MBTA shall ensure that bus operators manually make all required announcements using the installed
- 13 -

public address (PA) system or, if the PA system is not working, in a loud voice that can be heard throughout the bus and outside of the bus on the curb when the entrance doors are opened. 38. The MBTA shall ensure that PA systems onboard vehicles are interoperable with all new visual display systems such that the auditory announcement is simultaneously displayed visually. 39. The MBTA shall continue its Stop Announcement Monitoring Program (SAMP) even when all buses are fully automated. The program shall continuously monitor both buses and the MBTA’s rail services to ensure equipment is working properly and the MBTA staff makes the appropriate announcements when requested and when automated equipment is not working. Station Management 40. New and key stations (as defined by the ADA regulations) must be managed and maintained in a manner that makes them readily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities. 41. Stations must be maintained in clean condition, well lighted and free of debris or material that in any way creates barriers or safety hazards for persons with disabilities. Any maintenance program shall address defects in walking surfaces, ramps, stairs and escalators, handrails, stair treads, doors and lighting;. 42. Train platform edges which are not protected by guard rails shall have detectable warnings that are maintained in safe condition to the extent required by applicable ADA regulations. The MBTA will perform repairs to correct defects in detectable warnings in accordance with the schedule in Addendum B. 43. The MBTA shall ensure that there is a timely and effective response to any access-related
- 14 -

emergencies or problems which arise while passengers are using its stations. 44. The MBTA shall ensure that appropriate MBTA personnel are available in order to assist all
passengers with access. Communications with Passengers 45. The MBTA shall develop and implement an improved and standardized system for signage,
wayfinding and navigation in MBTA stations that will enable passengers to determine how to navigate the station. 46. The MBTA will hire a nationally known “wayfinding” expert or firm with documented experience with creating effective wayfinding systems and graphic standards for users, including people with disabilities and older people by September 30, 2006 to conduct an evaluation of the existing navigation systems in all stations. The scope of work for the evaluation shall include the items contained in Addendum B. 47. The MBTA shall adopt and implement all reasonable recommendations of the expert hired under paragraph 46 unless it can clearly demonstrate that a particular recommendation would create an undue financial burden in relation to the MBTA operating and capital budgets considered in their entirety or that a particular recommendation would not result in an improvement to the navigation, signage and wayfinding systems in MBTA stations. 48. Within 90 days after the effective date of this agreement, the MBTA shall designate a person on staff whose primary responsibility is “navigation and wayfinding”. The staff person should have an architectural background. The staff member will have direct responsibility for ensuring compliance with paragraph 45 of this agreement. 49. The new public address (PA) systems being installed in MBTA stations shall adjust to ambient noise levels and be interoperable with all new visual display systems such that the
- 15 -

auditory announcement is simultaneously displayed visually. The MBTA will replace existing PA systems to meet these requirements. 50. The VMS equipment being installed in MBTA stations shall display visual announcements similar in content and clarity to auditory announcements where public address systems exist or are installed in the future, shall be installed on train platforms so that, to the maximum extent feasible, messages are displayed perpendicular to the right of way or not blocked by objects or vehicles, and equipment displaying next train information in station lobbies shall be located in prominent locations visible to all riders as they reach or pass through fare gates. The MBTA will replace existing systems to meet the above requirements. 51. The MBTA shall ensure that emergency call boxes (ECBs) are maintained in proper working order and are designed to be usable by people with disabilities. 52. The MBTA must provide at least one public TTY phone in working condition at each station that has a public pay phone. Customer service numbers shall be clearly posted at each public phone, in Braille and raised letters. Elevators 53. The parties recognize that elevators are critical station access features and are used by thousands of riders daily. For riders with more severe hidden disabilities or who use mobility devices, elevators represent the only way to access many MBTA stations and accompanying transportation lines. For many other MBTA riders, elevators make it possible to use the MBTA system easily and safely. As such, the MBTA recognizes the importance of and need for reliable elevators and agrees to the following: Elevators must be maintained and operated in a manner that makes them readily accessible and usable by persons with disabilities at all times during passenger service hours, which includes maintaining them in clean and safe
- 16 -

condition. To accomplish the goal of providing readily accessible and usable elevator service the MBTA must design, fund and implement an elevator management plan to provide continuous, uninterrupted elevator service during all passenger service hours, subject only to temporary and isolated elevator outages for repairs, maintenance and inspections. Service interruptions for preventive maintenance and inspections shall be scheduled in a manner to minimize the impact of any gaps in service and shall only occur when alternative accessible transportation is available to passengers needing to use elevators. The MBTA shall provide adequate funding for all aspects of elevator operations, including all maintenance, to achieve the goal of continuous uninterrupted service as set forth in this paragraph. The MBTA shall provide sufficient management oversight to achieve the goal of continuous uninterrupted service as set forth in this paragraph. 54. The MBTA shall be considered out of compliance with the obligations set forth in the preceding paragraph if, during any one month period, the number or duration of outages for any elevator in the MBTA passenger service system is more than insubstantial. If the independent monitor appointed pursuant to paragraph 89 determines that the MBTA is out of compliance with this requirement the MBTA shall, within 30 days, develop a corrective action plan to address the performance problems of the elevator or elevators found to be out of compliance and shall implement such plan promptly. If plaintiffs seek enforcement of the preceding paragraph by the Court, the MBTA shall have the burden of establishing that it has designed, funded and implemented an elevator management plan to provide continuous, uninterrupted elevator service during all passenger service hours, subject only to temporary and isolated elevator outages for repairs, maintenance and inspections. 55. The MBTA agrees to install the following new/redundant elevators:
- 17 -

a. Porter Square: two additional elevators at the Porter Square station, one from the street level to the fare lobby and one from the fare lobby to the subway platform
b. Harvard Square: one additional elevator in the Brattle Square area of the Harvard Square station;
c. Park Street: one additional elevator at the Park Street station between the surface and the Green Line westbound platform, and an additional elevator between the center Red Line platform and the Green Line westbound platform at Park Street station. If it is not feasible to install an elevator on the center Red Line platform at Park Street, elevators shall be installed on each of the two Red Line side platforms connecting to the Green Line westbound platform;
d. Downtown Crossing: additional elevators at Downtown Crossing station connecting the southbound and northbound Red Line platforms to the southbound (Forest Hills) Orange Line platform
56. The MBTA will replace the following elevators: a. Central Square: replace elevator 861 at Central Square station; b. Porter Square: replace elevators 818 and 820 c. Park Street: replace elevators 804 and 808 d. Harvard Square: replace elevator 821 e. State Street: replace elevator 802
57. The MBTA shall make best efforts to secure any approval required from any governmental entity to replace or install any of the elevators described in paragraphs 55 to 56. If any nongovernmental entity or individual seeks to block approval for the replacement or installation of any of the elevators described in this paragraph, through litigation or otherwise, the
- 18 -

MBTA shall make best efforts to oppose such action, including undertaking any necessary litigation to the extent that the MBTA believes that reasonable grounds exist for such litigation. The plaintiffs will support the MBTA in all efforts to obtain approval for replacement and installation of the elevators described in this paragraph, including assisting in and joining in any litigation that the MBTA engages in. If approval to install any particular elevator is denied, the MBTA shall discuss with the plaintiffs the feasibility of seeking approval for installing the elevator in another location of the station for which approval was denied. The MBTA is not required to engage in any litigation against any governmental entity under the terms of this paragraph. 58. In addition to any force majeure language in this agreement, the parties acknowledge that both new and replacement elevators require approvals that are beyond the authority of the MBTA. In order to promote station accessibility, the parties agree that, where a station will have both a new/redundant elevator and a replacement elevator as per this agreement; the MBTA will prioritize the completion of the new/redundant elevators prior to replacing existing elevators. To meet this goal, the MBTA will immediately take the necessary steps to hire a consultant to design the new/redundant elevators and agrees to advertise each elevator for construction within 30 days of completing design and obtaining all necessary approvals to permit construction of the new/redundant elevator. The MBTA will hire a design firm by July 13, 2006 and anticipates completing of the design of the elevators within one year from that date. The parties acknowledge that design for some of the elevators may be quicker or slower than others. In the event that design cannot be completed for any new/redundant elevator due to issues surrounding obtaining the requisite approvals, such as public processes controlled by other agencies/parties or litigation, or due to legitimate engineering reasons, the
- 19 -

MBTA will meet with the plaintiffs to discuss the feasibility of installing the new/redundant elevator in another location of the station or whether the MBTA should move forward with a replacement elevator instead of seeking to install the new/redundant elevator in another location of the station. The MBTA has commenced the design of the replacement elevators and will expedite their completion such that the replacement can be (1) substituted in time for the new/redundant as per this section or (2) completed as soon as practicable after the completion of the new/redundant elevator. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that the parties have the ability to reconfigure the schedule of these commitments based on the ability to secure approvals. 59. The MBTA shall consult with the plaintiffs for the purpose of discussing which existing MBTA elevators need to be replaced or modified and which stations need additional elevators. The plaintiffs and the MBTA shall review each station starting with the group including New England Medical Center, Chinatown, Oak Grove and South Station to determine which, if any, of the existing elevators in this group of stations needs to be replaced, enlarged and/or upgraded and the specifications for any such changes and to determine whether any additional elevators need to be installed in any of these stations and the specifications for such additional elevators. 60. The MBTA shall: (a) allocate a total of $122,000,000 in capital investment funds during fiscal years 2007 through 2011 for replacement, rehabilitation, upgrading and/or installation of additional elevators and escalators in stations in use as of the date of this agreement; and (b) award construction contracts and take any other steps necessary to spend the $122,000,000 amount. The allocation of funds and commitment to award contracts in this
- 20 -

paragraph does not preclude either the MBTA or the plaintiffs from seeking additional capital funds for elevators and escalators during fiscal years 2007 through 2011. 61. Information advising consumers when elevators are out of service, including when preventive maintenance is being performed, must be provided in a timely and accessible manner. When elevators are closed for preventative maintenance, the elevator must be listed as out of service. Chief Inspectors and Inspectors must ensure that elevator In/Out of service signs are locked. The recorded announcement system and web posting of elevator outages must be consistently synchronized and must indicate clearly what the operational impact of such outages would be (e.g. “passengers will be unable to get from the street to the outbound platform,” “Red Line passengers may transfer between inbound and outbound platforms but cannot reach the street level,” or, “passengers arriving inbound on the orange line will be unable to transfer to the blue line,” etc.). Announcements must be updated every two hours or whenever there is a change in the status of an elevator. 62. The MBTA must develop and operate a system for distributing information regarding elevator outages so that it is available to passengers at all train stations and so that announcements regarding elevator outages are made in a manner which enables passengers to use alternate routes. 63. The MBTA must also develop and operate a system for distributing information regarding elevator outages at MBTA stations requiring passengers with disabilities to use private, nonMBTA elevators in order to exit to street level from a concourse. 64. A sign system at the station street entrance and at each platform must advise passengers of their ability to actually access the street or platform.
- 21 -

65. The MBTA must post information about elevator and escalator outages at all station entrances. The notice must include the location of the elevator or escalator that is out of service and must advise passengers how to get assistance in getting to their intended destinations. The plaintiffs and the MBTA will continue to discuss the most effective means of providing notice of outages at stations entrances including use of large print signs.
66. Within 90 days after the effective date of this agreement, the MBTA shall develop a policy and procedure regarding alternative service routing during elevator outages. Whenever there is an outage the MBTA shall advise passengers of the least inconvenient alternative means of reaching their destinations, and provide passengers with instructions, fare media or immediate response alternative paratransit service when necessary. Passengers shall not be charged for this alternative service. The procedures governing this type of situation should be publicized and made available to the public. Services established for elevator outages must also be posted on the MBTA website and included in the recorded elevator announcement.
67. Should the MBTA continue to use a contractor to manage and maintain elevators and escalators, the agency shall develop a contractor oversight program that shall include a standard set of monthly operating and reliability reports, as well as the results of random and surprise physical inspections of elevators, elevator equipment rooms and escalators and their machine spaces. Such physical inspections shall be conducted on at least 5% of the system’s passenger vertical access equipment per month.
68. Should the MBTA choose to manage elevator and escalator maintenance “within house,” the agency shall establish a unit of staff, which is independent of the staff managing vertical access equipment, and which shall perform the inspections described in paragraph 67 above.
- 22 -

Design 69. The MBTA will commit to the update of the comprehensive "Guide to Access" and will
incorporate the guide into future standards. This guide will reflect the MBTA's commitment to a safe, reliable, and easy to use system that welcomes all riders regardless of ability and age. Access to Vehicles and Facilities 70. The MBTA must develop and implement a plan for collaborating with any governmental or private entities for the purpose of ensuring access to MBTA vehicles and facilities by persons with disabilities. The collaboration plan must specifically address issues of snow removal, removal of illegally parked vehicles at bus stops, signage on public right of ways, sidewalk accessibility and curb cuts, road repairs and other activities likely to have an adverse affect on accessibility. The plan shall include provisions to:
a. ticket and tow all vehicles stopped in bus stops and develop an enforcement plan to effectuate this policy and report annually on its efforts;
b. in conjunction with the towns and cities in which the MBTA operates, develop a plan and processes to ensure that bus stops are unobstructed by snow at all times;
c. in conjunction with the towns and cities in which the MBTA operates, develop a plan encourage towns and cities to mark all bus stops with signage at the beginning and end of each stop and on a bi-annual or more frequent basis as needed, paint the pavement adjacent to and the curbs at, bus stops in a reflective yellow or other visible color and label the pavement as a tow zone.
- 23 -

d. where there are documented or persistent problems with buses not pulling to the curb because of difficulty reentering travel lanes or vehicles blocking bus stops or their approaches, the MBTA shall provide heightened enforcement and or with the approval of local municipalities and or state agencies, install partial or complete curb extensions/bulb-outs.
Customer Assistance 71. The MBTA must establish and operate a system to provide assistance to customers with
disabilities. Customer assistance services must be available at all stations on the fixed route system. Customer assistance services must include a means of providing help with boarding or leaving trains and buses, using accessibility features, arranging for alternative transportation when necessary, and other assistance to facilitate use of the system by persons with disabilities. The MBTA must ensure that customer assistance services are available to persons with disabilities during all hours of operation. Alternative Transportation 72. The MBTA must provide alternative transportation to persons with disabilities when the fixed route system is not readily accessible or usable, in accordance with applicable ADA regulations. The system for providing alternative transportation must be designed and managed in a manner that ensures that customers are promptly advised of their right to alternative transportation, that the need for such services is promptly communicated to the responsible officials, and that services are provided in a timely manner. 73. The MBTA must have vehicles suitable for providing alternative transportation for persons with disabilities immediately available whenever there is a need to provide alternative transportation.
- 24 -

74. In any case where there is a planned or evident long-term situation when the fixed route system is not readily accessible or usable, the MBTA must establish, publicize and provide a dedicated ready means of alternative transportation to mitigate such an interruption.
Complaints 75. The MBTA must maintain the system for receiving complaints and providing prompt
responses and, where complaints are found to be valid, effective remedies for persons with disabilities who do not receive adequate service. Within 90 days after the effective date of this agreement, the MBTA must complete a review of effectiveness of the existing complaint system and propose a plan for correcting any deficiencies. Following the internal review the MBTA will submit the complaint system, whether revised on not, for review and comment by the plaintiffs. Personnel 76. Within 90 days after the effective date of this agreement, the MBTA must revise its training programs in the following ways: a. ADA compliance training for all managers and staff must be fully integrated into the
regular training programs. b. Bus operator training relating to the ADA must be fully incorporated into the standard
program and provided by the training department. c. All bus operators and transportation personnel must receive a refresher-training course
concerning ADA requirements. d. Enhanced training programs regarding ADA compliance and accessibility must be
developed for managers, supervisors and staff with direct contact with customers.
- 25 -

e. Customer assistance training and sensitivity training must be added to the bus operator, train operator and station employee curriculum.
f. Modules addressing disability awareness, customer assistance and sensitivity training must be added to the curriculum.
g. A test measuring driver knowledge must be implemented, documenting that all operators have been “trained to proficiency” as required by the regulations.
h. The pre-trip inspection (circle check) training must be enhanced to emphasize the checking of all accessible equipment, not just lifts.
i. The road observation program must be modified to include planned observations of drivers providing accessible service.
j. Training for bus operators and other transportation personnel must include direct work with individuals with disabilities including individuals with mobility, vision and hearing impairments and further including individuals who use wheelchairs, scooters, canes and other mobility devices.
77. The MBTA shall review and revise its entire training program as it relates to service to individuals with disabilities in consultation with the plaintiffs and their representatives. Such consultations shall take place within 120 days after the effective date of this agreement and shall continue on an ongoing basis as needed.
78. All staff coming in direct contact with customers must be supervised to ensure persons with disabilities receive proper service.
79. Available disciplinary procedures must be used to ensure accountability for performance of job responsibilities related to accessibility and ADA compliance. Such a system shall be comparable to that used for non-ADA rules infractions. Each instance of use of disciplinary
- 26 -

procedures regarding access and ADA compliance must be recorded in a central register and reports on actions taken must be provided to senior managers on a regular basis. Management 80. The MBTA shall design management systems and plans to ensure compliance with all aspects of this agreement, shall provide sufficient funding for all equipment, facilities, personnel and activities necessary to ensure compliance with all aspects of this agreement and shall fully implement all plans, programs and activities necessary to comply with this agreement. The MBTA shall prepare a detailed written description of the management systems and plans required by this paragraph, a detailed written budget specifying the funding available to meet the requirements of this paragraph and a detailed written description of actions to be taken implement all plans, programs and activities as required by this paragraph. The written descriptions and the budget required by the preceding sentence shall be submitted to the monitor appointed under paragraph 89 and the plaintiffs for review and comment with 90 days after the effective date of this agreement. Such written descriptions and the budget shall revised every six months and submitted to the monitor and plaintiffs for further review. 81. The MBTA shall establish the position of Assistant General Manager for System Accessibility. This individual shall report directly to the General Manager and shall be responsible for assisting the General Manager to ensure compliance with this settlement and coordination of the implementation of its various components; for developing further means to improve accessibility to MBTA services compatible with this settlement and state and federal law; and to ensure that all departments and components of the MBTA, as part of their regular duties and responsibilities, understand and comply with all disability access
- 27 -

requirements as mandated by this settlement, state and federal law, and any other accessibility policies and programs established by the MBTA. 82. The MBTA shall develop an internal management and reporting system to ensure that all ADA and accessibility related performance and policy issues are brought to the attention of senior operations managers, the Chief Operating Officer and the General Manager of the organization. 83. The plaintiffs may make proposals to the MBTA concerning: (a) the design of future new low-floor buses (see paragraph 9); (b) the issue of platform gaps (see paragraph 24); (c) the addition, replacement, or modification of elevators (see paragraph 59); (d) the posting of information about elevator and escalator outages (see paragraph 65); and (e) MBTA training programs regarding service to individuals with disabilities (see paragraph 77). The MBTA shall adopt any proposal made by the plaintiffs concerning any of these items (a)-(e) that is reasonable, taking into consideration the cost, feasibility, benefits, and consistency of the proposal with MBTA policies, unless the MBTA has a reasonable basis for rejecting the proposal, in which case the MBTA must send the plaintiffs a letter explaining the MBTA’s basis for rejecting the proposal. 84. The MBTA shall meet with the plaintiffs to discuss adoption of standards for elevators. Such discussion shall include consideration of the items listed under the heading “Elevators” on Addendum B. Marketing, Outreach and Public Relations 85. The MBTA must conduct a comprehensive marketing study to determine the extent of need for accessible services. The marketing study must include a component that seeks to
- 28 -

determine why persons with disabilities who could use the fixed route system choose to use the Ride or choose to forgo using any MBTA services. 86. The MBTA must conduct a marketing campaign to educate customers with disabilities about all existing MBTA accessibility services. The marketing campaign must have a component to encourage greater use of the fixed route system by people with disabilities. 87. The MBTA must work in collaboration with organizations representing and providing services to persons with disabilities to encourage greater use of the fixed route system. 88. The MBTA must develop and conduct a public relations program to educate all customers about its plans for providing services to persons with disabilities. The public relations program must include a component for encouraging public awareness in providing accessible services to persons with disabilities. Independent Monitor 89. An independent monitor shall be appointed to assess compliance with this agreement. In addition to any powers explicitly set forth in this agreement, the monitor shall assess compliance by the MBTA with all aspects of this agreement and issue findings on a quarterly basis. The first compliance assessment and report of findings shall be completed within six months after the effective date of this agreement. Such findings shall include a determination whether the MBTA is in substantial compliance, partial compliance or out of compliance with the various requirements and shall indicate the general trend of improvement or degradation of compliance in each area monitored. In discharging his/her responsibilities the monitor shall serve as a resource to the MBTA and its staff to improve accessibility and customer service, comment on and be able to recommend possible solutions to access problems, and will inform the MBTA of access problems or conditions which negatively
- 29 -

affect passenger travel. The monitor shall serve as long as the Court retains jurisdiction (see paragraph 99, below). 90. The monitor will be selected by agreement of the parties. In the absence of agreement the monitor will be selected by the Court from a group of candidates proposed by each party. The monitor will be appointed by and accountable to the Court. 91. The monitor shall employ testers and observers to assess compliance with the provisions of this agreement, including particularly paragraph 1. Testers shall include persons with disabilities. The MBTA, the plaintiffs, and the monitor shall mutually develop a valid and reliable sampling program that uses anonymous testers with disabilities to determine the MBTA’s rate of compliance with the provisions of this agreement. The sampling program shall include a component that uses comparable methodology to that used by Delta Services Group, Inc. and the Social Research Corporation in the bus system accessibility study done for the plaintiffs, as described in the report of August, 2005. 92. The MBTA shall provide the monitor with sufficient information, in a suitable format, and access to MBTA facilities and personnel to enable the monitor to discharge any duties under this agreement. The MBTA shall provide, at a minimum, the materials as listed in Addendum C on a regular basis. All information provided to the monitor shall also be provided to the plaintiffs. 93. All reports prepared by the monitor shall be provided to the plaintiffs. 94. The monitor shall conduct public meetings every six months during the time when this agreement is in effect to report on his/her activities and on progress in implementing the provisions of this agreement.
- 30 -

95. The MBTA shall pay for all expenses related to the performance of the monitoring function up to a maximum of $300,000 per year. The reasonableness of the expenses related to monitoring shall be subject to review by the Court.
Communication Between the Parties 96. The parties will endeavor to maintain open communications regarding all aspects of
implementation of this agreement. During the first year of implementation the parties will meet monthly to review progress and discuss any matter of concern to either party. After the first year the parties will meet at least 6 times a year and more often if either party requests a meeting. The parties will inform the each other of any problems or issues concerning the implementation of this agreement at the earliest opportunity. The MBTA will provide the plaintiffs with all information given to the independent monitor and will provide information in response to any reasonable requests related to implementation of this agreement. The MBTA will provide the plaintiffs with reasonable access to personnel and facilities as needed for the implementation of this agreement. Attorneys’ Fees, Litigation Expenses and Costs 97. The MBTA shall pay the plaintiffs reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs for work done through March 9, 2006. The plaintiffs’ attorneys may seek additional attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs for work done implementing and enforcing this agreement. Duration 98. The parties recognize that the MBTA’s principal obligations to ensure accessibility are established by law. In addition, the particular obligations established by this agreement will remain in effect until: (a) the expiration of a period of five years after the effective date of
- 31 -

this agreement (the “five-year period”) and the issuance, after expiration of the five-year period, of three consecutive quarterly reports by the monitor finding the MBTA in substantial compliance with each term of this agreement; (b) agreement of the parties that the conditions sought by the agreement have been satisfied; or (c) order of the Court upon the application of one or more of the parties. Jurisdiction of Court 99. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this agreement so long as it remains in effect under paragraph 98, above. Dispute Resolution 100. Any dispute concerning interpretation, implementation, compliance assessments by the monitor and/or compliance with this agreement shall be resolved as follows: (a) the party initiating the dispute resolution process shall notify the other party in writing of the nature of the dispute and shall provide a reasonable explanation of the factual and legal basis for the party’s position; (b) within thirty days of the notice of dispute counsel for the parties shall confer to attempt to resolve the matter; (c) if counsel are unable to resolve the dispute, the MBTA and the plaintiffs shall meet in an effort to resolve the matter within 30 days of the date on which counsel concur that they cannot resolve the dispute; and (d) if the parties are unable to resolve the dispute they will request that the Court refer the matter to a Magistrate Judge for mediation; and (e), if the dispute has still not been resolved, counsel for the parties will submit the matter to the Court for formal resolution. Force Majeure 101. The MBTA shall not be liable for failure to perform any obligation under this agreement, and any such failure shall not be considered a breach of or non-compliance with any term of
- 32 -

this agreement, if such failure results from any act of God, riot, war, civil unrest, flood, earthquake, third party not subject to the MBTA’s control, or other causes beyond the MBTA’s reasonable control. Release 102. Plaintiffs, individually and for and on behalf of all persons with mobility, vision and hearing disabilities, fully, finally and forever release, relinquish, discharge, and waive any and all accessibility and accessibility-related claims for injunctive and declaratory relief concerning MBTA fixed route bus and subway systems which they now have or may have ever had against the MBTA, its officers, board members, employees, attorneys, and agents, arising out of any act, omission, or occurrence, from the beginning of the world until the effective date of this agreement, including without limitation any and all claims for injunctive or declaratory relief arising out of or relating to the facts, transactions, occurrences or subject matter described in the Amended Complaint filed in the Lawsuit, and all claims under 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. (the Americans with Disabilities Act), 29 U.S.C. § 794 (the Rehabilitation Act), or any other federal or state law that addresses the accessibility of fixed route bus and subway systems for individuals with mobility, vision or hearing disabilities. Entire Agreement 103. This agreement contains all the agreements, conditions, promises and covenants among the MBTA, Plaintiffs, and their respective counsel regarding matters set forth in it and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous agreements, drafts, representations or understandings, either written or oral, with respect to the subject matter of the present agreement.
- 33 -

Court Approval Process 104. The obligations in this settlement agreement will become effective 45 days after the entry
of final judgment dismissing this action if a motion under Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a notice of appeal challenging this settlement agreement has not been filed or, if a motion under Rule 59 or Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or a notice of appeal challenging this settlement agreement has been filed, within 45 days after all appellate proceedings pertaining to this settlement agreement have been completed and this settlement agreement has been determined to be valid and binding. References in this settlement agreement to “the effective date of this agreement” should be construed to refer to the terms of this paragraph. 105. Promptly after the execution of this settlement agreement, the parties shall jointly move the Court for preliminary approval of this settlement agreement. The motion shall include a copy of the settlement agreement and request that the Court: (a) approve a draft notice of settlement, a draft summary notice, and a proposed order granting preliminary approval to be attached to the motion; (b) approve mailing notice of the settlement to advocacy and service organizations working with people with disabilities in the MBTA’s service area identified by the plaintiffs and the MBTA and the publication of a summary notice in the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald within 10 days after the entry of an order granting preliminary approval; and, (c) set a date for a fairness hearing which is no less than 45 days, and no more than 60 days, after the entry of the order granting preliminary approval of this agreement.
The order of preliminary approval shall require, and the notice of settlement and summary notice shall set out, that any class member (other than named class representatives) may object to this settlement agreement by mailing a written objection to the Court and
- 34 -

plaintiffs’ counsel at least 10 days before the fairness hearing. The order of preliminary approval shall also require, and the notice of settlement and summary notice shall also set out, that any class member who does not object in this manner shall be deemed to have waived his/her/its objections.
Plaintiffs’ counsel shall maintain copies of any objections to this settlement agreement and, no more than five days after receipt, shall provide copies of such objections to counsel for the MBTA. The notice of settlement and the summary notice shall set out the mailing address plaintiffs’ counsel. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall maintain a telephone number which may be called during normal business hours by any class member who has questions about this settlement agreement. The notice of settlement and the summary notice shall set out this telephone number and state that class members with questions about this settlement agreement may call the number during normal business hours. 106. The order of preliminary approval shall, at a minimum, contain provisions regarding each requirement contained in paragraph 105 and: a. a provision preliminarily approving this settlement agreement and, subject to any
objections that might be made in the manner described above, finding that the settlement agreement is fair, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests of plaintiffs; b. a provision finding that the notice of settlement and summary notice described above, or such other notice as the Court determines necessary, constitutes valid, due, and sufficient notice to the class and the best notice practicable under the circumstances, complying fully with the requirements of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable law; and,
- 35 -

c. a provision providing that class members or any other person with standing may appear at
the fairness hearing and object to judicial approval of this settlement agreement, provided
that any objectors shall have complied with the procedure for objections set out in the
notice of settlement and the summary notice.
107. The parties agree to take such actions as are reasonably necessary to obtain final approval
of this settlement agreement by the Court including, but not limited to, filing memoranda in
opposition to any objections to this settlement agreement.
108. At the fairness hearing, the parties shall jointly submit to the Court and request entry of a
final judgment that includes, at a minimum, provisions stating that:
a. the form and method of notice given to the class complied with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, satisfied the requirements of due process, is the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and constitutes due and sufficient notice of the settlement agreement, the fairness hearing, and other matters referred to in the notice to all persons entitled to receive such notice;
b. the Court has held a hearing to consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of the proposed settlement;
c. arm’s-length negotiations have taken place in good faith between class counsel and MBTA counsel, and have resulted in the settlement agreement;
d. the settlement agreement is hereby finally approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) as fair, reasonable and adequate, and the settlement agreement shall be consummated in accordance with its terms and provisions;
e. the class members in this case include all individuals with mobility, hearing, or visual disabilities, a defined by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2), who use, will use, or would use the bus, light rail, and heavy rail rapid transit services operated by the MBTA who are, or will in the future be, denied equal use of these services because the services are not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with such disabilities;
f. the class members, all and each of them (including plaintiffs), are hereby bound by the terms of the settlement agreement;
g. in approving the settlement agreement, the Court has considered: (1) whether the proposed settlement was fairly and honestly negotiated; (2) whether serious questions of
- 36 -

law and fact exist, placing the ultimate outcome of the litigation in doubt; (3) whether the value of the proposed settlement outweighs the mere possibility of future relief after protracted and expensive litigation; and (4) the judgment of the parties that the proposed settlement is fair and reasonable; h. this class action is complex with many intricate factual and legal issues and the results of litigation, including this one, can never be predicted with complete accuracy; i. the judgment of class counsel is that the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable and adequate; j. the class members are deemed to have released and forever discharged the MBTA with respect to the claims that are released in paragraph 102 in the settlement agreement, which is incorporated by reference herein and attached hereto; k. the class members are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or prosecuting, either directly, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity, any action against the MBTA asserting any of the claims released by them in this settlement agreement; l. the Court, without affecting the finality of this Order for Final Judgment, hereby retains and reserves jurisdiction over implementation and performance of the settlement agreement pursuant to paragraph 99 of the settlement agreement; and m. the Court orders the entry of final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice and without costs. Miscellaneous 109. The parties hereto waive any right to appeal or collaterally attack the final judgment approving this settlement agreement. 110. The parties hereto have participated in the drafting of this settlement agreement and, accordingly, any claimed ambiguity should not be presumptively construed for or against any of the parties hereto. 111. This settlement agreement may be signed in counterparts.
- 37 -

For Plaintiffs:

/s/ Joanne Daniels-Finegold Joanne Daniels-Finegold Plaintiff

/s/ Rogera Robinson Rogera Robinson Plaintiff

/s/ Gene Smith Gene Smith Plaintiff

/s/ Reginald Clark Reginald Clark Plaintiff

/s/ Madelyn Joan Golden Madelyn Joan Golden Plaintiff

/s/ Myrnairis Cepeda Myrnairis Cepeda Plaintiff

/s/ Maureen Cancemi Maureen Cancemi Plaintiff

/s/ Andrew Forman Andrew Forman Plaintiff

/s/ Danford Larkin Danford Larkin Plaintiff

/s/ Robert Park Robert Park Plaintiff

/s/ Thomas Gilbert Thomas Gilbert Plaintiff

/s/ William H. Henning Boston Center for Independent Living Plaintiff by William H. Henning, Executive Director

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CONTENT:

/s/ Daniel S. Manning Daniel S. Manning Greater Boston Legal Services Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Taramattie Doucette Taramattie Doucette Greater Boston Legal Services Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Todd Kaplan Todd Kaplan Greater Boston Legal Services Attorney for Plaintiffs

/s/ Anthony L. Bolzan Anthony L. Bolzan Dechert, LLP Attorney for Plaintiffs

- 38 -

For Defendant MBTA: /s/ Daniel A. Grabauskas Daniel A. Grabauskas General Manager Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority APPROVED AS TO FORM /s/ William A. Mitchell William A. Mitchell General Counsel Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority Dated: April 10, 2006
- 39 -

ADDENDUM A
The MBTA shall revise the Bus Operations Rules for Operators and other Employees of Bus Operations (October 1, 2001) as follows:
1. In accordance with 49 CFR § 37.161(a) Rule 72 shall be revised to require inspection of all accessibility equipment and devices.
2. In accordance with 49 CFR § 37.161(c) Rule 80 shall be revised to require that operators report lift failures any time they occur.
3. In accordance with 49 CFR § 37.165(d) Rule 80 shall be revised to specify that the MBTA may not deny transportation to a person using a wheelchair on the grounds that the device cannot be secured or restrained.
4. In accordance with 49 CFR § 37.167(g) Rule 50 shall be revised to specify when and where passengers using lifts can disembark.
5. The MBTA shall adopt a rule, pursuant to 49 CFR § 37.167(e), requiring operators to make use of all accessibility related equipment including kneelers and ramps.
6. The MBTA shall adopt a rule, pursuant to 49 CFR § 37.167(f), requiring operators to provide individuals with disabilities adequate information about transportation services.
7. The MBTA shall adopt a rule, pursuant to 49 CFR § 37.167(i), requiring operators to allow adequate time for individuals with disabilities to complete boarding or disembarking.
8. The MBTA shall adopt a rule, pursuant to 49 CFR § 37.167(j), specifying procedures to be followed by operators to enable individuals with disabilities to obtain seating or occupy a securement area.
Within 60 days after the effective date of this agreement the MBTA shall prepare draft changes as specified for review and comment by the plaintiffs and their representatives. The MBTA shall also meet with the plaintiffs and their representatives within 120 after the effective date of this agreement to review, in their entirety, the Bus Operations Rules for Operators and other Employees of Bus Operations (October 1, 2001), the Subway Operations – Rules for Trainpersons – Heavy Rail July1, 2004, the Rules for Trainpersons – Light Rail (January 1, 2000) and all rules, regulations, general and special orders, or bulletins. One of the topics to be discussed at this meeting is whether the MBTA shall amend Rule 80(d) to make the use of securement devices optional with the passenger and specify the procedures to be used in securing passengers who opt to be secured The MBTA shall adopt any reasonable changes or additions proposed by the plaintiffs that are consistent with MBTA general policies and operating procedures. The MBTA and the plaintiffs shall meet periodically, and no less than once every six months, to review all rules, regulations, general and special orders, or bulletins and make any necessary changes.
40

ADDENDUM B
DESIGN STANDARDS AND WORK SCHEDULES
Detectable Warnings
Detectable warnings shall be repaired to meet standards required by ADA regulations as follows:
North Quincy: The MBTA agrees to make best efforts to complete construction of the detectable warning repairs at this station on or before August 31, 2007.
Wood Island, Beachmont, Revere Beach and Wonderland: The MBTA agrees to make best efforts to complete construction of the detectable warning repairs at these stations on or before December 31, 2007.
MBTA shall promptly repair any future defects in detectable warnings as they occur.
The comprehensive review of navigation and wayfinding will include:
a. Review of existing design and signage specifications and graphic standards including but not limited to the materials created and analysis done by Cambridge Seven Associates in 1968 and 2003.
b. Conduct independent interviews with MBTA station staff, the plaintiff and representative members of specific interest groups including people with a range of disabilities, older people, non-English speakers, and professional organizations such as the Boston Society of Architects.
c. review of graphic elements in all stations including recently renovated or constructed stations
In the review of existing standards, evaluation of existing conditions and the development of guidance for a standardized and system-wide navigation and wayfinding plan, the wayfinding expert/firm shall consider:
a. architectural cues and the opportunities to strengthen such cues, as well as ensuring redundancy of cues;
b. development of individual station and platform identities while maintaining a set of common features to all stations;
c. clarification of the Inbound/Outbound designation of platforms; d. opportunities to strengthen the appropriate and hierarchical display of information on
station identity bands, signs perpendicular to the path of travel, and overhead signage; e. locations where station identity bands are missing, incorrectly installed, misused, or
blocked; f. locations of advertising and or concessions that obstruct sight lines of or interrupt
patterns of architectural and signage cues and strategies to prevent future occurrences; g. reduction of, or improperly located graphic elements in recently renovated or constructed
stations
41

h. inconsistent graphic clarity of system maps and line maps including reduced font sizes or changed typefaces;
i. the readability of, system maps, line maps and other materials when printed on surfaces such as vinyl, stainless steel and porcelain as well as when shielded by materials such as glass or plexiglass; and the affects of different lighting sources in creating glare on the objects; and
j. consistency of signage and location of signs throughout the MBTA system. k. Inclusion and development of navigational aids or cues such as a compass rose embedded
in the floor/pavement at major exits of stations and adjacent street names with directional arrows embedded in the pavement outside major exits of stations.
Elevators
Doors
The doors shall a. have a minimum clear opening width of 42”; b. maximize visual transparency from 24” to 72” above the finished floor and across the face of individual door panels utilizing safety glass or other transparent material in a manner that reflects current requirements of state and federal fire and elevator codes; c. include obstacle sensors at multiple elevations.
Flooring surfaces
Flooring materials shall be a. impervious to penetration by liquid or odors; b. impervious to defacing, damage or destruction by vandals using materials and tools such as acid, blunt objects, or razors; c. impervious and highly resistant to fire or intense heat, corrosion and rust. d. preferably of a single piece for the length and width of the interior cab space with molded edges such that the piece is similar in resemblance to a typical shower pan; e. removable and replaceable in less than a day by repair and maintenance staff; f. capable of being cleaned or resurfaced at a maintenance shop; and g. withstand cleaning with industrial cleaners or bleach products at least four times a day.
Cab design
The cab shall a. have minimum dimensions of 60 inches x 80 inches such that the longer dimension is perpendicular to the door face and in cases of retrofitting stations with elevators, best efforts should be made for achieving said dimensions; b. maximize transparency between 24” and 72” above the finished floor utilizing safety glass or other transparent material and the transparent surfaces shall be hung in a manner that allows quick access to adjacent hoistway elements such as hydraulics, seals, wiring, and limit switches and access to both sides of the transparent surfaces for cleaning;
42

c. have handrails between 33 and 38 inches above the floor on walls without doors that withstand a vertical or horizontal force of 300 pounds, minimum; and where the rail design and installation comply with ADAAG 505.5 through 505.9;
d. wherever possible, have doors on opposites sides of the cab to allow pull-through usage such that the minimum dimension between doors being 72 inches; and
e. provide entry from both ends of the cab at locations where the elevator shaft is free standing on a platform and located near the middle of the platform;
f. in the rare instances where, because of existing non-modifiable physical impediments a cab that must have doors at two right angles (requiring a 90 degree turn to exit) shall have minimum dimensions of 72 inches x 72 inches with doors located as far from each other as possible, and with the accompanying corner space designed to be as transparent as possible.
Cab controls and buttons and Hall call buttons and Hall lanterns
Hall call buttons, and lanterns shall a. segregate service (Low Oil, Service Hold, etc.) and fire related lights and controls some distance from elevator call buttons and shape them in a manner that when read tactily they are not confused for call/control buttons; b. label button in a standard nomenclature for naming the levels within a station and provide the floor designation in full text off to the side, e.g., Up to Winter Street or Down to Red Line to Alewife or if space is highly constrained, the text may be in a understandable abbreviated form; c. Identify the position and direction of travel of the elevator cab and; d. conform to the criteria below;
Control panels shall a. be located on at least two walls opposite each other such that the controls can be accessed by right and left handed customers without turning; b. to avoid confusion, segregate service (Low Oil, Service Hold, etc.) and fire related controls and lights some distance from critical buttons;
Critical buttons (floors, door open/close, emergency controls for alarm and intercom) shall a. be a minimum of 1 1/2” in all dimensions and be separated vertically from other buttons by at least 1 inch.; b. be located between 35” and 48” above the floor;
All buttons shall a. be backlit by LED or other long-lasting light sources that are easily replaced; b. be flush with a frame in such a manner that any individual button cannot be pried out with common tools c. be made of a material that cannot be cracked, melted or otherwise damaged by lighters or other common objects; d. be arranged such that in accordance with station layouts, the placement of elevator control buttons on control panels shall be above or below one another corresponding to the relation of the level(s);
43

e. be activated with minimal force but not be activated by heat sensing technology; and f. be labeled in a standard nomenclature for naming the levels within a station with the floor
designation in full text off to the side, e.g., “Quincy Street” not “QS”, “Lobby” not “L”, etc.
Button labels shall a. have characters in accordance with ADAAG 703.2; and the information repeated in Braille in accordance with ADAAG 703.3.
Interior ceiling components and lighting elements
Ceiling components and lighting elements shall be a. located at sufficient height to be difficult to reach easily; b. difficult to dislodge, insert objects into, or place objects such as trash on top of;
Lighting elements shall a. be recessed above and around the ceiling elements in a manner that the bulbs are not visible to, or reachable by passengers, but can be quickly replaced (similar to the existing Southwest Corridor elevators); b. not be covered by plastic shields unless required and if required, the shields must be cleaned on a weekly basis;
Elevator shafts and headhouses
Interior elevator shafts shall a. maximize transparency into the elevator cab; b. where possible, provide the desirable wayfinding cue of a direct visual connection between levels within stations; c. be located in prominent, easily seen locations and in a manner that maximizes the visibility of the entrances and exits; and d. be in the middle of or adjacent to the predominant pedestrian routes, and as near as possible close to the stairs connecting the same levels.
Exterior elevator head houses shall a. incorporate a substantial overhang with lighting so that customers are sheltered from the elements and in a well-lit area as they wait for the elevator; b. maximize transparency into the shaft or elevator cab such that the occupants are visible from as many directions as possible; c. incorporate identity bands, the MBTA T logo, and any other suitable wayfinding cues which are visible from all directions; d. incorporate call buttons that conform to the above section on Controls and Buttons and a working intercom system; e. in a consistent location for all headhouses, incorporate above/below the call buttons, the name of the station/platform accessed by the elevator in raised lettering and Braille; f. in a consistent location, identify the MBTA identification # of the elevator in raised lettering and Braille.
44

Travel Speed, Automatic cycling, Hold floors, and Door Activation a. Travel speeds shall be set such that passengers spend very short periods of time traveling between levels with a minimum speed of 100 ft/minute; b. Elevators shall be programmed to automatically cycle between floors on a regular basis; c. Elevators shall be programmed to return to certain floors such that for example, in the morning peak an elevator returns to the lobby to await passengers heading to the platform and in the evening peak it returns to the platform for the same passengers heading home; and d. To enable hands free operation and decrease vandalism, elevators shall be programmed to upon answering a floor call, then automatically ascend or descend to the levels serviced by the elevator and open the doors; e. Doors shall remain fully open for a minimum of 3 seconds and at high traffic locations, the time shall be extended on a case by case basis; f. When doors open, provide an auditory announcement, similar to what WMATA and other systems do, that announces what levels the elevator services such as Orange Line Downtown Crossing Washington and Winter Street elevator. Going down to fare lobby.”
Renovated and rebuilt elevators Elevator doors should have the maximum amount of visual transparency feasible under the circumstances
45

ADDENDUM C
Partial listing of MBTA materials to be provided to the independent monitor.
1. customer complaints related to MBTA fixed route services; 2. customer related accident reports; 3. reports filed with the Federal Transit Administration concerning the operation, maintenance
and accessibility of MBTA vehicles, stations, and services; 4. correspondence, findings and directives from the Federal Transit Administration concerning
the operation, maintenance and accessibility of MBTA vehicles, stations, and services; 5. Stop Announcement Monitoring Program (SAMP) reports; 6. elevator /escalator/mobile lift outage reports; 7. bus lift, kneeler and ramp failure and repair reports; 8. failure and repair reports for and other information concerning the functionality of visual and
auditory public address systems on buses, trains, trolleys, and in MBTA facilities; 9. work updates and reports to the MBTA from Lerch Bates, Kone, and any other firm
overseeing, assisting with, or directly maintaining vertical access features in MBTA stations; 10. work updates and reports to the MBTA from Lerch Bates, VTX, and any other firms
involved in the renovation, overhaul, replacement, or installation of vertical access features in MBTA stations; 11. engineering reports, architectural studies, plans and specifications for stations or areas of stations to be constructed or about to undergo repair, renovation, rehabilitation or replacement; 12. plans, specifications, and performance criteria for new vehicles, fare equipment, shelters, station amenities, etc.; 13. information about pending maintenance activities at MBTA stations; 14. MBTA reports, annual budget and updates, capital and service plans; 15. ratings, scheduled trip listings, and any other needed materials necessary for undercover monitoring of MBTA services; 16. any other materials the MBTA believes would assist the monitor in its capacity.
46

ADDENDUM D 47

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

JOANNE DANIELS·FINEGOLD, ROGERA )

ROBINSON, GENE SMITH, REGINALD

)

CLARK, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN,

)

MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MAUREEN CANCEMI, )

ANDREW FORMAN, DANFORD LARKIN, )

ROBERT PARK, THOMAS GILBERT,

)

and BOSTON CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT )

LIVING, individually and as class representatives, )

)

Plaintiffs

}

)

vs.

)

)

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION )

AUTHORITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

C.A. No. 02 CV 11504 MEL

ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND NOTICE OF FAIRNESS HEARING
The parties to the above-entitled action have moved that this Court preliminarily approve the Settlement Agreement, approve the Settlement Notice and Summary of Settlement Notice and schedule a Fairness Hearing for final approval of the Settlement Agreement and entry of judgment dismissing this action. In support the of the motion the parties have filed the Settlement Agreement and proposed notices.
Having reviewed the Settlement Agreement and proposed notices the Court finds that: subject to any objections that might be made at the Fairness Hearing, the Settlement Agreement is fuir, adequate, reasonable, and in the best interests ofplaintiffs; the notice of settlement and summary notice constitute valid, due, and sufficient notice to the class and the best notice

practicable under the circumstances, complying fully with the requirements of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure, the Constitution of the United States, and any other applicable law; and that the Joint Motion For Preliminary Approval Of Settlement Agreement And Notice should be GRANTED and that this order should be entered.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: a) the Settlement Notice shall be mailed to advocacy and service organizations working
with people with disabilities in the MBTNs service area identified by the plaintiffs and the MBTA and the Summary Notice shall be published in the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald within 10 days after the entry ofthis Order; b) a Fairness Hearing for review and approval of the Settlement Agreement shall be held at 9:30 a.m., June 15, 2006 before United States District Judge Morris E. Lasker, Courtroom 8 ofthe United States District Court, John J. Moakley U.S. Courthouse, 1 Courthouse Way, Boston, MA 02210; c) that class members or any other person with standing may appear at the Fairness Hearing and object to judicial approval of this Settlement Agreement, provided that any objectors shall have complied with the procedure for objections set out in the Settlement Notice and the Summary Notice.

Dated: April 402006

Morris E. Lasker United States District Judge

2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

F .t.,';"'C.4":ICTJ! N ERKS OrnC.E

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

ItrHh JUN -q P 12: I b

)

JOANNE DANlliLS·FINEGOLD, ROGERA

)

ROBINSON, GENE SMITH, REGINALD

)

u.s.
D~S

TDHIiSCTrmOCFT

COURT MASS

CLARK, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN,

)

MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MAUREEN CANCEMI, )

ANDREW FORMAN, DANFORD LARKIN, )

ROBERT PARK, THOMAS GILBERT,

)

and BOSTON CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT )

LIVING, individually and as class representatives, )

)

C.A. No. 02 CV 11504 MEL

Plaintiffs,

)

)

VS.

)

)

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION )

AUTHORITY,

)

)

Defendant.

)

)

ORDER FOR FINAL JUDGMENT

In light of the June 15,2006, fairness hearing held by the Court to determine whether the

parties' Settlement Agreement should be fiua11y approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

L The Settlement Agreement is hereby fiually approved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.

23(e) as fair, reasonable and adequate, and the Settlement Agreement shall be consummated in

accordance with its terms and provisions;

2. The form and method of notice of the Settlement Agreement given to the class

complied with the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federai Ru1es of Civil Procedure, satisfied the

requirements ofdue process, was the best notice practicable under the circumstances, and

constituted due and sufficient notice of the Settlement Agreement, the fairness hearing, and other

matters referred to in the notice to all persons entitled to receive such notice;

3. The class members in this case include all individuals with mobility, hearing, or
visual disabilities, as defined by Title n of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §

12131(2), who use, will use, or would use the bus, light rail, and heavy rail rapid transit services

operated by the MBTA who are, or will in the future be, denied equal use ofthese services

because the services are not readily accessible to and usable by individuals with such disabilities;

4. The class members, all and each ofthem (including plaintiffs), are hereby bound

by the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

5. The class members are deemed to have released and forever discharged the

MBTA with respect to the claims that are released in the Settlement Agreement, which is

incorporated by reference herein and attached hereto as Exhibit 1;

6. The class members are hereby permanently barred and enjoined from instituting

or prosecuting, either directly, representatively, derivatively or in any other capacity, any action

against the MBTA asserting any of the claims released by them in the Settlement Agreement;

7. The Court, without affecting the finality of this Order for Final Judgment, hereby

retains and reserves jurisdiction over implementation and performance of the Settlement

Agreement pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement; and

8. The Court orders the entry of final judgment dismissing this case with prejudice

and without costs.
Dated: June I'!'~ 2006

Morris E. Lasker United States District Judge

1535887.2

2

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

" .
I

ft· ~ 'i

•

)

JANIS HARRIS,MATLYND. STARKS )

EILEEN BREWSTER, ROGERA

)

ROBINSON, JOHN ALLEYNE, GENE

)

SMITH, REGINALD CLARK, and LOUISE )

BEACH

)

individually and as class representatives,

)

)

Plaintiffs

)

)

vs.

)

)

MASSACHUSETTS BAY

)

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

)

JAMES H. SCANLON, in his official capacity)

as Acting Secretary of Transportation and )

MBTA Chainnan, MICHAEL H. MULHERN, )

in his official capacity as MBTA

)

General Manager

)

)

., • I'

1,\

j

02 cv l1504 MEL
CIVIL ACTION NO:

COMPLAINT

ilf- f ( RECEIPT #.

AMOUNT $ SUMMONS

I16S0S·NUE~_

"
_

LOCAL

RULE

4.1

1 \

::::'

WAIVER FORM -,

....

MCF ISSUED,_.."..;---_

BY DPTY. CLK._~..:.e..'_S_ __

DATE

'1~~& ~

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The named plaintiffs bring this action to stop defendants' systemic failure to provide
basic and necessary public transportation services to plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities. Each of the individual named plaintiffs is a person with a disability who needs to use public transportation to travel to work, shop, school, medical appointments, community activities, social events and other activities. All named plaintiffs live within the geographic area served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and use public transportation provided by the MBTA or would use such public transportation if it were readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. On

a persistent and ongoing basis, defendants have discriminated against plaintiffs, because of their disability, by denying them equal access to public buses and trains, in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.c. §§12131-12163 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction to require the MBTA to comply with the ADA and Section 504 by among other things: making stations accessible; providing directional signage; providing telecommunications access; a comprehensive rehabilitation of passenger elevators; preventing bus drivers from failing to stop for consumers with disabilities, because of their disability; keeping wheelchair lifts (lifts) in working condition; deploying lifts in locations appropriate for safe use by a consumer with a disability; deploying a gap filler on train platforms upon request of a consumer using a wheelchair; reporting broken lifts or elevators; providing transportation for people with disabilities during street renovations/construction; requiring drivers to announce stops; preventing drivers from being rude or discourteous to passengers with disabilities because oftheir disabilities; and taking any other action required by the ADA and by regulations enacted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Architectural and Transportation Construction Barriers Compliance Board interpreting the ADA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.c. §12133. This court has jurisdiction
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 because the claims herein arise under federal statutes -the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1391(b). All of the events or
2

.'
omissions giving rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred here and the defendants may be found here.
PARTIES PLAINTIFFS 4. Janis Harris resides in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Harris is disabled due to Multiple Sclerosis. She has limited movement of her hands and she is unable to walk. She uses an electric wheelchair or scooter for mobility. 5. Madyn Starks resides in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Starks is disabled due to Multiple Sclerosis and Bilateral Carpel Tunnel Syndrome. She is unable to walk and uses an electric wheelchair for mobility. 6. Eileen Brewster resides in Mission Hill, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Brewster is disabled due to Multi-joint Arthritis and Fibromyalgia. She has limited movement of her hands, arms and legs. She uses an electric wheelchair and a four wheeled walker for mobility. 7. Rogera Robinson resides in Brighton, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Robinson suffers from painful arthritis throughout her body. Due to the arthritis in her legs she uses a cane for mobility. 8. John Alleyne resides in Brockton, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Mr. Alleyne has Multiple Sclerosis and uses an electric wheelchair for mobility.
3

9. Gene Smith resides in Dorchester, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Smith has Multiple Sclerosis and uses an electric scooter for mobility.
10. Reginald Clark resides in Brookline, Norfolk County, Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA in that he is legally blind and uses a white cane for mobility.
11. Louise Beach resides in Roxbury, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA in that she is legally blind and uses a white cane for mobility.
DEFENDANTS
12. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is a body politic and corporate and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 161A§2, and has a usual place of business in Boston, Massachusetts. The MBTA is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. §12131(1) and is subject to the provisions of Subpart B of Title II, 42 U.S.c. §§12141 et seq., in that it provides public transportation services including paratransit, bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail services.
13. James H. Scanlon, is the Acting Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the MBTA. In February 2002, he was appointed Acting Secretary of Transportation and Chairman of the MBTA by Governor Jane Swift. He is sued in his official capacity. Mr. Scanlon's principal place of business is at Boston, Massachusetts.
14. Michael H. Mulhern, is the General Manager ofthe MBTA. He is sued in his official capacity. Mr. Mulhern's usual place of business is in Boston, Massachusetts. 4

THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 15. Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all individuals with disabilities who use, will use, or would use the transportation services operated by the MBTA who are, or will in the future be, denied equal use of these services because they are not readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities. 16. The plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 17. There are questions of law and fact common to the plaintiff class including:
a. whether the defendants' failure to make the MBTA's fixed route bus system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: (1) failure to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the mechanical bus lifts, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark; (2) failure to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the mechanical bus doors, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark; and/or failure to provide ramps needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark; (3) failure to adequately inspect and maintain safety equipment used to secure wheelchairs on buses; (4) failure to adequately inspect and maintain belts and straps used to secure people with mobility impairments inside buses; and (5) placing non~accessible buses on purportedly accessible bus lines, violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
b. whether the defendants' failure to make the MBTA's fixed route public 5

train system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: (a) failure to keep MBTA station elevators in operating condition; (b) failure to adequately supervise and monitor the cleanliness of MBTA station elevators; (c) failure to respond to calls from riders with disabilities seeking assistance in accessing a train; (d) failure to provide accessible paths of travel within and around the MBTA stations (e) failure to provide adequate and accessible directional signage; (d) failure to provide accessible telecommunications access; and (e) failure to deploy a gap filler upon request violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; c. whether defendants' failure to provide transportation for people with disabilities during street renovations/construction violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; d. whether defendants' failure to adequately train and supervise employees on MBTA buses and trains regarding the proper and safe use of the equipment necessary to provide equal access to persons with disabilities violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; e. whether the defendants' failure to monitor the actions of employees who are disrespectful, discourteous, and unprofessional to people with disabilities, because of their disabilities violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 17. The interests of the class members are typified by the interests of the named plaintiffs because the defendants' practice of noncompliance with accessibility provisions of the
6

ADA which is being challenged, are applicable to each member of the class. 18. The interests of the class will be fairly and adequately protected by the plaintiffs.
Attorneys for the plaintiff class are experienced in disability law and have participated in other class actions. 19. The questions of law and fact common to the class, predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case. 20. The plaintiffs seek certification ofa class pursuant to Fed.R.eiv. P.23(b)(2) on the grounds that the defendants' policies and practices deny plaintiffs equal access to public transportation, thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Allegations of Named Plaintiffs Janis Harris 21. Janis Harris is a 54 year old woman with a disability. She has a dual diagnosis of Multiple Sclerosis and a Spinal Cord injury. She resides independently on Worcester Street, Boston, Massachusetts. Ms. Harris is unable to walk and has limited movement of her hands. She uses an electric wheelchair and a scooter for mobility. Ms. Harris has a drivers license and owns a wheelchair accessible van. She uses her wheelchair accessible van for long trips and to travel to locations not accessible by the MBTA or which are too complicated to get to by MBTA due to the switches required between the various train lines (Green to Orange to Red... ). She purchased the van and got her license because of the extreme frustration and problems she encountered trying to access the MBTA. Still, Ms. Harris must use MBTA buses and trains at least three to four times a week for
7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-----.1_

medical appointments, to visit friends, to get to social events, and to shop. 22. Ms. Harris has been an active Community Advocate since 1994. She is a member of
Vivienne S. Thomson Independent Living Center/Minorities with Disabilities Advocacy Center. She attends meetings at the Center, in her neighborhood, and in the surrounding areas, as part of her outreach work with people who have disabilities. 23. Ms. Harris estimates that on any given week, three out of the four times she uses the bus the lift is either broken, malfunctioning or stuck. Some buses do not even have lifts. 24. In January 2002 Ms. Harris wanted to attend a conference at the State House which was scheduled to start at 9:00 a.m. Ms. Harris allowed herself sufficient time to travel by bus. However, she was unable to board the scheduled bus because the lift was broken. After one hour she was able to get on bus with a working lift. She arrived at the meeting at 10:00. On her way horne she was able to board a bus however, she was trapped inside the bus because the lift was broken. After waiting for approximately 30 to 45 minutes she was transferred to another bus. Ms. Harris was exhausted and frustrated by the time she arrived home. Ms. Harris' residence is close to the State House, yet she had to spend over an hour and a half traveling this short distance. 25. Ms. Harris encountered buses with broken lifts during her trips to monthly meetings at the Transportation Building (MBTA), in Boston. For example, in July 2001 the bus lift did not work and Ms. Harris arrived late to that month's Transportation meeting. 26. Ms. Harris has encountered bus drivers who do not understand how to operate the lift. In the summer of 1997 she was asked by a bus driver if she had a "key" to the lift on the bus. The driver seemed to think that the lifts were only available to those persons who
8

had been given a "key" by the MBTA. He told Ms. Harris that he did not have a key and she would have to wait for the next bus. 27. In 1995 through 1996 Ms. Harris filed a civil action against the MBTA for damages she suffered while boarding an MBTA bus. The bus driver let the lift down, Ms. Harris rolled her scooter onto it, and the driver began to raise the lift. However, the driver then closed the lift on Ms. Hams' scooter before securing the scooter or checking to see if she was safe. By closing the lift on her scooter, with Ms. Harris still sitting on it, the driver bent her chair and broke the axle. Ms. Harris was also injured. The MBTA paid Ms. Harris less than 1I8th of the cost required to repair the scooter. 28. Ms. Harris has encountered problems with the gap between the train and the platform. The gap is usually too wide to safely cross and there are no bridge plates to allow a smooth entrance onto or exit off of the trains. The wheels on her electric wheelchair can get stuck in the space between the train and the platform. In 1999 at Downtown Crossing on the Orange line she was stuck in the gap for about 10 to 15 minutes while trying to board the train. Passengers tried to pull her wheelchair onto the train and eventually she was able to get it moving and board the train. Before boarding a train she usually has to start from far back on the platform as possible so that she can get her wheelchair up to a fast enough speed to make it over the large gap. This is dangerous and frightening for Ms. Harris. 29. Ms. Harris has encountered other problems with the MBTA including: bus drivers that are extremely rude and discourteous toward her because of her disability; drivers telling her that the lift is not working and that she must wait for the next bus; and having to wait
9

for a long time to either board a bus or for the MBTA to get someone to come and repair the bus that she is about to board. 30. Not being able to access the buses and trains in a safe way causes Ms. Harris to miss appointments and prevents her from participating in many normal activities such as shopping or visiting friends. This is very stressful for her. 31. Ms. Harris complained at least 10 times verbally to the MBTA about problems accessing the buses. Most of her complaints were to the MBTA complaint line. Once she asked for a copy of her complaint and was told by the person who took her complaint that the MBTA did not give out copies. She has also complained to supervisors, station managers, and even to bus drivers. Matlyn D. Starks 32. Matlyn D. Starks is a woman with disabilities. She has Multiple Sclerosis and other impairments including, Bilateral Carpel Tunnel Syndrome, Asthma and High Blood Pressure. Ms. Starks resides independently on Tremont Street in Boston, Massachusetts. Her impairments prevent her from using her legs and limit the use of her right hand. Ms. Starks uses an electric wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Starks relies on the MBTA's buses and trains daily to get to work, meetings, conferences, medical appointments, shopping, and for social events. She has experienced many problems using public transportation as a result of the defendants' failure to provide accessible services. She has been unable to board or exit buses because of broken lifts. She has been unable to access train platforms, or exit from train stations as a result of broken elevators. She has endured unsanitary elevators containing human feces and urine. Ms. Starks has been subject to bus drivers
10

who are rude and discourteous to her because of her disability. 33. Ms. Starks is the CEO and Executive Director of the Vivienne S. Thomson Independent
Living CenterlMinorities with Disabilities Advocacy Center (Center). Ms. Starks is either a member of the board of directors or on the advisory board ofnurnerous disability rights and community rights organizations including: Disability Policy Consortium, Department of Public Health -Office on Disability, Disability Law Center, Women Waging Peace Internationally, and the Boston Coalition of 100 Black Women. 34. Ms. Starks' work at the Center and in the community is important to her and the community she serves, particularly people of color with disabilities. The Center is a community controlled and consumer driven organization. The Center's staff is ninetypercent people with disabilities. The Center provides consumer advice and advocacy on various issues including: education, employment, health care, housing, transportation, and rehabilitation. The Center's stated goals are : to act as a role model for the community of people with disabilities; to obtain inclusiveness in the state of Massachusetts for people with disabilities and to enhance the lives of all people with a disability. Ms. Starks' work at the Center is regularly disrupted by either her own or her clients inability to readily access public transportation because of the defendants' failure to provide accessible services. 35. Ms. Starks has chaired many meetings at the Independent Living Center which were either delayed or canceled because people had difficulties with transportation as a result of the MBTA's failure to provide accessible services. 36. At least once per month Ms. Starks is not able either to get to, or exit from, the train
11

platform because the elevators at the train stations are broken. Signs are not posted
warning of the broken elevators nor are any announcements made warning of the broken
elevators. For example: In September 2000, while traveling home from work home, Ms.
Starks was trapped underground at the Roxbury Crossing, Orange line station because the
elevator was broken. A 15 minute trip lasted 2 hours. Again in August 2000, she was
unable to take the train home from work because the elevators at the Green Street station,
and Stony Brook station on the Orange line were not operational. Despite Ms. Starks
complaints to the MBTA, the elevator at Green Street remained unusable, and the station
inaccessible to people with disabilities, for two days. In March 200 1 the elevator was
broken in the Roxbury station for three days.
37. Ms. Starks regularly encounters difficulties in using the buses:
a. On average at least three times per week the buses she uses daily do not have working lifts. Buses regularly pass her by because they do not have working lifts.
b. At least one time out of the two times per month that she tries to use MBTA buses to attend meetings at the Morgan Memorial Goodwill Center, on Harrison Avenue in Boston the lift is broken.
c. In 1996 while at Dudley Station waiting to board a bus, Ms. Starks was told by a bus driver that "buses were for people, not wheelchairs."
d. On August 3, 1997, Ms. Starks was severely injured when a bus driver pressed the wrong buttons and instead of going up, the lift closed on her feet. She was taken to the Beth Israel Hospital for treatment.
e. In August 1997 Ms. Starks was waiting to board a bus. The driver loaded all the non-disabled passengers first and then the driver informed her that the bus was full and he was unable to take her.
f. On December 19,2001 while traveling to a meeting Ms. Starks was stuck for one hour on a bus at the Dudley Station because the lift was broken. The city fire department was called after she complained and only then was Ms. Starks able to get off the bus.
12

These experiences are stressful, humiliating, time consuming, and often prevent Ms. Starks from meeting important obligations. 38. Dirty elevators are a chronic problem that Ms. Starks encounters on a daily basis traveling to and from work, or meetings. For example, on April 4, 2002, Ms. Starks took the train to a Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission meeting. The elevators at Roxbury Crossing and at South Station were both soiled with urine, feces, and garbage. The wheels on her electric wheelchair were foul smelling by the time she completed her trip. Often when arriving at work, Ms. Starks must ask other employees at the Center to help wash the wheels of her wheelchair so urine and feces will not smear the carpet. 39. Ms. Starks has regularly filed written and verbal complaints with the MBTA on behalf of herself and other consumers who are served by the Center. She files complaints about buses which fail to stop for persons with disabilities, buses with no lifts or buses which have a decal claiming the bus is wheelchair accessible but the lift is broken, and elevators in train stations that are out of order or unusable because they are so unsanitary (soiled with feces, urine and garbage). Ms. Starks has filed complaints to the MBTA about drivers who are "rude and discourteous"toward persons with disabilities, because of their disabilities. Eileen Brewster 40. Eileen Brewster is a 45 year old woman who has a disability. She has Multi-joint Arthritis, Fibromyalgia, and Lupus. Ms. Brewster resides independently in Mission Hill, Massachusetts. Ms. Brewster has limited movement of her entire body. She is unable to walk and has severe limitations in the use of her hands, arms and legs. Ms. Brewster
13

uses an electric wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Brewster depends on the MBTA for all of her travel needs except to medical appointments. She has encountered many problems with the buses and trains as a result of the defendants' failure to provide accessible services. Some ofthe problems encountered by Ms. Brewster include: broken lifts, broken and dirty elevators, no ramps at sites where there are no lifts, and rude and discourteous drivers. 41. Ms. Brewster relies on the MBTA buses and trains at least once per week for personal business appointments (paying bills), to visit friends, to get to social events, and to shop. Ms. Brewster had numerous bad experiences with the MBTA where she missed medical and social appointments. She cannot rely on the MBTA for her medical appointments and only uses the medical ride which is offered to her by her MassHealth. She also had many problems with the RIDE (the paratransit system operated by the MBTA) and so the RIDE is also not a viable means of transportation to her medical appointments. She uses the RIDE if she has to go someplace outside of the city and it is not an urgent appointment. 42. Ms. Brewster has completed high school and some college. She is a registered Individual Consumer Consultant (ICC) with the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission (MRC). As an ICC she advises and counsels individuals on what services are available for them as people with disabilities. For example, she informs clients about available services such as: Rehabilitation Services, Independent Living Centers; where and how to proceed with purchasing equipment such as a wheelchair; how to file a complaint on a housing or on other reasonable accommodations matters.
14

43. Ms. Brewster has encountered numerous problems trying to board buses at the bus stop located directly outside the building where she resides. For example drivers pass her by when they see she is a person with a disability, or stop the bus to inform her that the lift is broken.
44. Ms. Brewster missed a medical appointment for orthopedic shoes in 1998 because the bus she boarded had a broken lift. When she arrived at the stop near the orthopedist she could not exit the bus. She was trapped in the bus because the lift did not work. Ms. Brewster sat in the bus for over forty-five minutes and missed her appointment.
45. In January 2002 Ms. Brewster was traveling to the South Bay Mall in the Dorchester area. Ms. Brewster waited for over forty minutes at the bus stop as one bus driver after another passed her by. She went to the nearest MBTA station, Ruggles, and complained to the supervisor. She was advised that the lifts on the buses were broken. A bus with a working lift was located and Ms. Brewster went to the mall. On her way back she encountered the same problem. Ms. Brewster waited at the mall station at night for two hours in freezing rain before she was able to board a bus and travel home. The next day she called the MBTA complaint phone line and reported the incident. No one from the MBTA returned her call.
46. Ms. Brewster's public transportation options were so limited that she was forced to move to the Mission Hill area where she had more options on traveling. She moved because at her old residence near Boston College her only means of travel was the Number 65 bus. She lived under constant stress due to the defendants' failure to provide appropriate wheelchair ramps or lifts at near by Green Line stations. When she had medical, social,
15

shopping or any other appointments, she had to leave home several hours in advance, just to be certain that she would arrive at her destination on time. 47. Moving only partly resolved her transportation issues. Now when using the "E" Line the assistive devices are often out of service. Ms. Brewster has to go on the opposite side where the devices are working, and board the "T" going in the wrong direction then ride until it makes a complete round trip and heads in the direction that she needs to go. A twenty minutes trip turns into an hour and a half to two hours. 48. During the Summer 2000, Ms. Brewster's social plans for a dinner and a movie with friends were canceled because the elevator at the Back Bay in Boston did not work. Ms. Brewster tried to get assistance from the MBTA employees and after approximately forty-five minutes she gave up and returned home. There were no signs posted at that station or the previous station about a broken elevator. 49. When Ms. Brewster travels to the South Station in Boston she uses the Orange line which she boards at the Ruggles station and then switches to the Red line at Downtown Crossing. In order to switch to the Red line, unlike people without mobility disabilities, she has to go outside the station, travel for two blocks on her wheelchair, to get to the side of the station that is accessible. 50. Ms. Brewster prefers to use the buses instead of the trains because the elevators in train stations are kept in an unsanitary condition and smell of feces, urine and garbage. The elevators are also located in dimly lit areas and are usually far away from public areas. 51. Ms. Brewster filed all her complaints through the MBTA phone complaint line. She has called the following numbers regarding her complaints (617) 222-5855, (617) 222-5856,
16

and (617) 222-5200. She has never received a response from the MBTA. Rogera Robinson 52. Rogera Robinson is a woman with a disability. She has arthritis all over her body. The
arthritis most severely affects her knees. Ms. Robinson sometimes relies on a cane for mobility. She resides in Brighton, Massachusetts. Ms. Robinson relies on the MBTA buses for her travel needs. She sometimes uses the trains. She frequently uses the MBTA buses; some weeks she rides the buses up to six to eight times. Ms. Robinson is quite active in many disability rights organizations and was one of the original founders of the Minorities with Disabilities Advocacy Center (MDAC) which was re-named the Vivienne S. Thomson Independent Living Center/MDAC. Ms. Robinson has encountered problems with using public transportation as a result of the defendants' failure to provide accessible services. Ms. Robinson has endured the MBTA bus drivers' failure to lower buses (kneeling bus) so that she can safely access the bus. 53. Due to her disability, she often has problems getting on or off buses because the steps are not lowered for her. The steps on MBTA buses are too high for her to climb and require more flexibility than her knees can handle. 54. On nine out often bus rides that she takes, bus drivers fail to lower the steps for her. On many occasions Ms. Robinson has asked the driver to lower the steps for her and she has received many different responses. She has been told that the steps were not working; she has been ignored or the drivers are rude to her. Bus drives fail to lower the steps even when they see Ms. Robinson struggling to pull herself up, using the hand rails at the bus entrance. She is simply ignored.
17

55. On one particular ride, Ms. Robinson encountered a driver who did not lower the steps and then ignored her while she was clearly struggling to make it up the steps on her own. Finally, a passenger who was standing in line behind her, placed his hand on her buttocks and pushed her onto the bus. This situation embarrassed Ms. Robinson, but she could not allow herself to be embarrassed or offended that this stranger touched her in this manner. Instead, she was forced to be grateful for his help.
John Alleyne 56. John Alleyne is a man with a disability. He has Multiple Sclerosis. Mr. Alleyne is
unable to walk and uses an electric wheelchair for mobility. He resides independently in Brockton, Massachusetts. Mr. Alleyne depends on public transportation for his travel needs. Mr. Alleyne uses the commuter rail and the Red line at the South Station at least three times per week. As a result of the Defendants' failure to provide accessible services, Mr. Alleyne encounters many problems with trying to access MBTA buses and trains, including broken elevators and broken wheelchair lifts. 57. In May of2001 the elevators at South Station remained broken for an extended period of time and Mr. Alleyne was unable to access the Red line. Mr. Alleyne was forced to ride his electric wheel chair from South Station to Downtown Crossing in order to access the "T". This is both time consuming and tiring. If the elevator at South Station works he can easily access the train. 58. Because the elevator at South Station was out of service, Mr. Alleyne faced practically insurmountable obstacles getting to the Spaulding Rehabilitation Center for treatment and services. He faced the same obstacles traveling to the Vivienne S. Thomson Independent
18

Living Center where he volunteers his time as a peer counselor for people with disabilities. 59. Mr. Alleyne was forced to stop going to Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary for treatment and services because there is no elevator at the Charles Street station on the Red line. He had to take the "T" to Park Street station stop and ride his electric wheelchair through extremely dangerous traffic and various obstacles created by constructions for the Boston's Big Dig project. Mr. Alleyne was fearful of the commute and did not wish to put his life at risk trying to navigate through traffic in order to get treatment at the Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary. Mr. Alleyne was forced to find alternative treatment sites. He had to compromise his standard of medical care in order to remain physically safe. 60. In November, 2001, there was a community meeting at the Center with representatives from the MBTA. This meeting was important for Mr. Alleyne because it was an opportunity to speak with MBTA officials about the barriers that he face as a person with a disability who is not afforded adequate access to public transportation. He was planning to discuss broken elevators, lifts, and other issues. Because he encountered MBTA buses with broken lifts, or no lifts at all, Mr. Alleyne's commute to the Center in Jamaica Plain took three hours. Mr. Alleyne arrived late to that meeting even though he allowed himself sufficient time to get to the Center. 61. Mr. Alleyne has filed numerous complaints through the MBTA complaint line. He also complained to inspectors on duty, MBTA staff, and train conductors. Gene Smith
19

62. Gene Smith is a woman who has a disability. She has Multiple Sclerosis. Due to her disability, Ms. Smith's use of her legs is limited. She uses an electric scooter and a cane for mobility. Ms. Smith resides in the Dorchester area and relies on the MBTA buses and trains to travel. She only uses her cane when she travels on MBTA buses and trains because of the numerous problems she has encountered due to the defendants' failure to provide accessible services. The main problems encountered by Ms. Smith are broken bus lifts and broken elevators.
63. Even using her cane Ms. Smith still faces great difficulties accessing the bus. She is often unable to access the seats reserved for persons with disabilities. Because of her disability, her body, especially her legs, are extremely weak. It is difficult for Ms. Smith to stand in one position for any length of time. When the bus is in motion, it is not only difficult but also dangerous for her to remain standing.
64. In October, 2001, while traveling on a bus from Dorchester to the Beth Israel Hospital to see her doctor, she was unable to get a seat on the crowded bus. Ms. Smith saw a nondisabled passenger seated in a seat that is designated for the elderly and disabled. She asked the passenger to please allow her to have the seat but the passenger refused. Ms. Smith sought the help of the bus driver. The bus driver shook his head and laughed at Ms. Smith.
65. In the summer of2001. Ms. Smith took the bus home from her doctor's office. On that day, Ms. Smith's feet were swollen and painful. When she boarded the bus, all of the seats were taken including the seats designated for disabled and elderly passengers. She asked for the bus driver's help, but she was ignored. The other passengers on the bus
20

stared at Ms. Smith in such a hostile manner that she felt humiliated. 66. On or about January 1999, Ms. Smith was seriously injured while trying to exit a bus
through the back door. Due to her disability, it took her some time because she is only capable of going down one step at a time. At the last step with one foot on the ground and while in the process of removing her other foot from the step the bus driver closed the door on her ankle. Other passengers on the bus screamed for the driver to open. The driver took a long time to open the door. By the time he opened the door to release her foot, Ms. Smith had already suffered extreme pain and considerable injuries. 67. Recently Ms. Smith attempted to go back to college. She enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, but was devastated to arrive at Community College Station on the Orange Line and find that she could not leave the platform because there is no elevator or accessible exit for her scooter. When she had a chance to confront the former MBTA chairman Mr. Sullivan on this matter, he discounted her inability to access an education with a smile and a trite promise to "work on it." After two years the station is still inaccessible. Reginald Clark 68. Reginald Clark is a man with a disability. He is legally blind and uses a white cane when he travels. Mr. Clark does not drive and relies upon public transportation. He resides in Brookline and travels by bus on a daily basis to attend meetings, medical appointments, and social events. As a result of the MBTA's failure to provide accessible services, Mr. Clark encounters many problems with transportation. Some problems encountered by Mr. Clark· include: drivers failing to pull next to the curb and instead stopping in the
21

middle of the street; drivers failing to announce stops; and drivers failing to assist him with getting a seat designated for the elderly and the disabled. 69. When bus drivers fail to pull close to the curb it presents a safety concern for Mr. Clark. He must step onto the street, without being able to see if there is traffic approaching, in order to board or exit the bus. 70. MBTA bus drivers routinely fail to announce stops on the bus lines. In October 2000, Mr. Clark asked the bus driver to let him know when he reached his stop. The driver was talking on his cellular phone and neglected to announce the stop. When Mr. Clark asked him about his stop, he was told that the driver had already passed it. Mr. Clark was ushered off the bus at the next stop and had to find his way back to the stop he needed. This was extremely difficult and terrifying for Mr. Clark. 71. On Friday, December 14, 2001, the bus driver failed to announce any of the stops. Louise Beach 72. Louise Beach is a 55 year old woman with a disability. Ms. Beach has Muscular Dystrophy and is legally blind. Her physical disabilities prevent her from climbing stairs and limit her ability to walk. She uses a cane for mobility. Ms. Beach is an Outreach Peer Counselor at the Vivienne S. Thomson Independent Living Center/Minorities with Disabilities Advocacy Center (Center). Ms. Beach resides in Roxbury and occasionally uses the MBTA buses and trains for travel. Ms. Beach presently chooses to use the RIDE for transportation rather than MBTA trains and buses because of the many difficulties and dangers that she has endured using the MBTA in the past. 73. Problems encountered by Ms. Beach include: drivers failing of to announce stops causing
22

her to get off at the wrong stop; drivers failing to assist persons with disabilities in locating and securing the seats designated for people with disabilities on crowded buses; drivers failing to pull close enough to the curb for people with visual impairments to safely exit the bus; drivers moving the bus quickly away from the curb before she could safely find a seat; drivers who fail to employ the"kneeling" mechanism on buses so equipped; drivers who request identification from her to prove her disability; drivers who behave rudely to Ms. Beach because of her disability; and broken elevators at train stations. 74. Ms. Beach's most recent ride an MBTA train was May 2001. Ms. Beach was traveling with a Personal Care Attendant (PCA). Even with the help of her PCA, it was still incredibly difficult to access a train at South Station because the elevator was broken. Ms. Beach was unable to use the stairs because of her Muscular Dystrophy. 75. Ms. Beach has vast experience with MBTA employees who treat her with indifference or discourtesy because of her disability. For example, in the winter of 1999-2000 while traveling home she asked a bus driver to please pull closer to the curb so that she could safely exit the bus. The driver stated "I can't do special favors for you because you're blind or disabled." Ms. Beach was let off the bus in an unsafe spot where the snow was piled high. Because she is blind it was dangerous for her to maneuver her way back to the curb. 76. Again in the Spring of 1999 traveling home from school the bus driver not only failed to pull near the curb, but, when Ms. Beach asked for assistance he told her that he had a busload of people to worry about. The driver never assisted Ms. Beach and she had to get
23

off the bus into a busy street. 77. Ms. Beach has a long and productive work history including positions at the National
Joslin Diabetic Association, Consumer Law Center, and the Jewish Memorial Hospital. At all times Ms. Beach used buses and trains as her primary means of transportation. Due to the problems she has experienced she is now afraid to make the MBTA buses and trains her main means of transportation.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE MBTA 78. The MBTA is the fourth largest transit system in the United States. It boasts the oldest
subway transit system in the nation. The MBTA's service district includes seventy-eight communities in Eastern Massachusetts, providing approximately 819,700 one way passenger trips per day with a daily ridership of over 1,052,750. The MBTA employs a workforce of approximately 6,500 persons and operates 365 days a year. In 2001 the MBTA reported to the Federal Transit Administration revenue from fares totaling $250,311,545; funds from federal assistance totaling $91,125,876; and total operating funds from fares, local, state, federal and other sources totaling $898,950,623. By the MBTA's own figures at least ten percent of the MBTA's total operating funds are derived from the federal government. 79. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in the year 1991 over 49 million Americans had a disability. A U.S. census report attached to this statistic links the presence of a disability with lower income levels and an increased likelihood of poverty.! For this reason it is more likely that persons with disabilities will require accessible public transportation for
I John McNeil, Disability, U.S. Census Bureau, Population Division and Housing and Household Economic Statistics Division, 1991-1992.
24

daily travel. The US. census conducted in the year 2000 demonstrates that there are approximately 968,595 people with disabilities over the age of 21 living in the state of Massachusetts. The 1990 US. census reported approximately 125,889 persons with disabilities lived in Suffolk County, within the MBTA's service area (2000 numbers by county are not yet available). 80. The MBTA runs buses and trains in the city and nearby suburbs that are regularly used by Plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs are regularly prevented from readily using the MBTA. Some plaintiffs cannot access the MBTA at all, others are not able to use it in a manner equal to the non-disabled population when they need to do so. 81. The MBTA operates fixed route transit lines along prescribed routes according to a fixed route schedule as these terms are used in the ADA. 42 US.C. §12141(3). 82. The MBTA advertises and holds itself out to the public as offering routes on its buses and trains that are accessible to riders with disabilities. 83. On a persistent, ongoing, and systemic basis the defendants have failed, to provide the plaintiffs with equal access to the fixed route public bus and train lines that it operates. Through its acts and omissions, set out more fully in the paragraphs that follow, the defendants have denied the plaintiffs equal access to the buses and trains that it operates. Bus Lines 84. Defendants have failed to make the MBTA's fixed route public bus system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: a. failing to adequately inspect, maintain, and service mechanical assistive devices
25

such as bus lifts, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark. Lifts on defendant's buses, marked in the schedule and on the bus itself as accessible, are frequently malfunctioning or non-functioning, thereby denying basic public transportation services to plaintiffs and other people with disabilities; b. failing to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the bus doors through which persons with mobility impairments board and disembark. The doors and steps on defendants's buses, marked in the schedule and on the bus itself as accessible, are frequently malfunctioning or non-functioning, thereby denying basic public transportation services to plaintiffs and other individuals with disabilities.
c. failing to adequately inspect and maintain the safety equipment such as clamps used to secure the wheelchairs of persons with mobility impairments on buses the belts and straps used to secure people with mobility impairments inside buses. These vital safety devices are frequently missing, malfunctioning, or nonfunctioning;
d. failing to adequately train and supervise its employees, including drivers, regarding the proper and safe use of the accessibility and safety devices necessary to provide equal access to persons with disabilities on the buses MBTA operates, including lifts, doors, clamps, and safety straps;

f.

frequently and persistently placing non-accessible buses on bus lines marked in the

26

schedule or in other ways purported to be bus lines accessible to people with disabilities, including people who use wheelchairs; g. frequently and persistently failing to provide alternative transportation for people with disabilities during renovations/construction of city streets.

h. frequently and persistently failing to assign a sufficient number, as determined by MBTA's own analysis, of buses with working lifts to bus lines designated as accessible to persons with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs;

1.

frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers' and other personnel to

properly and safely use the assistive devices needed to provide equal access to

persons with disabilities on bus lines operated by the defendants, including lifts,

doors, clamps, and safety straps. On numerous occasions, defendants' employees

have failed to, lacked knowledge ofthe proper use of, or openly refused to operate

these assistive devices, seriously endangering plaintiffs' health and safety.

J.

frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers' to stop for or to pick up

plaintiffs and other riders who have clearly identifiable disabilities and are waiting

at bus stops, because of plaintiffs' disabilities.

k. frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers to allow persons with disabilities to board buses, because of the person's disability.

1.

frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers to deploy lifts or lower the

buses "kneeling" mechanism, when requested by plaintiffs or other people whose

disabilities are not readily apparent.

27

m. frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA bus drivers to provide plaintiffs or other persons with disabilities with adequate time to complete their boarding or disembarking from defendants' vehicles before continuing en route.
n. frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA bus drivers' to clearly announce the bus number and make stop announcements, severely impeding the ability of visually impaired persons to know when to disembark defendant's buses; and
o. frequent and persistent tendency ofMBTA personnel to treat individuals with disabilities in a discourteous and unprofessional manner because oftheir disability, including MBTA employee's failure to adequately document and address complaints about accessibility to the MBTA bus system.
Train Lines 85. Defendants have failed to make the MBTA's fixed route public train system readily
accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: a. frequent and persistent failure to maintain elevators in MBTA stations in
operating condition; b. frequent and persistent failure to adequately supervise and monitor the cleanliness
of elevators in MBTA stations; c. failing to provide accurate and conspicuous infonnation, at stations and/or over
the telephone, as to whether or not elevators in specific MBTA stations are in servIce;
28

d. frequent and persistent failure to provide prompt alternative accessible transportation to riders with mobility disabilities when a designated accessible station is not in fact accessible to said riders;

e. frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA employees' to respond to calls from riders with disabilities seeking assistance in accessing the public train system;

f.

failing to adequately train its employees on the use of bridge plates, devices which

act as a bridge between the train platform and the train car so riders with mobility

impairments can safely board or disembark trains;

g. frequent and persistent failure to ensure that bridge plates are available so riders with mobility impairments can safely board and disembark the trains;

h. failing to employ adequate numbers of personnel to ensure that riders with disabilities have equal access to the trains and the train stations in general;

1.

failing to provide an adequate number of designated wheelchair spaces on trains

and to properly mark and designate those cars that do have wheelchair spaces;

J.

failing to implement a proper emergency evacuation program for the safe evacuation

of riders with disabilities;

k. frequent and persistent failure of MBTA employees to provide sufficient time for persons with disabilities to board and disembark from the trains;

1.

frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA employees, upon arriving at a given station,

to clearly announce the train line and destination and current stop, severely impeding

29

the ability of visually impaired persons to know when to board or disembark from the defendants' trains;
n. frequent and persistent failure to provide accessible paths of travel for people with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs, in and around MBTA stations;
o. frequent and persistent failure to provide alternative transportation for people with disabilities during renovations/construction of city streets;
p. frequent and persistent tendency ofMBTA employees to treat plaintiffs an other individuals with disabilities in a discourteous and unprofessional manner, because oftheir disabilities, including MBTA employees' failure to adequately document and address complaints about accessibility to the MBTA train system.
86. Defendants' conduct, as set forth herein, violates clearly established federal law. 87. Defendants are continuing to discriminate against plaintiffs and other persons with
disabilities based on their disabilities, by denying plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities equal access to fixed route public transit, resulting in ongoing and irreparable lllJUry. 88. Consumers and the Center actively tried to resolve the problems they have encountered with the buses and trains by meeting with the former MBTA Chairman, Kevin J. Sullivan. Nothing was resolved at this meeting. 89. In August 2000 the Center arranged a protest outside the Dudley station with the support of Senator Diane Wilkerson and State Representatives Gloria Fox and Marie St.Fleur. This protest was attended by many of the named plaintiffs as well as other interested
30

persons, both with and without disabilities. This major event received media coverage from the radio station, WILD. It was also well publicized in the Center's newsletters to consumers. However, the only result of the protest was a proposed meeting between the Center and Robert Prince, General Manager at that time. 90. The proposed meeting was scheduled for September 2000. The meeting was also to be attended by Senator Wilkerson. However, the meeting never occurred because Mr. Prince refused to attend. 91. On November 7,2001 the Center finally met with Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Mulhern, the new MBTA General Manager. In attendance at the meeting were several ofthe named plaintiffs, Senator Diane Wilkerson and more than 30 consumers from various towns in Massachusetts including: Boston, Brookline, Brockton, Salem, Lynn, Cambridge, Roslindale, Dorchester, and Roxbury. At the meeting plaintiffs and other consumers described to MBTA representatives in great detail the difficulties people with disabilities encounter"ed with the MBTA. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Mulhern agreed to look into the problem and assured the Center, the plaintiffs in attendance, and the community that changes would happen in the near future. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Mulhern expressed a desire to anonymously ride the trains and buses with people with disabilities to see, first hand, what they experience. Almost a year has past and this ride has not taken place.
31

CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §12131 ET SEQ., BY THE MBTA 92. In enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Congress made specific findings that society tends to isolate and segregate people with disabilities; that individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including not only exclusion but also the failure to make modifications to exclusionary criteria. Congress stated that the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for such individuals; that the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination denies individuals with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous; and that continuing existence of discrimination and prejudice against people with disabilities cost the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses. 42 U.S.C. §12101(a). 93. The express purpose of the ADA is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and to ensure that the federal government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established in the Act on behalf of individuals with disabilities.
32

42 U.S.C. §12101(b). 94. Each individual plaintiff is a "qualified individual with a disability" under the meaning of
Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). 95. The MBTA is a "public entity" within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C.
§12131(1). 96. The MBTA operates a fixed route system of public transportation, under the meaning of
Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §12141(3). 97. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the defendants have, by reason of
plaintiffs disabilities; excluded plaintiffs from participation in the MBTA programs, services and activities; denied plaintiffs the benefits of the MBTA programs, services, and activities; and subjected plaintiffs to discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.c. §12132. 98. The defendants' acts and omissions set forth herein are in violation of the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title II of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs. 99. The defendants' conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Title II of the ADA and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the MBTA will continue to violate Title II of the ADA. The defendants' acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy under the law.
33

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED, BY THE MBTA 100. Each individual plaintiff is an "otherwise qualified individual with a disability" under the
meaning of Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.c. §794 ("Section 504"). 101. The MBTA receives a significant portion of its operating funds from Federal sources,
therefore it operates a "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" as defined by Section 504. 102. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the MBTA has, by reason of plaintiffs disabilities: excluded the plaintiffs from participation in the MBTA's programs, services and activities, denied the plaintiffs the benefits ofthe MBTA's programs, services, and activities, and subjected the plaintiffs to discrimination. 103. The defendants' acts and omissions set forth herein are in violation of the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Section 504, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs. 104. The defendants' conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Section 504 and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the defendants will continue to violate Section 504. The defendants' acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy under the law. WHEREFORE, plaintiffs request the relief set forth below
34

y
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court order relief as follows: 1. Certify the class described in the complaint; 2. Declare that the defendants' acts and omissions complained of herein deny the plaintiffs
equal access to public transportation in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and regulations thereunder as alleged in the complaint; 3. Issue a permanent injunction to require defendants to comply with the Americans with Disability Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and regulations enacted thereunder, with respect to providing individuals with disabilities full and equal access to its public transportation operation and system, by among other things: a. assuring that buses scheduled to be, and/or marked as, accessible to persons with
disabilities actually be accessible by adequately inspecting, maintaining and servicing all mechanical assistive devices such as: bus lifts, bus doors, safety claps and belts; b. assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that all other necessary assistive devices such as: bridge plates, telecommunication devices, LED displays, signage, and other devices as required by law or regulation are in place, funy operational, and can be used by consumers in a safe manner; c. assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that each subway station has at least one elevator that is fully operational, in working order, providing access to all train lines served by the station (in both directions), well lighted both inside
35

the cab and in the elevator boarding areas, sanitary both inside the cab and in the

elevator boarding areas, and adequately patrolled to ensure the safety of the

consumers. If an elevator is not operational a system must be in place to alert

consumers in transit, such as clear and audible announcements made over the

public announcement system on the trains as well as in the station, and signs

posted in conspicuous locations on the subway trains, as well as in the station,

alerting consumers to the location of the station where the elevator is out of

service, and providing directions to the nearest station with an operational

elevator; d. clear and audible announcements shall be made over the public address system of

buses and trains in a timely and consistent manner at each stop announcing the

current location of the vehicle and its destination; e. the MBTA will assure that all bus and train operators are adequately supervised

and trained to provide reasonable assistance to all individuals with disabilities

assuring equal access to the MBTA. This training must include but is not limited

to operating mechanical assistive and safety devices, sensitivity to the unique

travel needs of persons with disabilities and, ensuring that individuals with

disabilities have priority access seats that are designated for the elderly and

disabled;

f.

each and every bus must approach all bus stops and stations at a safe and

appropriate speed, and corne to a stop at a distance from the curb close enough to

ensure reasonable safety to disembarking passengers with disabilities;

36

g. assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that each bus stop or station

shall be free and clear of all impediments, including but is not limited to illegally

parked vehicles, snow, ice, or any other type of debris;

h. assuring that alternative transportation will be provided for people with

dicabilities during renovations/construction of city streets.

1.

assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that paths of travel within

and around MBTA stations are accessible to people with disabilities, including

those who use wheelchairs, and free of obstructions;

J. establishing a monitor and system of monitoring and reporting, independent of the

MBTA's current system, accountable to the community and responsible to track

the MBTA's performance in responding to the violations and prayers for relief

listed above. The monitor will compile data on the MBTA's progress and

complaints having to do with disability access or accommodations.

4. Issue a permanent injunction to require the defendants to refrain from discrimination

against individuals with disabilities who use their public transportation system;

5. Award the plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees; and

6. Grant such further relief as is equitable and just.

37

· '

Dated: July 25, 2002
G~CLvDJ', iel S. Manning, BBO 17860 Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1575
(!rul~
Caryn Mitchell-Smith, BBO#641514 Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1575

BY THEIR ATTORNEYS
/·i;;:~~(~~DOJ~
Taramattie Doucette, BBO#555948 Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1575

38

JS 44 (Rev. 12/96)

• CIVIL COVER SHEEe

The JS-44 civil cover st-eet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required
by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use
of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of Initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE OF THE FORM.)

I. (8) PLAINTIFFS Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Eileen Brewster, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, and Louise Beach

(b) COUNTY OF RESIDENCE Of:' !'IRST LISTED PLAINTIFF

Suf f 0 1k

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

DEFENDANTS Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, James H. Scanlon, in his official

capacity as Acting Secretary of Transportation

and MBTA Chairman, Michael H. Mulhern, in his official capacity as MBTA General Manager

COUNTY OF RESIDENCE OF FIRST LISTED DEFENDANT

Su f f 0 1 k

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.

(c) ATIORNEYS (FIRM NAME. ADDRESS. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER) (617) 371-

Greater Boston Legal Services

1234

197 Friend Street, Boston, MA 02114

.Daniel Mann.ing, Taramattie Doucette, Caryn

ATIORNEYS (IF KNOWN)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION

(PLACE AN "X" IN ONE BOX ONLY)

o 1 U.S. Government
Plaintiff
o 2 U.S. Government
Defendant

II 3 Federal Question (US. Government Not a Party)
o 4 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (PLACE AN'X" IN ONE BOX FOR PLAINTIFF

(For Diversity Gases Only)

AND ONE BOX FOR DEFENDANT)

PTF DEF

PTF DEF

Citizen of This State

01 01

Incorporated or Principal Place 04 04 of Business In This State

Citizen of Another State 0 2 02 Incorporated and Principal Place 0 5 05
of Business In Another State

Citizen or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation Foreign Country

06 06

IV. ORIGIN
10 1 Original
Proceeding

0 2 Removed from
State Court

(PLACE AN '?en IN ONE BOX ONLy)

0 3 Remanded from Appellate Court

o 4 Reinstated or
Reopened

Transferred trom
o 6 another district
(specify)

o I Multldistrict
Litigation

Appeal to DIstrict
JudQefrom
o 7 Magistrate
Judgment

V. NATURE OF SUIT (PLACE AN "X· IN ONE BOX ONLy)

CONTRACT
o 110 Infur.nee o0120 Marine
130 Miller Act
o 140 Negotiable Instrument o 110 Recovery of OVernyment
& Enforcement 0 Judgment
o 151 Medicare Act o 152 Recovery! Defaulted
Student ns (Excl. Veterans)
o 113 Recovery ot OVerpayment of Veteran's Ban_
o 110 Stockholders' Suits o 110 other Contract o 111 Contract PrOduct Uabillty
REAL PROPERTY
o 210 Land Condemnation o 220 Foreclosure o Z:IO Rent Leasa & Ejectment o Z40 TOl1sto Land o 241 Tort PrOduct Uablll1Y o ZIO All other Real Property

TORTS

FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY

PER80NALINJURY
o :"0 Airplane o 315 Airplane PrOduct
Liability
o 320 Assaun. LIDeI & Slander

0330 Federal Employers'

Liability

o o

Mel 345

Marine Marlne

PrOduct

Uabillty

D 310 Motor Vehicle
o 311 Motor Vehicle PrOduct Liability
o _ other Personal Inlury

PERSONAL INJURY
o .2 Personal Inlury Moo. Malpractice 0.5 PersonallnJut-
PrOduct Llabll
o :III Ast:leStos Personal Injury PrOduct Liability
PERSONAL PROPERTY
o 370 other FraUd o 371 Truth In lending o RO other Personal
Property Damage
o :III PropMy Damage PrOduct Liability

CIVIL RIGHTS
0441 Voting 0442 Employment
o 443 Housing/
AccommOdations 0""" Wellar.
10 440 other CMI Rights

PRISONER PETITIONS

o 110 Motions to Vacate

Sentence

o

Habeas Corpus 510 aeneral

o 511 DotaIh Penalty o 140 Mandamus & Other o 110 CMI Rights

o 115 Prison ConditiOn

o 110 Agrlcutture o 120 other Food & Drug o 12& Drug Related Seizure
of Property 21 USC 881
o 130 Uquor Laws o 140 R.R. & TrUCk o 110 Airline Regs. o teO OccupatiOnal
Safe1ylHealth 0110 other
LABOR
o 710 Fair Labor Standards Act
o 720 Labor/Mgmt Relations
0710 Labor/Mgmt Reporting & Disclosure Act
o 740 Railway Labor Act o 710 other Labor l.I1lgatlon o 711 Empl. Ret Inc.
SecurttyAct

o 422 Appeal 28 usc 158 o 423 Withdrawal
28 USC 157
PROPERTY RIGHTS
o 120 Copyrights o0 * Patent
140 Trademark
SOCIAL SECURITY 0111 HIA(I395tt)
o 112 Black Lung (923) o 113 DrwC/DIWW (405(g)) o 1M SSID Title XVI o III RSI (405(g))
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
o 170 Taxes (U S Platnt", or Defendant) D 171 IRS - Third Party
2e USC 7809

OTHER STATUTES
o 400 State Re.pportlonment o 410 Antitrust o UO Banks and Banking o 410 CommercellCC Rales/etc o 410 Deportation o 470 Rack.,..r Innuanced and
Corrupt OrganiZatiOnS
o 110 Selective Servtce o 110 Securities/CommOdities!
Exchangt
o 871 Customer Challenge 12 USC 3410
o 111 Agncunurat Acts o 112 Economic Stablllzalion ACt o 113 Environmental Matters o 1M Energy Allocation Act o 11& Freedom ot
Intormallon Act
o toO Appeal ot Fee Determination Under Equal Acctt$s to JUStlCfl
o 110 Constitutionality ot State Statutes
o 110 other statutory Actions

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION (CITE THE U.S. CIVIL STATUTE UNDER WHICH YOU ARE FlUNG AND WRITE BRIEF STATEMENT OF CAUSE DO NOT CITE JURISDICTIONAL STATUTES UNLESS DIVERSITY)
Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C.§12131 et seq., for violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and Section 504 for violations of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.

VII.REQUESTEDIN COMPLAIN"r.

CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
Ji'.! UNDER F.R.C.P. 23

DEMAND $

ANY VIII. RELATED CASE(S) IF

(See Instructions):
JUDGE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

CHECK YES only If demanded in complaint:

JURY DEMAND:

0 YES

10 NO

DOCKET NUMBER _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

FOR OFFICE un ONLY
REceIPT 11 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ AMOUNT_ _ _ _ _ _ APPLYING IFR'--_ _ _ _ _ _ JUDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ MAG. JUDGE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

UNl1Y.D STATl3 OlSnlCT CQUIT OISTRJCT or MASSA.CH~

1.

nn.x or C.A.$E (NAME. or PUST I'AITY ON EACH SIDE ONLY) Janis Harris v. Massachusetts
Bay Transportation Authority, James H. Scanlon, Acting Secretary of T~portation and

1.

¥~rrwwmCH nn:. CASl. BELONGS BASUI Ul"ON TIn NUMBDJ'.D NAron or SUIT CODE UST

ON ~ CIVIL COVER SHEET. (SEE UXAL RUU <4O.1(A)(1l)

I.

160. ,410, 470, ill. RJ). REGAR.DLESS 0 .. NATUU or SUIT

x

II.

lH, JU. 400, 44t, 441...u&.. 540, m, W, nt, nt.nt.

m. 7"', nt, 771. Ill. DO. J.M. 1St, 1M. m.84,

t5t.

Ill.

.ue. nl, UO, 130. 1"', l5l. .,.. nl, 1lI• 145. 1M. 31"

m. 31$,110, llt, J.4f, J..U. l5O.

~,JC, le, ]71.l71.

lit, laS. (St. 19l.

IV.

nl, 4ll, (lJ, 00, "'.51', nt, 611, 6lI. iH. 641. 01. "'-

690, nl, 161-"5. m. tl1. 17'. 9Ot.

V.

1.5t, ill. m.

1.

TITI.E AND NlJMIIDl. Ir ANY. or IlflATED CASES. (SEE LOCAL R.tJl.E ....1(1)

4.

lIAS A nuoa ACTION BI:TWUN THX SMa l'unES AND IlASl]) ON THE SAME O.AIM no. BUN

FlUD IN nus COUR.n

NO

~.

or DOES THE COM!'IJ.INT IN THIS CA2. QU'ESTlON THt: CONSlllUTlONAUTY 0 .. AI( ACT CONGVISS

AFFECTING THE PUBUC IN'TDU:ST! NO -~~--
lY SO, 15 THE U.s.A. OR AN omcEJt. AG ENT 0 II. EMn..OYEE or TlIE U.s. A PAllTY1 N/A

(Sa 11 usc lAQJ)

6.

or nmn IS THIS CASE REQUUlED TO BE HE.AlID AND OETUMlN'ED BY A DISI1UCT COURT

JUDGlS

l'URSUANT TO TlTLE 11 USC lU41 _=N-=-O_ __

7.

DO A.LL PAR.TIES IN THIS ACTION RESIDE IN TB:E CENTRAL SECTION Of' Tn DlSTIlCT or

MASSACHUSEl"TS (WORCESTER COUNTYll CSU LOCAL RULE 40.1(0) YES ~ 0 .. IN THE ~
SECTION mER£SRJKE. flWfI\LIN. HAMrOrn QR HAMrSIJIn COUNIJES)1 (Sa ux:.u. llULE <40.1 (OIl
YES ..!Q.....

I.

DO ~ OF 1lIE PAR.nES R£SIDlNG IN MASSACHUSETTS RESIDE IN THX C£NTRAL ANDIQ" ~

SECTIONS OF THE DlSI1UC'r. YES _ _ _N__ ° _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

(a)

[1' YES. IN WInCH SECTION DOES THE rv..INTUT R£SlD£! Suff 0 1 k County

9.

IN WHICH SECTION DO THE ONLY ruTll:S R.£SIDlNG IN MASSACHUSEtTS RESlDE1 _ _ _ __

10.

[1' ANY 0 .. THE PAR.T1l:S .u.E THE UNTTrn STAIT...5. COMMONWEALTH or MA.SSA.C.HlJSiT 011. ANY

GOVDI..Nl\.a1(fAL AGENCY or TH.l. U.5..A. OR TElt: COMMONWY.ALTH, DO ALL 0Tm'I runES ~i:
IN TIm CENTIlAL SF..CT10N~01l. wr.sTI:ll.N ~u:noN _ _ _N_O_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-

oa (n...U5Z TYl'1t

r1l1Nl)

ATTO~ NAMZ

Taramattie Doucette

ADDilESS Greater Boston Legal Services. 197 Friend Street, Boston, MA 02114

~ONE NO. (617) 603-1575

(COVD.SHT -O&/W)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)

JOANNE DANIELS-FINEGOLD,

)

ROGERA ROBINSON, GENE SMITH, )

REGINALD CLARK, MADELYN JOAN )

GOLDEN, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA,

)

MAUREEN CANCEMI, ANDREW

)

FORMAN, DANFORD LARKIN,

)

ROBERT PARK, and BOSTON CENTER )

FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING,

)

individually and as class representatives, )

Plaintiffs

)

)

v.

)

)

)

MASSACHUSETTS BAY

)

TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,

)

Defendant

)

)

CIVIL ACTION NO: 02 CV 11504 MEL AMENDED COMPLAINT

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT I. The named plaintiffs bring this action to stop defendant's systemic failure to provide
basic and necessary public transportation services to plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities. Each of the individual named plaintiffs is a person with a disability who needs to use public transportation to travel to work, shop, school, medical appointments, community activities, social events and other activities. The organizational plaintiff, Boston Center for Independent (BCIL), provides services, community education, advocacy and employment for individuals with disabilities All named plaintiffs live within the geographic area served by the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and use public transportation provided by the MBTA or would use such public transportation if it were readily accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities. On

a persistent and ongoing basis, defendant has discriminated against plaintiffs because of their disabilities, by denying them equal access to public buses and trains, in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990,42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12163 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 794 (Section 504). Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction to require the MBTA to comply with the ADA and Section 504 by among other things: making stations accessible; providing directional signage; providing telecommunications access; replacing or rehabilitating passenger elevators; preventing bus drivers from failing to stop for consumers with disabilities because of their disabilities; keeping wheelchair lifts in working condition; deploying lifts in locations appropriate for safe use by consumers with a disabilities; eliminating gaps on train platforms; reporting broken lifts or elevators; providing transportation for people with disabilities during street renovations/construction; requiring drivers to announce stops; preventing drivers from being rude or discourteous to passengers with disabilities because of their disabilities; and taking any other action required by the ADA and by regulations enacted by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Architectural and Transportation Construction Barriers Compliance Board interpreting the ADA.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. This is a civil action authorized by 42 U.S.C. §12133. This court has jurisdiction pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 because the claims herein arise under federal statutes: the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
2

3. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§1391(b). All of the events or omissions giving rise to plaintiffs' claims occurred here and the defendant may be found here. PARTIES PLAINTIFFS
4. Joanne Daniels-Finegold resides in Braintree, Norfolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Daniels-Finegold uses an electric wheelchair for mobility.
5. Rogera Robinson resides in Brighton, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Robinson suffers from painful arthritis throughout her body and uses a cane for mobility.
6. Gene Smith resides in Dorchester, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Ms. Smith has Multiple Sclerosis and uses an electric scooter for mobility.
7. Reginald Clark resides in Brookline, Norfolk County, Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. He is legally blind and uses a white cane for mobility.
8. Madelyn Joan Golden resides in Malden, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Her left leg is amputated and she has hidden disabilities that include arthritis of the knees and arms. She uses a manual wheelchair for mobility.
3

9. Maureen Cancemi resides in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. She has multiple sclerosis and is a triplegic. She uses an electric wheelchair for mobility.
10. Mymairis Cepeda resides in Dorchester, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. She is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. She has multiple hidden disabilities that include arthritis, spinal stenosis, and muscle degeneration.
11. Andrew Forman resides in Kingston, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. Mr. Fonnan is legally blind.
12. Danford Larkin resides in Revere, Suffolk County, Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. He is legally blind and uses a cane for mobility.
13. Robert Park resides in Lynn, Essex County, Massachusetts. He is an individual with a disability within the meaning of the ADA. He has cerebral palsy and is legally blind. He uses an electric wheelchair for mobility.
14. Boston Center for Independent Living Inc. (BCIL), located in Boston, Suffolk County, Massachusetts, is a consumer controlled non-profit organization which has provided services, community education, advocacy and employment for individuals with disabilities since 1974. As mandated by BCIL's organizational articles and overall philosophy, the majority of BCIL staff and board are people with disabilities.
DEFENDANT
15. The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is a body politic and corporate and a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established pursuant to General Laws, Chapter 16IA§2, and has a usual place of business in Boston,
4

Massachusetts. The MBTA is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12131(1) and is subject to the provisions of Subpart B of Title II, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12141 et seq., in that it provides public transportation services including paratransit, bus, rapid transit, and commuter rail services.
THE PLAINTIFF CLASS 16. Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action under Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure. The class consists of all individuals with mobility, hearing or visual disabilities, as defined by Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12131 (2), who use, will use, or would use the bus, light rail and heavy rail rapid transit services operated by the MBTA who are, or will in the future be, denied equal use of these services because the services are not readily accessible to and useable by individuals with such disabilities. 17. The plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. 18. There are questions of law and fact common to the plaintiff class including: a. Whether the defendant's failure to make the MBTA's fixed route bus system
readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: (1) failure to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the mechanical bus lifts, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark; (2) failure to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the mechanical bus doors, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark; and/or failure to provide ramps needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark; (3) failure to adequately inspect and maintain safety equipment used to secure
5

wheelchairs on buses; (4) failure to adequately inspect and maintain belts and straps used to secure people with mobility impairments inside buses; and (5) placing non-accessible buses on purportedly accessible bus lines, violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; b. Whether the defendant's failure to make the MBTA's fixed route public train system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: (a) failure to keep MBTA station elevators in operating condition; (b) failure to adequately supervise and monitor the cleanliness ofMBTA station elevators; (c) failure to respond to calls from riders with disabilities seeking assistance in accessing a train; (d) failure to provide accessible paths of travel within and around the MBTA stations (e) failure to provide adequate and accessible directional signage; and (d) failure to provide accessible telecommunications violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; c. Whether defendant's failure to provide transportation for people with disabilities during street renovations/construction violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; d. Whether defendant's failure to adequately train and supervise employees on MBTA buses and trains regarding the proper and safe use of the equipment necessary to provide equal access to persons with disabilities violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
6

e. Whether the defendant's failure to monitor the actions of employees who are disrespectful, discourteous, and unprofessional to people with disabilities, because of their disabilities violates the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
19. The interests of the named plaintiffs typifY the interests of the class members because the defendant's practice of noncompliance with accessibility provisions of the ADA that is being challenged, are applicable to each member of the class.
20. The plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Attorneys for the plaintiff class are experienced in disability law and have participated in other class actions.
21. The questions oflaw and fact common to the class predominate over any questions affecting only individual members, and a class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this case.
22. The plaintiffs seek certification of a class pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) on the grounds that the defendant's policies and practices deny plaintiffs equal access to public transportation, thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate.
STATEMENT OF FACTS Joanne Daniels-Finegold 23. Joanne Daniels-Finegold is woman with a disability who uses an electric wheelchair for
mobility. Ms. Daniels-Finegold has hyper-homocystoremia, a condition that causes blood clots, and other medical issues including joint problems and pain. Her left knee joint does not lock all the time and her left shoulder joint has deteriorated and may need replacement. Her left shoulder dislocates very easily and causes constant pain. Ms.
7

Daniels-Finegold resides independently in Braintree, Massachusetts. She depends on the MBTA's public transportation services for her travel needs. As a result of defendant's failure to provide accessible services, Ms. Daniels-Finegold regularly encounters many problems with trying to access MBTA's buses and trains, including: broken elevators and escalators; unsanitary conditions in elevators; MBTA's failure to regularly update the elevator message; and large gaps between the train and the platform. 24. Ms. Daniels-Finegold leads an active lifestyle. She has an Associate's Degree in communications and will soon earn her Bachelor's Degree. She enjoys jewelry making and is currently taking a silver smithing course at the Brookline Adult Education Center. 25. Ms. Daniels-Finegold teaches a jewelry making class and a knitting class at Michael's Crafts in Braintree. In addition, she is the sole proprietor of "Proverbs 3 I Gifts," where she displays and sells her handmade jewelry. Ms. Daniels-Finegold is also a volunteer at Brigham and Women's Hospital where she works in the Kessler Library. Ms. DanielsFinegold depends on defendant's public transportation services to engage in her work, teaching, social life and volunteering. 26. In the past she traveled about three miles a day with a manual wheelchair. However, it has now become too much for her due to her disability. Her home is located about three and a half miles from the Red line train stop. When she is unable to access a bus to take her to the train station, Ms. Daniels-Finegold uses her wheelchair. 27. Ms. Daniels-Finegold regularly uses the bus between Brockton and Quincy Center, to get to the Redline stop at Braintree Station, and to get to Ashmont. Ms. Daniels-Finegold uses buses and trains to go to Watertown, Central Square, and Brookline Avenue to
8

Brigham Women's Hospital. All the bus routes traveled by Ms. Daniels-Finegold are supposed to have lifts; however, these lifts often do not work. 28. Ms. Daniels-Finegold has ridden on all the train lines except for the Blue line. She most often uses the Red and Green lines. She does not like to use the Orange line because of the large gap between the train and platform. Her front wheels often get stuck in the gap. 29. In March 23, 2002. Ms. Daniels-Finegold was scheduled to work at a craft table at the Sheraton Boston Conference of Working Women. The closest train line was the Orange line, but the closest stop, Downtown Crossing, did not have a functioning elevator. Ms. Daniels-Finegold had to get out of the station and travel to the Sheraton using her wheelchair. It was bitterly cold and she had to travel approximately one mile in order to get to her destination. 30. In May 8, 2002, Ms. Daniels-Finegold was supposed to meet her business mentor at the Women's Educational and Industrial Union at Boylston for a 2:00 p.m. appointment. Ms. Daniels-Finegold took the bus to the Braintree station on the Red line but the elevator wasn't working. She then tried to take the bus to the next Red line stop but the wheelchair lift on the bus was broken. She waited for a second bus to take her to the next Red line stop. She finally anived at her meeting around 3:00 p.m., about an hour late. 31. On September 29,2002, Ms. Daniels-Finegold tried to attend the "Beach Show" in Providence. She called the MBTA's elevator update line and was informed that the elevator at South Station was working. Ms. Daniels-Finegold relied on the information from the elevator recording and took the Red line to South Station in order to take the train to Providence. At South Station she soon learned that the elevator from the subway platform to the mid-level of the station was working, but that the elevator was broken
9

from the mid level to the top level where the commuter rails were. She was trapped and could not make it to the top level to board the commuter rail. Ms. Daniels-Finegold was forced to return home. 32. On June 19,2003, when Ms. Daniels-Finegold was returning home from class, the lift on the bus she was taking was malfunctioning. The driver eventually got it working but Ms. Daniels-Finegold was delayed in reaching home. 33. On July 10, 2003, Ms. Daniels-Finegold tried to get to the Braintree station on the Red line, but the lift was broken. The bus driver said he had to keep on schedule and would try again at Quincy Station. When the bus stopped at Quincy station the driver could not get the lift to work. The driver told Ms. Daniels-Finegold that the hydraulic cylinders were broken. She had to climb out of her wheelchair and slowly make her way down the stairs. Ms. Daniels-Finegold found this endeavor to be very dangerous and painful. Two MBTA workers carried her chair off the bus. 34. On July 24, 2003, Ms. Daniels-Finegold called the lift line and requested that a bus pick her up at approximately 10:45 a.m. so that she could get to a 1:00 p.m. appointment at Greater Boston Legal Services. Neither the first nor the second bus that came by had a working lift. The third bus that was sent out by the Quincy garage had a working lift. An MBTA supervisor who waited with Ms. Daniels-Finegold was not aware that the second bus had a non- functioning lift for months. By the time she was finally able to board a bus with a functioning lift, Ms. Daniels-Finegold was already late for her meeting. 35. Ms. Daniels-Finegold reports the barriers she encounters so often that the MBTA employees on her routes know her by name. The employees tell her to complain to Greater Boston Legal Services because they are also very frustrated with the old and
10

malfunctioning equipment. Ms. Daniels-Finegold has learned that Quincy station has some of the oldest buses in the system. Some buses are nineteen years old and are decaying. 36. Despite all of the above, Ms. Daniels-Finegold still uses MBTA's buses and trains. The alternative is to stay at home and she is simply not wiIling to sit at horne doing nothing. The lack of accessibility affects her ability to remain active. It takes a great deal of time and planning to do anything involving traveling. She finds herselfplanning ahead of time for the defendant's inaccessibility so that she is prepared for lateness. Ms. DanielsFinegold is a professional woman who wants her clients and customers to be able to rely on her. She has a good reputation for being reliable. She wants the MBTA to be readily accessible, clean, and safe so that she can: timely get to work; timely arrive at her appointments; and conduct her business in an efficient and effective manner instead of worrying about functioning lifts and elevators. Rogera Robinson 37. Rogera Robinson is a woman with a disability. She has arthritis all over her body. The arthritis most severely affects her knees. Ms. Robinson sometimes relies on a cane for mobility. She resides in Brighton, Massachusetts. Ms. Robinson relies on the MBTA buses for her travel needs. She sometimes uses the trains, she frequently uses the MBTA buses, and some weeks she rides the buses up to six to eight times. Ms. Robinson is active in many disability rights organizations. Ms. Robinson has encountered problems with using public transportation as a result of the defendant's failure to provide accessible services. Ms. Robinson has endured the MBTA bus drivers' failure to lower buses (kneeling bus) so that she can safely access the bus.
11

38. Due to her disability. she often has problems getting on or offbuses because the steps are not lowered for her. The steps on MBTA buses are too high for her to climb and require more flexibility than her knees can handle.
39. On nine out often bus rides that she takes, bus drivers fail to lower the steps for her. On many occasions Ms. Robinson has asked the driver to lower the steps for her and she has received many different responses. She has been told that the steps were not working; she has been ignored or the drivers are rude to her. Bus drives fail to lower the steps even when they see Ms. Robinson struggling to pull herself up, using the hand rails at the bus entrance. She is simply ignored.
40. On one pmiicular ride, Ms. Robinson encountered a driver who did not lower the steps and then ignored her while she was clearly struggling to make it up the steps on her own. Finally, a passenger who was standing in line behind her, placed his hand on her buttocks and pushed her onto the bus. This situation embarrassed Ms. Robinson, but she could not allow herself to be embarrassed or offended that this stranger touched her in this manner. Instead, she was forced to be grateful for his help.
Gene Smith 41. Gene Smith is a woman who has a disability. She has Multiple Sclerosis. Due to her
disability, Ms. Smith's use of her legs is limited. She uses an electric scooter and a cane for mobility. Ms. Smith resides in the Dorchester area and relies on the MBTA buses and trains to travel. She only uses her cane when she travels on MBTA buses and trains because of the numerous problems she has encountered due to the defendants' failure to provide accessible services. The main problems encountered by Ms. Smith are broken bus lifts and broken elevators.
12

42. Even when using her cane Ms. Smith still faces great difficulties accessing the bus. She is often unable to access the seats reserved for persons with disabilities. Because of her disability, her body, especially her legs, are extremely weak. It is difficult for Ms. Smith to stand in one position for any length of time. When the bus is in motion, it is not only difficult but also dangerous for her to remain standing.
43. In October 2001, while traveling on a bus from Dorchester to the Beth Israel Hospital to see her doctor, she was unable to get a seat on the crowded bus. Ms. Smith saw a nondisabled passenger seated in a seat that is designated for the elderly and disabled. She asked the passenger to please allow her to have the seat but the passenger refused. Ms. Smith sought the help of the bus driver. The bus driver shook his head and laughed at Ms. Smith.
44. In the summer of2001. Ms. Smith took the bus home from her doctor's office. On that day, Ms. Smith's feet were swollen and painful. When she boarded the bus, all of the seats were taken including the seats designated for disabled and elderly passengers. She asked for the bus driver's help, but she was ignored. The other passengers on the bus stared at Ms. Smith in such a hostile manner that she felt humiliated.
45. Around January 1999, Ms. Smith was seriously injured while trying to exit a bus through the back door. Due to her disability, it took her some time because she is only capable of going down one step at a time. At the last step with one foot on the ground and while in the process ofremoving her other foot from the step the bus driver closed the door on her ankle. Other passengers on the bus screamed for the driver to open the door, but he took a long time and when he finally opened it to release her foot, Ms. Smith had already suffered extreme pain and considerable injuries.
13

46. Recently Ms. Smith attempted to go back to college. She enrolled at Bunker Hill Community College, but was devastated to arrive at Community College Station on the Orange Line and find that she could not leave the platform because there is no elevator or accessible exit for her scooter. When she had a chance to confront the fonner MBTA chairman Mr. Sullivan on this matter, he discounted her inability to access an education with a smile and a trite promise to "work on it." After two years the station is still inaccessible.
Reginald Clark 47. Reginald Clark is a man with a disability. He is legally blind and uses a white cane when
he travels. Mr. Clark does not drive and relies upon public transportation. He resides in Brookline and travels by bus on a daily basis to attend meetings, medical appointments, and social events. As a result of the MBTA's failure to provide accessible services, Mr. Clark encounters many problems with transportation. Some problems encountered by Mr. Clark include: drivers failing to pull next to the curb and instead stopping in the middle of the street; drivers failing to announce stops; and drivers failing to assist him with getting a seat designated for the elderly and the disabled. 48. When bus drivers fail to pull close to the curb it presents a safety concern for Mr. Clark. He must step onto the street, without being able to see if there is traffic approaching, in order to board or exit the bus. 49. MBTA bus drivers routinely fail to announce stops on the bus lines. In October 2000, Mr. Clark asked the bus driver to let him know when he reached his stop. The driver was talking on his cellular phone and neglected to announce the stop. When Mr. Clark asked him about his stop, he was told that the driver had already passed it. Mr. Clark was
14

ushered off the bus at the next stop and had to find his way back to the stop he needed. This was extremely difficult and terrifYing for Mr. Clark. 50. On Friday, December 14, 2001, the bus driver failed to announce any of the stops. Madelyn Joan Golden 51. Madelyn Joan Golden is a fifty-five-year-old woman with a disability. Her left leg was amputated and her hidden disabilities include arthritis in the knees and anns. She has been unable to walk since age twenty-one. She used crutches for twenty-eight years and has been using a manual wheelchair for six years. 52. Ms. Golden has two children and currently lives with her eleven-year-old son. She is active in the community and has been a member of Massachusetts Disability Commission since 2001. This group of persons with disabilities meets and discusses many things that affect the community of persons with disabilities, including the barriers or discrimination people encounter while trying to access MBTA buses and trains. 53. Ms. Golden estimates that she uses the MBTA buses at least once per week to shop, to visit friends, to pay bills, and to get to social events. Ms. Golden does not rely on the MBTA to get to any medical appointments and only uses the transportation that is provided by the \IIassachusetts General Hospital due to the fact that she has had numerous bad experiences with the MBTA. Ms. Golden has been injured and treated disrespectfully during her encounters with public transportation. Ms. Golden is terrified of using the trains because of these previous bad experiences with the MBTA. 54. Ms. Golden uses a taxi whenever she can afford one; however, she is on a fixed income and is not able to afford a taxi for long trips. Therefore, she is forced to rely on buses.
15

55. Ms. Golden has encountered many problems trying to get buses to stop for her instead of simply driving by. When buses do stop, bus drivers have routinely informed her that the lifts are not working and that she should wait for other buses.
56. Bus drivers present a huge obstacle for Ms. Golden when she attempts to board. Bus drivers are rude and impolite. Additionally, the bus drivers do not even check or demonstrate those lifts that they claim do not work.
57. In November 1998, Ms. Golden was injured while departing from an MBTA bus when the equipment failed. The lift malfunctioned and disappeared from underneath her and she was only able to save herselfby grabbing the handrails at the side of the bus. Ms. Golden grabbed the handrails and dangled from the bus with her wheelchair hovering over her. When she looked down, she saw that the driver had not pulled close to the curb, so if Ms. Golden did fall, she would hit her head on the curb. The driver jumped off the broken lift, pulled down the wheelchair, and settled Ms. Golden back into it.
58. Ms. Golden feels lucky to be alive after this incident. She also recalls extreme embarrassment from that day.
59. Due to the injuries sustained from that incident, Ms. Golden tore the cartilage in her knee. Her leg, ankle, and shoulder were also injured. Ms. Golden had extensive medical treatment including an MRI, physical therapy, and medication.
60. Ms. Golden filed a lawsuit against the MBTA for damages suffered while riding the MBTA and has subsequently settled.
61. In December 2002, Ms. Golden was heading home after shopping at the mall. Ms. Golden patiently waited in the cold to get on the bus. When the bus finally 3lTived, Ms. Golden knew that the driver saw her and she knew that he had to get the lift down. She
16

allowed the other passengers to board before her while she waited for the driver to lower the lift. After all the passengers got on board the bus, the driver shut the doors and started to drive away. She chased after the bus in her wheelchair shouting, "stop!" The driver eventually stopped after a passenger informed the driver that Ms. Golden wanted to get on the bus; the driver then told Ms. Golden that his bus didn't have a lift. Ms. Golden assumed that the driver would call for a lift bus; however, after waiting for 45 minutes, a second bus arrived and Ms. Golden was faced with the same situation: the bus driver closed the door and started to drive away. Again, Ms. Golden had to be vocal to get the driver to pay attention to her. This driver demonstrated that the lift was broken by going to the back of the bus and pressing the buttons to activate the lift, but it did not work. Even though this bus had the handicap accessibility symbol stamped on it, it did not provide Ms. Golden with means of boarding. Forty-five minutes more passed before Ms. Golden was able to board a bus and go home. This short trip, which should have taken twenty minutes, took hours. 62. On Aplil 25, 2003, Ms. Golden was trying to board a bus to get to the mall. When she
tried to board a bus the bus driver told her that "this [was1not a wheelchair route." Ms.
Golden had been using that route for years and she knew it was supposed to be an accessible route with lift buses. When she told him that the route was a wheelchair route, his story changed, and he then told her that the lift did not work. 63. Ms. Golden is tired of being the first in line at the bus stop and having to watch as everyone boards the bus while she waits and is later told that she cannot get on board. She wishes she could use the MBTA buses the same way other people do.
17

Myrnairis Cepeda 64. Ms. Cepeda is a person with hidden disabilities that include muscle degeneration, spinal
stenosis, diabetes, and arthritis. Ms. Cepeda experiences pain on a daily basis and cannot stand or walk for long periods of time. She also has difficulty bending or lifting her legs. 65. Ms. Cepeda's past work includes social work through the Department of Social Services, Department of Transitional Assistance, employment security, and the federal prison system. She is currently a community teacher on a volunteer basis at the Immigrant Workers Resource Center in Jamaica Plain, Casa Iris HIV, an AIDS program in Roxbury, and Women In Leadership Development. 66. Ms. Cepeda has Masters Degrees in Child and Adolescent Psychology and in Counseling Psychology. She also has Bachelors of Sciences in Social Services Management and Legal Services. 67. In June of 2003 Ms. Cepeda was on her way home from the Dudley station. The bus was very crowded and she struggled to pull herself up by the handles in order to board the bus. When she got on the bus, she paid her fare and showed the driver her transportation access pass (TAP card). When she asked for a transfer, the driver said: "you only pay fifteen cents and you want a transfer too?" Everybody on the bus stared at her; Ms. Cepeda was extremely embarrassed. She called the MBTA the next morning to confirm that she had a right to a transfer even though she paid a reduced fare. The customer service person stated that she had a right to a transfer and also told her that it was the second time that day that they had received a complaint about that particular transfer Issue.
18

68. On February 27,2003, Ms. Cepeda was visibly struggling to get on a bus and the driver did not lower the bus for her. Ms. Cepeda had to say to the bus driver, "this is really high" before he would lower the bus for her.
69. In June or July of 2002, Ms. Cepeda was departing from a bus. The driver had not lowered the bus for her and she expected the bus to be pulled right up to the curb. It was not and she tripped as she was getting off. Her foot went down into the gap between the sidewalk and the bus. She fell onto the sidewalk and hit her leg on the curb. Ms. Cepeda found this incident to be painful and humiliating.
70. One problem Ms. Cepeda often encounters is that the drivers rarely wait for boarding passengers to sit down before they pull away from the bus stop. This practice is particularly dangerous for Ms. Cepeda because she has difficulty moving very quickly and difficulty standing.
Maureen Cancemi 71. Maureen Cancemi is a fifty-two-year-old woman with a disability. She is a triplegic and
uses an electric wheelchair for mobility. In 1982, Ms. Cancemi was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and she began using a wheelchair in 1989. Ms. Cancemi has no movement of her legs, and very limited movement of her left arm and hand. Ms. Cancemi depends on the MBTA for all of her travel needs. She has encountered many problems with MBTA buses and trains, including broken lifts, broken and dirty elevators, and rude and discourteous drivers. 72. Ms. Cancemi resides independently in Boston, Massachusetts. Ms. Cancemi has a Bachelor's degree and a two-year celiificate in Medical Records Technology. She taught English as a second language and has a teaching degree in art. Ms. Cancemi worked in
19

the medical records field for 8 years. She was a substitute teacher for junior and senior high schools and she also tutored persons studying for the naturalization test for citizenship. 73. Ms. Cancemi is very active in her community. She is an advocate for the civil rights of persons with disabilities and actively participates in forums where she can voice concerns for her community. She is a former board member of the Vivienne S. Thomson Independent Living Center (VTC) and was a member of a Multiple Sclerosis support group held by the VTC. She is a member of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commission, Home Care Division and is a consumer at the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL). 74. Ms. Cancemi began using the MBTA regularly in 1993. She uses the MBTA in different fonns at least 2-3 times per week for doctor appointments, entertainment, meetings, food shopping, and other activities. She prefers to use the MBTA buses (above ground transportation) because of the barriers she encounters with train stations. When she uses the trains, she rides the orange and red lines. Ms. Cancemi does not use the green line because she finds this to be inaccessible. 75. The most common problem Ms. Cancemi faces when trying to access the trains is that elevators are often broken, soiled with urine or feces, or function improperly. 76. Elevators present a chronic problem for Ms. Cancemi when she travels by train. If she is able to take a train, she sometimes finds that the elevators in the train stations do not descend from the lobby to the train platform. For example, the doors will not open and when they do, sometimes they will not shut.
20

77. Ms. Cancemi can recall the several times that she has been trapped in the MBTA's elevators due to the placement of panels with buttons that are too high and angled such that they are inaccessible. Panels usually are located on the right side of the elevator. If the door closes as soon as Ms. Cancemi boards the elevator, she is unable to reach the panel and is stuck. This is quite a frightening experience for Ms. Cancemi because she is not able to push the emergency button because it is on the same unreachable panel. She usually has to wait in the elevator for 15-20 minutes until someone comes by and presses the button on the outside of the elevator; then the doors can open and Ms. Cancemi is released.
78. When Ms. Cancemi is stuck in an elevator in the heat or cold she finds the conditions unbearable.
79. In May 2003, Ms. Cancemi was in an elevator and the panel was located on the right side. She was unable to reach any button and began to call out for help. But her shouts were muffled since the elevator doors had closed. She continued to call out to people for over ten minutes before someone opened the doors.
80. Many MBTA station elevators are too narrow for Ms. Cancemi to maneuver her electric wheelchair. She is unable to tum her chair around while inside the elevator and therefore, she is unable to reposition it in order to exit properly.
81. Ms. Cancemi tries to find stations that provide an elevator that will fit her wheelchair. To find accessible elevators she often has to travel 2-3 stops beyond her destination and then backtrack to get to her intended destination. An additional problem is the fact that some elevators are dangerously close to the platform adjacent to the train tracks.
21

82. In April 2003, Ms. Cancemi used the #55 bus for the first time. She was heading from her home on Massachusetts Avenue to the State House for a scheduled meeting with the Commissioner of the Massachusetts Rehabilitation Commissioner. While she was trying to board the bus she found that there were no curb cuts in order for her to access the island where other passengers access the bus. She had to position her electric chair as close to the island as possible, but she was still on a main street during rush hour traffic at 9:00 am. She was frightened by the dangerous situation.
83. When Ms. Cancemi arrived at the State House, there were no curb cuts on the sidewalk there either. She had to access a steep hill and the sidewalks were cracked and tom up due to construction. These conditions presented additional barriers.
84. On Tuesday, June 24, 2003, Ms. Cancemi had a doctor's appointment at Jackson Square. She tried to use the Orange Line at the Massachusetts Avenue station (Mass. Ave.), but the elevator was not working. From the Mass. Ave. station, the nearest train station is Back Bay. In order for Ms. Cancemi to get to the Back Bay station it would have taken 15 minutes by way of the surface streets. Considering Ms. Cancemi's medical problems, this was a long way to travel on her wheelchair in the heat and humidity. She had no choice but to cancel the doctor's appointment.
85. Ms. Cancemi has noticed that when the weather is bad, when the bus is crowded, or when the roads are congested, the bus drivers claim that they do not have a key to the lifts or that the lift is not working. They tell her to wait for the next bus, but since she lives on a partially accessible bus route, she sometimes has to watch more than four buses pass before an accessible one arrives.
22

86. Ms. Cancemi has also been on the lift of a bus when the equipment failed and the lift malfunctioned. She has been forced to remain on the lift until a mechanic comes to fix the problem. This humiliating wait can be anywhere from 30-45 minutes for someone to arrive to fix the problem.
87. Another problem Ms. Cancemi experienced with the MBTA is that the bus drivers are not often able to secure her chair properly. Without being properly secured, Ms. Cancemi dangerously slides around during the trip.
88. In the summer of 2001, Ms. Cancemi was returning home from the South Bay Mall. After she boarded the bus, her chair was not strapped in and the chair began to skid across the aisle when the driver stopped abruptly. A passenger grabbed the arm of her chair and prevented her from further skidding. Had that passenger not stopped Ms. Cancemi from skidding, she would have tipped over into the stairwell due to her heavy chair. For Ms. Cancemi to be in situations where she often has little control and is susceptible to circumstances is not only frustrating, it is also terrifying. Ms. Cancemi reported this horrifying experience to the MBTA and never heard back.
89. Ms. Cancemi complains to the MBTA about the barriers she encounters. She finds that the employees who answer the complaint line are sympathetic and listen, but that nothing happens. She is usually told, "We will look into this," or "We will make a note of it. " Ms. Cancemi has given the MBTA detailed information such as: the time, date, or number of bus, but she does not get a reply or report or anything to tell her that something was done to address the problems she encountered.
90. Ms. Cancemi's experiences using MBTA trains and buses have been frustrating because she is forced to plan well ahead of any trip to compensate for likely delays in
23

transportation. If the MBTA trains and buses were more accessible and safer for people with disabilities, Ms. Cancemi would feel more confident in using these services. Andrew Forman 91. Andrew Fonnan is a 39-year-old man with a disability. He has been legally blind since birth. Mr. Fonnan resides independently in Malden, Massachusetts. He has a Bachelor of Arts degree in communications and is currently employed as a disability advocate for the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL). Prior to working for BCIL Mr. Fonnan was self-employed as an entrepreneur. He published his own magazine for eight years; operated his employment agency for two years; and later was an assistant telemarketing manager. Mr. Fonnan has always relied on the public transportation services provided by the MBTA. He uses the MBTA's buses and trains daily. Mr. Fonnan encounters many problems when trying to access the MBTA's buses and trains, including: failure to make stop announcements; improper signage; poor lighting; and bus drivers who do not provide assistance upon request. 92. Mr. F01111an often encounters MBTA's dirty signs on buses and bus drivers who are not helpful in providing answers to simple questions such as the number of the bus or where it is heading. He is afraid of getting on the wrong bus because he is often unable to see the signs on the bus. He commonly asks the bus driver if the bus is the specific one is he was waiting for and the driver usually nods. The problem is that Mr. Fonnan is unable to see the drivers nodding. When he asks again about the bus, the drivers become annoyed before they deliver a verbal response. 93. Mr. Fonnan's blindness is not readily noticeable. He does not wear dark glasses and he does not carry a white cane.
24

94. When going out to visit friends or clients, Mr. Forman uses the MBTA's trains and avoids having to use the buses. He would rather use the trains and walk up to a mile than use a bus that will drop him off closer to his appointment. Mr. Fonnan fears using the buses because the drivers fail to announce stops. Also, the drivers are rude to him for asking about the direction the bus is heading, and he generally is left feeling embarrassed about having to ask for assistance from drivers who do not want to help him.
95. When Mr. Forman uses the Red line, many of the stops look the same and he is unable to read the signs. If the train operators fail to announce the stops, he risks missing his destinations.
96. On June 3rd, 2003 around 8:30 a.m. Mr. Forman was traveling to work. He was taking the Red line to Downtown Crossing and intended to switch to the Orange line. The stops were not announced on the Red line; therefore, he missed his stop. He got off at a station that he was not familiar with and he had to backtrack to Downtown Crossing.
97. Mr. Fonnan would use the MBTA's buses more often if the signs were larger; then they would be easier to see. He has to use his telescope to see the bus route or number. He would be confident in using the buses if all stops were announced and the numbers of the bus, as well as the bus routes, were announced when the bus stops to pick up passengers. Mr. Fonnan would also like bus drivers and train operators to make vocal announcements when there is no automated stop announcement.
Danford Larkin 98. Danford Larkin is blind and uses a cane for assistance. Although he does not use the
MBTA 's public transportation services regularly at this time, he used it regularly in the past to get to and from work. When he worked at Perkins School for the Blind in
25

Watertown from approximately 1987 through 1995 he used the MBTA subways and buses regularly. 99. Mr. Larkin recalls a horrifying experience from 1990 when he was riding the MBTA's Red line. He attempted to get off the train at the Central Square stop but the conductor closed the door too fast and closed it on Mr. Larkin's left foot and left arm. The conductor then pulled away from the station and continued on to Harvard Square, all the while, Mr. Larkin's foot and arm were stuck in the door of the train. Mr. Larkin was too far back in the train to be heard ifhe had tried to yell to the conductor. When the train arrived at Harvard Square an MBTA inspector tried to open the door that Mr. Larkin's foot and arm were stuck in. The inspector asked him to move his foot so they could open the door. Mr. Larkin told him that if he could move his foot then he wouldn't be stuck. They were eventually able to get the door open and free Mr. Larkin's foot and arm. 100. After the train incident Mr. Larkin called the main number for the MBTA and reported it. A week later, an MBTA employee called Mr. Larkin and asked him if he wanted to file a suit against the MBTA. Mr. Larkin informed the employee that he did not want to files a lawsuit because, although the incident was upsetting and frightening to him, he was not physically hurt in the incident. 101. In the fall of 1987 an incident occurred while Mr. Larkin was riding a bus from Revere to Maverick Train station. Mr. Larkin encountered a bus driver who insisted that he see a pass and then the driver turned to another passenger on the bus and said, "These handicap people think they can get away with anything." Mr. Larkin was very embarrassed by the driver's statement. He reported the incident to the MBTA inspector at the Maverick Station.
26

102. On May 1987 Mr. Larkin was waiting for a bus at Maverick Station and a young man, who was there with friends, came up to Mr. Larkin and kicked his cane out of his hand. Although there was a MBTA inspector at the Maverick Station, he was inside the train station. Mr. Larkin felt vulnerable in that public area with no MBTA personnel to protect passengers, particularly passengers with disabilities, from harm.
103. In 1994 an incident OCCUlTed while Mr. Larkin was riding the bus to work. He asked the bus driver to let him off the bus about 20 to 30 feet before the bus stop because that was where he needed to cross the street. It was winter at the time; therefore, there were piles of snow on the sidewalk, making it difficult for Mr. Larkin to get from the actual bus stop to the intersection at which he needed to cross. He had to cross at the intersection because it had a stoplight and a button that he could press to indicate that he needed to cross the street. The bus driver refused to let him off the bus 20 to 30 feet before the bus stop. A passenger on the bus told the driver that he should let Mr. Larkin off. The driver responded by telling the passenger, "if I have to make allowances for him then I have to make allowances for everyone."
I 04. One problem, which Mr. Larkin views as very dangerous, is the lack of tactile tape at the Park Street Station. This hcavily traveled station is not safe for blind persons or persons with visual impaiI111ents; a person who is blind could step over the edge and fall into the pit where the train tracks are due to the lack of tactile tape. Once, Mr. Larkin had to step backwards because of construction in the Park Street station. Mr. Larkin almost fell onto the tracks because there was no tactile tape indicating a ledge or drop off.
105. Mr. Larkin also had negative experiences when using MBTA elevators. He only used them a few times, but when he did, the elevators were unclean and smelled of urine.
27

106. Despite these incidents, Mr. Larkin did not stop using public transportation while he was working.
Robert Park 107. Robert Park is a 29-year-old man with a disability. He has cerebral palsy and is legally
blind. Mr. Park uses an electric wheelchair for mobility. He resides independently in Lynn, Massachusetts. He receives Personal Care Assistants (PCA's) services but his PCA's rarely accompany him outside of his home. Mr. Park works fulltime as an advocate at the Boston Center for Independent Living (BCIL). He previously worked at the Independent Living Center of the North Shore as an independent living skills specialist. He is pursuing a degree in criminal justice at Salem State College in Salem, MA. Mr. Park relies on the MBTA's buses and trains for most of his travel needs; he prefers these modes over the RIDE because the RIDE is typically late and makes him tardy for work. Mr. Park encounters many problems with trying to access MBTA buses and trains. Problems include broken elevators and escalators as well as unsanitary conditions in elevators. 108. Mr. Park uses public transportation, provided by the MBTA, almost everyday. When the elevators in Lynn are working, he use the commuter rail from Lynn to North Station, then takes the Orange line train from North station to Back Bay. From there he uses his wheelchair to get work. If the elevators in Lynn are broken, he uses the buses from Central Square in Lynn to the Wonderland train station for the Blue line. He uses the Blue line from the Wonderland station to the State Street station where he transfers to the Orange line and travels from State Street to Back Bay.
28

109. Mr. Park commonly encounters broken lifts. Mr. Park usually has to wait, while two or three buses pass him by, before a bus arrives with a working lift. About a third of the buses that pass him by fail to stop.
110. On April 2, 2003, Mr. Park had a terrifying incident with a broken lift. Mr. Park was being raised into the bus on the lift and the restraint collapsed. Mr. Park almost fell off the lift platfonn. The back wheels were on the platform and his feet were on the ground and he was falling forward. Fortunately the driver was able to catch him before his head hit the cement curb.
111. Twice in 2003, the drivers did not have the key to the lift. The only reason Mr. Park was able to use the lift on those two occasions was because he had a key.
112. Mr. Park noticed many dangerous problems with the MBTA's buses such as the restraint mechanism, which almost never works. He usually has to grab a pole or grab the back of a seat to stabilize himself and to keep his chair from falling over or rolling around.
113. On June 12,2003, the station elevator at Back Bay was broken, so he had to take the subway train back to New England Medical Center station and then used his wheelchair to travel a mile and a half to work on the sidewalk.
114. On June 16,2003, at 8:30 a.m. the elevator at North Station on the Orange Line to Oak Grove was broken. There were no signs indicating that the elevators were not working. Mr. Park called the elevator update number at 3:30 p.m., which said that all elevators were functioning normally. However, at 4:15 p.m. the elevator at North Station was still not working, and there were no signs to indicate that the elevator was broken.
29

115. On July 22, 2003, the elevator was down at Back Bay so Mr. Park had to go back to New England Medical station and use his wheelchair to get to work. He was half an hour late for work that day.
116. Another barrier that Mr. Park encounters when using the MBTA's trains is that the gap between the MBTA train cars and the platfonns is sometimes too wide and his front wheels get stuck. To get on the train he has to back himself into the car and use his larger rear wheels. Mr. Park finds this to be a very awkward way to get onto a train. Getting into the train cars when only one half of the two doors is open poses another barrier to boarding. The doorway is too narrow for his electric wheelchair when only one of the doors opens.
117. On July 24, 2003. Mr. Park attempted to transfer from the Blue Line at State Street to the Orange Line. The elevator at State Street is very awkward to enter. The doors are very narrow and anyone using a wheelchair must turn around in the elevator to fit inside. Sometime after 8:00 a.m., Mr. Park tried to leave the elevator but he got stuck. Before he could reposition myself to exit the elevator, the door would close. He spent 45 minutes trying to get out of the elevator. Eventually someone to held the door open for him so he had time to turn and get out. He was over a half hour late for work that morning.
118. On July 25, 2003, at 7:50 a.m. the elevator at the commuter rail station in Central Square, Lynn was shut down. Mr. Park waited for the bus to Wonderland so he could get onto the Blue Line to get to work. Five buses passed him; two had non-working lifts, and three were non-lift buses. He could not wait any longer. Therefore, he went back horne to get a ride to Wonderland in order to access the Blue line. On that day, the State Street station was not accessible and again he had to find an alternative accessible route. He went to
30

Government Center. The doors on the train shut too quickly and they shut on him. Mr. Park found himself hurrying to get off the train but then his wheels got caught in the gap between the train and the platform. He almost fell over, head first. He arrived at work at 10:45 a.m. 119. One chronic problem encountered by Mr. Park is the failure of bus drivers to make stop announcements. Mr. Park has to make a special request to the drivers to get them to call out his stops. Ifhe forgets to ask the drivers to make the stop announcement, they will not do it. Mr. Park found that drivers also seem to be annoyed when they have to lower the lift or when it takes him a while to get on the lift and into the bus. 120. Mr. Park has had to change his lifestyle significantly in order to respond to accessibility problems with the MBTA. When he needs to use a bus, he plans for waiting for two or three buses before a bus with a working lift arrives. If the elevator is broken, then he knows that he has to take the train back to the last stop with a working elevator and travel to work, or to appointments, using his wheelchair for a long distance on busy downtown streets. The MBTA's broken lifts and broken elevators make it difficult for Mr. Park to get to work on time and to meet scheduled appointments. Boston Center for Independent Living 121. Boston Center for Independent Living Inc. (BCIL) is a private non-profit organization, which is controlled and directed by persons with disabilities. BCIL is a consumercontrolled organization that has been providing services, community education, advocacy and employment for individuals with disabilities since 1974. 122. As mandated by BCIL's organizational articles and overall philosophy, the majority of BCIL staff and board are people with disabilities. BCIL's mission statement, as stated in
31

their articles of organization, is "We empower others and ourselves with disabilities to advocate and take control over our lives, and become active members of the communities in which we live. As a center we work to promote the civil rights of all people with disabilities and to respond to the needs of persons with many different disabilities." 123. BClL's goals are to empower people with disabilities with the practical skills and selfconfidence to freely determine their own life choices in the community; and, to promote access and change within society, to make full and equal participation by individuals with disabilities a reality. 124. At present there are approximately 25 BCIL staff providing services to more than 7000 individuals annually. BCIL volunteers provide an additional 100 hours or more services monthly. 125. The BCIL Board of Directors is made up of 15 members representing different interests in the community and is diverse in disability, race and occupation. 126. BCll collaborates with many local, statewide and national organizations including, but not limited to: The Disability Law Center, ten independent living centers in Massachusetts, Massachusetts Office on Disabilities, Boston Community Medical Group, Department of Mental Retardation and The Boston SelfHeJp Center. 127. Consumers set the policy and direction ofBCIL, provide assistance to other consumers as peers and represent visible role models of successful independent living. 128. Inherent in BCll's philosophy of independent living is a focus on assisting staff, consumers and members in obtaining rights, services and full access to the many life activities that exist in the community at large.
32

129. Access to the MBTA's fixed route public transportation system is vital to meeting BCIL's mission and goal of full access to the many life activities that exist in the community at large.
130. Due to the defendant's systemic failure to provide basic and necessary public transportation services to BCIL's employees, consumers, and members, BCIL as an organization is hanned.
131. BCIL staff members Andrew Fonnan and Robert Park are persons with disabilities. Both men are members ofBCIL as defined under BCIL's bylaws. Both men are regular consumers of the services provided by the MBTA. As a result of the MBTA's failure to provide accessible buses and trains Mr. Fonnan and Mr. Park have been harmed by being late to work, missing business appointments, and spending time documenting for their employer the incidents of accessibility failures caused by the MBTA. This results in delays in visiting clients and perfonning other work for BCIL.
132. The difficulties encountered by staff members using the MBTA directly hann the operational services ofBCIL. BCIL employees have missed work appointments, have been late to work, and have experienced difficulty meeting clients because of broken wheelchair lifts, the lack of stop announcements and broken elevators.
133. BCIL suffers real and ongoing hann because employees are unable to engage in BCIL's work as a result of the MBTA's accessibility failures.
134. The hann to BCIL is visible when BCIL expends resources in the fonn of mentoring services to consumers hanned by the MBTA. BCIL must also reschedule appointments for clients who are unable to attend skills training sessions due to an inability to access the MBTA.
33

135. Due to the barriers encountered by BCIL's staff, consumers and members as a result of defendant's failure to provide readily accessible to and usable transportation services to persons with disabilities, the organization is prevented from meeting its goals and mission to: empower people with disabilities with the practical skills and self-confidence to freely determine their own life choices in the community; to promote access and change within society; and to make full and equal participation by individuals with disabilities a reality.
POLICIES AND PRACTICES OF THE MBTA 136. The MBTA is the fourth largest transit system in the United States. It boasts the oldest
subway transit system in the nation. The MBTA's service district includes seventy-eight communities in Eastern Massachusetts, providing approximately 819,700 one-way passenger trips per day with a daily ridership of over 1,052,750. The MBTA employs a workforce of approximately 6,500 persons and operates 365 days a year. In 2001 the MBTA reported to the Federal Transit Administration revenue from fares totaling $250,311,545; funds from federal assistance totaling $91,125,876; and total operating funds from fares, local, state, federal and other sources totaling $898,950,623. By the MBTA's own figures at least ten percent of the MBTA's total operating funds are derived from the federal government. 137. The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that in the year 1991 over 49 million Americans had a disability. The presence ofa disability creates an increased likelihood of poverty. For this reason it is more likely that persons with disabilities will require accessible public transportation for daily travel. The U.S. census conducted in the year 2000 demonstrates
34

that there are approximately 1,084,746 persons with disabilities (age five and over) residing in Massachusetts. In the Boston area and nearby suburbs, there are 145,514 persons with disabilities in Suffolk County, 217,049 in Middlesex County, 125,438 in Essex County, and 89,792 in Norfolk County. 138. The MBTA runs buses and trains in the city and nearby suburbs that are regularly used by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities. Plaintiffs are regularly prevented from readily using the MBTA. Some plaintiffs cannot access the MBTA at all, others are not able to use it in a manner equal to the non-disabled population when they need to do so. 139. The MBTA operates fixed route transit lines along prescribed routes according to a fixed route schedule as these terms are used in the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §12141(3). 140. The MBTA advertises and holds itself out to the public as offering routes on its buses and trains that are accessible to riders with disabilities. 141. On a persistent, ongoing, and systemic basis the defendant has failed to provide the plaintiffs with equal access to the fixed route public bus and train lines that it operates. Through its acts and omissions, set out more fully in the paragraphs that follow, the defendant has denied the plaintiffs equal access to the buses and trains that it operates. Bus Lines 142. Defendant has failed to make the MBTA's fixed route public bus system readily accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other things: a. Failing to adequately inspect, maintain, and service mechanical assistive devices
such as bus lifts, which are needed to allow persons with mobility impairments to board and disembark. Lifts on defendant's buses, marked in the schedule and on
35

the bus itself as accessible, are frequently malfunctioning or non-functioning,

thereby denying basic public transportation services to plaintiffs and other people

with disabilities;

b. Failing to adequately inspect, maintain, and service the bus doors through which

persons with mobility impairments board and disembark. The doors and steps on

defendant's buses, marked in the schedule and on the bus itself as accessible, are

frequently malfunctioning or non-functioning, thereby denying basic public

transportation services to plaintiffs and other individuals with disabilities;

c. Failing to adequately inspect and maintain the safety equipment such as clamps

used to secure the wheelchairs of persons with mobility impairments on buses,

and the belts and straps used to secure people with mobility impairments inside

buses. These vital safety devices are frequently missing, malfunctioning, or non-

functioning;

d. Failing to adequately train and supervise its employees, including drivers,

regarding the proper and safe use of the accessibility and safety devices necessary

to provide equal access to persons with disabilities on the buses the MBTA

operates, including lifts, doors, clamps, and safety straps;

f.

Frequently and persistently placing non-accessible buses on bus lines marked in

the schedule or in other ways purported to be bus lines accessible to people with

disabilities, including people who use wheelchairs;

g. Frequently and persistently failing to provide alternative transportation for people

with disabilities during renovations/construction of city streets.

36

h. Frequently and persistently failing to assign a sufficient number, as determined by

MBTA's own analysis, of buses with working lifts to bus lines designated as

accessible to persons with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs;

1.

Frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers' and other personnel to

properly and safely use the assistive devices needed to provide equal access to

persons with disabilities on bus lines operated by the defendants, including lifts,

doors, clamps, and safety straps. On numerous occasions, defendant's employees

have failed to, lacked knowledge of the proper use of, or openly refused to operate

these assistive devices, seriously endangering plaintiffs' health and safety.

j.

Frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers' to stop for or to pick up

plaintiffs and other riders who have clearly identifiable disabilities and are

waiting at bus stops, because of plaintiffs' disabilities.

k. Frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA bus drivers to allow persons with

disabilities to board buses because oftheir disabilities.

\.

Frequent and persistent failure of MBTA bus drivers to deploy lifts or lower the

buses' "kneeling" mechanism, when requested by plaintiffs or other people whose

disabilities are not readily apparent.

m. Frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA bus drivers to provide plaintiffs or other

persons with disabilities with adequate time to complete their boarding or

disembarking from defendant's vehicles before continuing en route.

n. Frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA bus drivers to clearly announce the bus

number and make stop announcements, severely impeding the ability of visually

impaired persons to know when to disembark defendant's buses; and

37

o. Frequent and persistent tendency ofMBTA personnel to treat individuals with

disabilities in a discourteous and unprofessional manner because of their

disabilities, including MBTA employee's failure to adequately document and

address complaints about accessibility to the MBTA bus system.

Train Lines

143. Defendant has failed to make the MBTA's fixed route public train system readily

accessible to and usable by plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities by, among other

things:

a. Frequent and persistent failure to maintain elevators in MBTA stations in

operating condition;

b. Frequent and persistent failure to adequately supervise and monitor the

cleanliness of elevators in MBTA stations;

c. Failing to provide accurate and conspicuous information, at stations and/or over

the telephone, as to whether or not elevators in specific MBTA stations are in

service;

d. Frequent and persistent failure to provide prompt alternative accessible

transportation to riders with mobility disabilities when a designated accessible

station is not in fact accessible to said riders;

e. Frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA employees' to respond to calls from

riders with disabilities seeking assistance in accessing the public train system;

f.

Failing to eliminate gaps between station platforms and train cars so riders with

mobility impairments can safely board or disembark trains;

38

h. Failing to employ adequate numbers of personnel to ensure that riders with

disabilities have equal access to the trains and the train stations in general;

1.

Failing to provide an adequate number of designated wheelchair spaces on trains

and to properly mark and designate those cars that do have wheelchair spaces;

J.

Failing to implement a proper emergency evacuation program for the safe

evacuation of riders with disabilities;

k. Frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA employees to provide sufficient time for

persons with disabilities to board and disembark from the trains;

I.

Frequent and persistent failure ofMBTA employees, upon arriving at a given

station, to clearly announce the train line and destination and current stop,

severely impeding the ability of visually impaired persons to know when to board

or disembark from the defendant's trains;

m. Frequent and persistent failure to provide accessible paths of travel for people

with disabilities, including persons who use wheelchairs, in and around MBTA

stations;

n. Frequent and persistent failure to provide alternative transportation for people

with disabilities during renovations/construction of city streets;

o. Frequent and persistent tendency ofMBTA employees to treat plaintiffs and other

individuals with disabilities in a discourteous and unprofessional manner, because

of their disabilities, including MBTA employees' failure to adequately document

and address complaints about accessibility to the MBTA train system.

144. Defendant's conduct, as set forth herein, violates clearly established federal law.

39

145. Defendant is continuing to discriminate against plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities based on their disabilities by denying plaintiffs and other persons with disabilities equal access to fixed route public transit, resulting in ongoing and irreparable mJury. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, 42 U.S.C. §12131 ET SEQ., BY THE MBTA
146. In enacting the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA"), Congress made specific findings that society tends to isolate and segregate people with disabilities; that individuals with disabilities continually encounter various forms of discrimination, including not only exclusion but also the failure to make modifications to exclusionary criteria. Congress stated that the Nation's proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self·sufficiency for such individuals; that the continuing existence of unfair and unnecessary discrimination denies individuals with disabilities the opportunity to compete on an equal basis and to pursue those opportunities for which our free society is justifiably famous; and that continuing existence of discrimination and prejudice against people with disabilities cost the United States billions of dollars in unnecessary expenses. 42 U.S.C. §12101 (a).
147. The express purpose of the ADA is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities; to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities; and to ensure that the federal government plays a central
40

role in enforcing the standards established in the Act on behalf of individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. §12101(b). 148. Each individual plaintiff is a "qualified individual with a disability" under the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). The organizational plaintiff Boston Center for Independent Living includes members and staff who are qualified individuals with disabilities under the meaning of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12131(2). 149. The MBTA is a "public entity" within the meaning of Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §1213I(l). ISO. The MBTA operates a fixed route system of public transportation, under the meaning of Title II of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. §12141(3). lSI. Through the acts and omissions aJleged herein, the defendant has, by reason of plaintiffs' disabilities; excluded plaintiffs from participation in the MBTA programs, services and activities; denied plaintiffs the benefits of the MBTA programs, services, and activities; and subjected plaintiffs to discrimination in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §12132. 152. The defendant's acts and omissions are in violation of the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title II of the ADA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs. 153. The defendant's conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Title II of the ADA and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the MBTA will continue to violate Title II of the ADA. The defendant's acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy under the law.
41

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED, BY THE MBTA 154. Each individual plaintiff is an "otherwise qualified individual with a disability" under the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 ("Section 504"). The organizational plaintiff Boston Center for Independent Living includes members and staff who are otherwise qualified individuals with a disabilities under the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. §794 ("Section 504"). 155. The MBTA receives a significant portion of its operating funds from Federal sources, therefore it operates a "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" as defined by Section 504. 156. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the MBTA has, by reason of plaintiffs' disabilities: excluded the plaintiffs from participation in the MBTA's programs, services and activities, denied the plaintiffs the benefits of the MBTA's programs, services, and activities, and subjected the plaintiffs to discrimination. 157. The defendant's acts and omissions set forth herein are in violation of the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Section 504, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs. 158. The defendant's conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Section 504 and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the defendant will continue to violate Section 504. The defendant's acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy under the law.
42

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court order relief as follows:

1. Certify the class described in the complaint;

2. Declare that the defendant's acts and omissions complained of herein deny the plaintiffs

equal access to public transportation in violation ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act

of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and regulations thereunder as

alleged in the complaint;

3. Issue a pennanent injunction to require defendant to comply with the Americans with

Disability Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and regulations

enacted thereunder, with respect to providing individuals with disabilities full and equal

access to its public transportation operation and system, by among other things:

a. Assuring that buses scheduled to be, and/or marked as, accessible to persons with

disabilities actually be accessible by adequately inspecting, maintaining and

servicing all mechanical assistive devices such as: bus lifts, bus doors, safety

clamps and belts;

b.

Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that all other necessary

assistive devices such as: bridge plates, telecommunication devices, LED

displays, signage, and other devices as required by law or regulation are in place,

fully operational, and can be used by consumers in a safe manner;

c. Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that each subway station

has at least one elevator that is fully operational, in working order, providing

access to all train lines served by the station (in both directions), well lighted both

inside the cab and in the elevator boarding areas, sanitary both inside the cab and

43

in the elevator boarding areas, and adequately patrolled to ensure the safety of the

consumers. If an elevator is not operational, a system must be in place to alert

consumers in transit, such as clear and audible announcements made over the

public announcement system on the trains as well as in the station, and signs

posted in conspicuous locations on the subway trains, as well as in the station,

alerting consumers to the location of the station where the elevator is out of

service, and providing directions to the nearest station with an operational

elevator;

d.

Clear and audible announcements shall be made over the public address system

of buses and trains in a timely and consistent manner at each stop announcing the

current location of the vehicle and its destination;

e.

The MBTA will assure that all bus and train operators are adequately supervised

and trained to provide reasonable assistance to all individuals with disabilities

assuring equal access to the MBTA. This training must include but is not limited

to operating mechanical assistive and safety devices, sensitivity to the unique

travel needs of persons with disabilities, and ensuring that individuals with

disabilities have priority access seats that are designated for the elderly and

disabled;

f.

Each and every bus must approach all bus stops and stations at a safe and

appropriate speed, and must come to a stop at a distance from the curb close

enough to ensure reasonable safety to disembarking passengers with disabilities;

44

g. Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that each bus stop or station

shall be free and clear of all impediments, including but is not limited to illegally

parked vehicles, snow, ice, or any other type of debris;

h. Assuring that alternative transportation will be provided for people with

disabilities during renovations/construction of city streets;

1.

Assuring by a routine of monitoring and maintenance that paths of travel within

and around MBTA stations are accessible to people with disabilities, including

those who use wheelchairs, and are free of obstructions;

J.

Establishing a monitor and system of monitoring and reporting, independent of

the MBTA's current system, accountable to the community and responsible to

track the MBTA's performance in responding to the violations and prayers for

relief listed above. The monitor will compile data on the MBTA's progress and

complaints having to do with disability access or accommodations;

4. Issue a permanent injunction to require the defendant to refrain from discriminating

against individuals with disabilities who use their public transportation system;

5. Award the plaintiffs their attorneys' fees, litigation expenses and costs; and

6. Grant such further relief as is equitable and just.

Dated: February 4, 2004

JOANNE DANIELS-FINEGOLD, et 31 Plaintiffs
BY THEIR ATTORNEYS:
rc:), / \Jj\ It-----_~ Daniel S. Manning, BB Taramattie Doucette, B
45

Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 603-1603
46

 
 UDNIISTTERDICSTTAOTFEMSADSSISA~THlhtIttsC\,I:.TJdf1l1Sf1fJ2FFICE ZOOZ OCT -2 P 3: 52

JANIS HARRIS, MATLYN D. STARKS

U)S DISTRICT COURT 41STRICT OF MASS.

EILEEN BREWSTER, ROGERA ROBINSON, )

JOHN ALLEYNE, GENE SMITH,

)

REGINALD CLARK, and LOUISE BEACH

)

individually and as class representatives,

)

)

c.A. NO. 02 CV 11504 MEL

Plaintiffs,

)

)

vs.

)

)

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION )

AUTHORITY, JAMES H. SCANLON, in his )

official capacity as Acting Secretary of

)

Transportation and MBTA Chainnan and

)

MICHAEL H. MULHERN, in his official

)

capacity as MBTA General Manager,

)

)

Defendants

)

-----------------------------------)

STIPULATION OF DISMISSAL OF DEFENDANTS JAMES H. SCANLON AND MICHAEL H. MULHERN

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 (a)(1)(ii), the parties hereby stipulate to the dismissal, without prejudice, of James H. Scanlon and Michael H. Mulhern as defendants in this action.

JANIS HARRIS, et. al., PLAINTIFFS

MASSACHUSETTS BAY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, JAMES H. SCANLON and MICHAEL MULHERN, DEFENDANTS

,')

~"

-

.

., ',~

',.."

"....~." ,,,,,.;1 , , ;~

By their attorneys,
~CUAACMt~~ iI1ie1 S. Manning ( 8 6 0 ) Taramattie Doucette (BBO # 555948) Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 (617) 603~1603

By their attorneys,
CWN C· I~Clt\~
David C. Henderson (BBO #562388) Scott E. Ehrlich (BBO #637202) Nutter, McClennen & Fish LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 0221 o~2604 (617) 439-2000

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certifY that a true copy of the above document was served upon all counsel of record by mail on October 2, 2002.
CD~~-> Daniel S. Manning :::==

-. o!=
-U)
u).

....., .==...>>.,

:z:

-:-:e:ioo n_
(J-i
-i::o
o-~
."CJ

n 0
--I
I N

rC-J
::"::s'0-::"_r
(I),.."

-i :I:(J
>0
CIlc:

tJ
W

00
"Tl "T!

~:::o

C")

-; U1 I"T'!

N

2

 
 Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 1 of 11
United States District Court District of Massachusetts (Boston) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−11504−MEL

CLOSED

Daniels−Finegold et al v. Massachusetts Bay Tr, et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Morris E. Lasker Demand: $0 Cause: 28:1983 Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/25/2002 Date Terminated: 06/15/2006 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Janis Harris Individually and as class representative TERMINATED: 02/09/2004

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 617−603−1656 TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 617−603−1603 Fax: 617−371−1222 Email: dmanning@gbls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taramattie Doucette Greater Boston Legal Services 197 Friend Street Boston, MA 02114 617−371−1234 Fax: 617−371−1222 Email: tdoucette@gbls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Matlyn D. Starks Individually and as class representative TERMINATED: 02/09/2004

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Eileen Brewster Individually and as class representative TERMINATED: 02/09/2004

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 2 of 11

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Rogera Robinson Individually and as class representative

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Alleyne Individually and as class representative TERMINATED: 02/09/2004

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Gene Smith Individually and as class representative

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 3 of 11

Plaintiff Reginald Clark Individually and as class representative
Plaintiff Louise Beach Individually and as class representative TERMINATED: 02/09/2004
Plaintiff Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc.
Plaintiff ROBERT PARK
Plaintiff DANFORD LARKIN

represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Caryn Mitchell−Smith (See above for address) TERMINATED: 03/02/2006 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 4 of 11

Plaintiff ANDREW FORMAN
Plaintiff MAUREEN CANCEMI
Plaintiff MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA
Plaintiff MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN
Plaintiff JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD
Plaintiff

Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Daniel S. Manning (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 5 of 11

Thomas Gilbert

represented by Taramattie Doucette (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel S. Manning (See above for address)

V. Defendant Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Defendant James H. Scanlon in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of Transportation and MBTA Chairman TERMINATED: 10/03/2002
Defendant Michael H. Mulhern in his official capacity as MBTA General Manager TERMINATED: 10/03/2002

represented by David C. Henderson Nutter, McClennen &Fish, LLP Seaport West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210−2604 617−439−2000 x 2345 Fax: 617−310−9345 Email: dhenderson@nutter.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Salvador M. Llach Nutter, McClennen &Fish, LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210−2699 617−439−2365 Fax: 617−310−9365 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott E Erlich Nutter, McClennen &Fish, LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Boulevard Boston, MA 02210−2699 617−439−2965 Fax: 617−310−9965 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Henderson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott E Erlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David C. Henderson (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 6 of 11
Scott E Erlich (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/03/2002 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 07/25/2002 07/25/2002 08/08/2002 08/08/2002 08/08/2002 09/17/2002 09/17/2002 09/17/2002 10/01/2002 10/01/2002 10/01/2002
10/02/2002
10/07/2002 10/08/2002 10/17/2002
10/18/2002
10/18/2002 11/12/2002

# Docket Text
1 Complaint filed. Case assigned to Judge: Lasker. Receipt #: 40724 Amount:$ 150.00. Fee Status: paid (sat) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
Summons issued for Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern (sat) (Entered: 07/26/2002)
2 Return receipt received for mail sent to: MBTA with delivery on 7/26/02 accepted by: n/a delivered at: Boston, MA (seh) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
3 Return receipt received for mail sent to: James H. Scanlon with delivery on 7/26/02 accepted by: n/a delivered at: Boston, MA (seh) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
4 Return receipt received for mail sent to: Michael H. Mulhern with delivery on 7/26/02 accepted by: n/a delivered at: Boston, MA (seh) (Entered: 08/08/2002)
5 Motion by James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern to dismiss , filed; c/s. (sat) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
6 Memorandum by James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern in support of [5−1] motion to dismiss, filed; c/s. (sat) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
7 Answer by Massachusetts Bay Tr to complaint, filed; c/s. (sat) (Entered: 09/19/2002)
8 Return of service executed as to James H. Scanlon with service on 9/19/02 filed. Answer due on 10/9/02 for James H. Scanlon (seh) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
9 Return of service executed as to Michael H. Mulhern with service on 9/19/02 filed. Answer due on 10/9/02 for Michael H. Mulhern (seh) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
10 Return of service executed as to Massachusetts Bay Tr with service on 9/20/02 filed. Answer due on 10/10/02 for Massachusetts Bay Tr (seh) (Entered: 10/02/2002)
11 Stipulation of dismissal of DEFANDANTS JAMES H. SCANLON AND MICHAEL H. MULHERN by Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Eileen Brewster, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Louise Beach, Massachusetts Bay Tr, James Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern without prejudice, filed; c/s. (sat) (Entered: 10/04/2002)
Judge Morris E. Lasker. Endorsement re: [11−1] dismiss/dismissal stipulation.....So ordered. cc/cl. (sat) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
Mail sent to Aysha Batson returned by Post Office because: unclaimed. (sat) (Entered: 10/08/2002)
12 Joint motion by Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Eileen Brewster, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Louise Beach, Massachusetts Bay Tr, James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern for approval of proposed order ounder L.R. 16.1 , filed. . (seh) (Entered: 10/18/2002)
Judge Morris E. Lasker . Endorsed Order entered granting [12−1] joint motion for approval of proposed order ounder L.R. 16.1 . MOTION ALLOWED. cc/cl [EOD Date 10/25/02] (seh) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
13 Judge Morris E. Lasker . Order entered under L.R. 16.1. [EOD Date 10/25/02] cc/cl (seh) (Entered: 10/25/2002)
14 Joint motion by Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Eileen Brewster, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Louise Beach, Massachusetts Bay Tr, James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern to extend time to 1/17/03 to compliance

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 7 of 11

11/12/2002 01/17/2003
01/22/2003 03/25/2003 03/31/2003 07/22/2003 07/28/2003
10/23/2003 10/29/2003 12/02/2003 12/08/2003 02/04/2004 02/04/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004

with L.R. 16.1 , filed. . (seh) (Entered: 11/12/2002)
Judge Morris E. Lasker. Endorsed Order entered granting [14−1] joint motion to extend time to 1/17/03 to compliance with L.R. 16.1. [EOD Date 11/14/02]. Copy sent to counsel on 11/14/02. (sat) (Entered: 11/14/2002)
15 Joint motion by Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Eileen Brewster, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Louise Beach, Massachusetts Bay Tr, James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern to extend time to March 28,2003 to regarding compliance with Local Rule 16.1 , filed. c/s . (ghh) (Entered: 01/17/2003)
Judge Morris E. Lasker . Endorsed Order entered granting [15−1] joint motion to extend time to March 28,2003 to regarding compliance with Local Rule 16.1 . [EOD Date 1/22/03] cc/cl (ghh) (Entered: 01/22/2003)
16 Joint motion by Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Eileen Brewster, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Louise Beach, James H. Scanlon, Michael H. Mulhern, MBTA to extend time to 7/28/03 regarding compliance with L.R. 16.1 , filed. . (seh) (Entered: 03/27/2003)
Judge Morris E. Lasker . Endorsed Order entered granting [16−1] joint motion to extend time to 7/28/03 regarding compliance with L.R. 16.1. MOTION ALLOWED. cc/cl [EOD Date 4/2/03] (seh) (Entered: 04/02/2003)
17 REPORT and JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time of the March 31, 2003 Order to October 31, 2003 filed by John Alleyne, Louise Beach, Eileen Brewster, Reginald Clark, Janis Harris, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Matlyn D. Starks.(Tebo, Susan) (Entered: 07/23/2003)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered−motion allowed. re 17 MOTION for Extension of Time to October 31, 2003 filed by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Eileen Brewster, Janis Harris, Matlyn D. Starks, Rogera Robinson, John Alleyne, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Louise Beach.cc/cl(Howarth, George) (Entered: 07/29/2003)
18 REPORT AND JOINT MOTION for Extension of Time to 12/5/2003 for discovery by John Alleyne, Louise Beach, Eileen Brewster, Reginald Clark, Janis Harris, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Matlyn D. Starks.(Holahan, Sandra) (Entered: 10/28/2003)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 18 Motion for Extension of Time till December 5, 2003 regarding compliance with Local Rule 16.1.cc/cl (Howarth, George) (Entered: 11/05/2003)
19 REPORT &JOINT MOTION to Extend Time to 11/5/03 Order under local rule by Reginald Clark, Janis Harris, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Matlyn D. Starks.(Johnson, Jay) (Entered: 12/03/2003)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time up to and including March 5, 2004.cc/cl (Howarth, George) (Entered: 12/15/2003)
20 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Complaint by John Alleyne, Louise Beach, Eileen Brewster, Reginald Clark, Janis Harris, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Matlyn D. Starks.(Holahan, Sandra) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
21 MOTION to Certify Class by John Alleyne, Louise Beach, Eileen Brewster, Reginald Clark, Janis Harris, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Matlyn D. Starks. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (NOT SCANNED))(Holahan, Sandra) (Entered: 02/06/2004)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 21 Motion to Certify Class on Consent.cc/cl (Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ELECTRONIC ORDER entered granting 20 Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint.cc/cl (Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/17/2004)

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 8 of 11

02/09/2004
02/09/2004
03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004 03/12/2004 04/05/2004 04/08/2004 04/08/2004 04/13/2004
04/26/2004 07/13/2004
08/04/2004 11/12/2004

22 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority , filed by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., ROBERT PARK, DANFORD LARKIN, ANDREW FORMAN, MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD. (Attachments: # 1 Part II# 2 Part III)(Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
***Attorney Daniel S. Manning for MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA; JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD; ANDREW FORMAN; MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN; DANFORD LARKIN; ROBERT PARK; Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc. and MAUREEN CANCEMI, Taramattie Doucette for MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA; JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD; ANDREW FORMAN; MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN; DANFORD LARKIN; ROBERT PARK; Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc. and MAUREEN CANCEMI added. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/17/2004)
23 JOINT MOTION for Scheduling Conference filed by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, ANDREW FORMAN, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, DANFORD LARKIN, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, ROBERT PARK, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith.(Tebo, Susan) (Entered: 03/02/2004)
24 NOTICE of Scheduling Conference Scheduling Conference set for 4/8/2004 02:15 PM in Courtroom 8 before Morris E. Lasker. cc/cl(Howarth, George) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
Notice Resetting Hearing. Hearing rescheduled from April 8, 2004 at 2:15 p.m: to: 04/12/04 at 2:15 p.m..cc/cl (Howarth, George) (Entered: 03/03/2004)
25 ANSWER to Amended Complaint by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.(Holahan, Sandra) (Entered: 03/17/2004)
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULING Scheduling Conference set April 12, 2004 is now set for 4/15/2004 02:15 PM in Courtroom 8 before Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/05/2004)
26 JOINT STATEMENT re scheduling conference. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
27 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/13/2004)
28 CERTIFICATION pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, ANDREW FORMAN, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, DANFORD LARKIN, ROBERT PARK, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/21/2004)
29 Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered SCHEDULING ORDER:Fact Discovery due by 12/31/2004.Pltf's expert disclosures by 01/31/05,deft's expert disclosures by 02/28,2005. Expert deposition completed on or before 03/31/05. Motions due by 4/15/2005, respond due within 21 days.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/29/2004)
30 JOINT MOTION for ENTRY of Stipulated Protective Order by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, ANDREW FORMAN, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, DANFORD LARKIN, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, ROBERT PARK, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 07/20/2004)
31 Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered STIPULATEDPROTECTIVE ORDER(Howarth, George) (Entered: 08/05/2004)
32 MOTION To take more than Ten Depositions and request for oral arguments. by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, ANDREW FORMAN, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, DANFORD LARKIN,

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 9 of 11

11/12/2004
11/24/2004 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 12/08/2004
12/13/2004 12/27/2004 12/29/2004
01/04/2005 03/30/2005
04/05/2005 04/13/2005 04/13/2005

ROBERT PARK, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
33 MEMORANDUM in Support re 32 MOTION To take more than Ten Depositions filed by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, ANDREW FORMAN, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, DANFORD LARKIN, ROBERT PARK, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 11/15/2004)
35 Opposition re 32 MOTION To take more than Ten Depositions filed by Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1# 2 Exhibit 2)(Howarth, George) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
34 MOTION for Leave to File Amended Motion to Take More Than Ten Depositions by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD. (Attachments: # 1)(Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
NOTICE of Hearing on Motion 32 MOTION To take more than Ten Depositions: Motion Hearing set for 12/8/2004 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 12/01/2004)
ELECTRONIC Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Morris E. Lasker : Motion Hearing held on 12/8/2004 re 32 MOTION To take more than Ten Depositions filed by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MAUREEN CANCEMI, ANDREW FORMAN, DANFORD LARKIN, ROBERT PARK. Arguments; motion taken under advisement (Court Reporter none.) (Howarth, George) (Entered: 12/10/2004)
38 Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered denying 32 Motion Take more than 10 depositions.For full text see docket no 38 . (Howarth, George) Modified on 2/11/2005 (Howarth, George). Modified on 6/22/2005 (Catino2, Theresa). (Entered: 01/04/2005)
37 NOTICE of Appearance by Salvador M. Llach on behalf of Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. c/s. (Bell, Marie) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
36 JOINT MOTION to Amend 26 Joint statement re scheduling conference by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, Reginald Clark, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, ANDREW FORMAN, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, DANFORD LARKIN, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority, ROBERT PARK, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith. c/s.(Bell, Marie) (Entered: 12/30/2004)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered granting 36 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. (Howarth, George) Modified on 2/11/2005 (Howarth, George). Modified on 6/22/2005 (Catino2, Theresa). (Entered: 01/07/2005)
39 JOINT MOTION to Amend Scheduling Order by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., ROBERT PARK, DANFORD LARKIN, ANDREW FORMAN, MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/04/2005)
NOTICE of Hearing re Status Conference :Hearing set for 4/13/2005 10:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Judge Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/05/2005)
Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Morris E. Lasker : Status Conference held on 4/13/2005.Proposed amended scheduling order adopted by the Court. Parties to file joint report of progress of case by beginning October 2005 (Court Reporter none.) (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/19/2005)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered granting 39 Motion to Amend Scheduling Order. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/19/2005)

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 10 of 11

07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/25/2005 07/27/2005
08/01/2005 10/12/2005
03/01/2006 03/10/2006 03/15/2006 03/20/2006 03/28/2006 04/14/2006
04/20/2006
04/20/2006 06/01/2006 06/05/2006
06/15/2006

40 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD. (Attachments: # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 # 5 # 6 # 7 # 8 # 9 # 10 # 11 # 12 # 13 # 14 # 15 # 16 # 17)(Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
41 MEMORANDUM in Support re 40 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD. (Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
42 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum In Excess of Twenty Pages by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD.(Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 07/25/2005)
43 JOINT MOTION to Stay. Counsel will file updated report to the Court in early October, 2005. by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., ROBERT PARK, DANFORD LARKIN, ANDREW FORMAN, MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority.(Howarth, George) (Entered: 08/01/2005)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered granting 43 Motion to Stay (Howarth, George) (Entered: 08/02/2005)
44 JOINT STATUS REPORT by Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc., ROBERT PARK, DANFORD LARKIN, ANDREW FORMAN, MAUREEN CANCEMI, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD, Rogera Robinson, Gene Smith, Reginald Clark, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 10/21/2005)
45 First NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by Taramattie Doucette on behalf of Attorney Caryn Mitchell. (Doucette, Taramattie) (Entered: 03/01/2006)
46 First MOTION to Intervene Thomas Gilbert as a Named Plaintiff by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD.(Doucette, Taramattie) (Entered: 03/10/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 3/28/2006 02:30 PM in Courtroom 8 before Senior Judge Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 03/15/2006)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : Electronic ORDER entered granting on consent 46 Motion to Intervene (Howarth, George) (Entered: 03/20/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Morris E. Lasker : Status Conference held on 3/28/2006.The status of the case was reviewed. (Court Reporter none.) (Howarth, George) (Entered: 03/30/2006)
47 Joint MOTION for Settlement Approval by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD. (Attachments: # 1 Settlement Agreement# 2 Settlement Notice# 3 Summary of Settlement Notice# 4 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 04/14/2006)
48 Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered granting 47 Motion for Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement and Notice of Fairness Hearing for June 15, 2006 at 9:30 a.m.For Full Text see Docket No. 48 . (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
NOTICE of Hearing: FAIRNESS Hearing set for 6/15/2006 09:30 AM in Courtroom 8 before Senior Judge Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 04/20/2006)
49 MOTION for Attorney Fees by all plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Manning Affidavit)(Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 06/01/2006)
E−Mail Notice returned as undeliverable. Name of Addressee: Salvador Llach. The ECF Help Desk has contacted the law firm, who advised that attorney Llach is no longer employed at that office. The attorney's email address has been removed from the ECF database to prevent the return of additional undeliverable email notices. (Hurley, Virginia) (Entered: 06/05/2006)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Morris E. Lasker : Settlement Conference held on 6/15/2006. Fairness Hearing Held. Court hears from

Case: 1:02-cv-11504 As of: 03/09/2013 07:08 PM EST 11 of 11

06/15/2006 06/28/2006
06/28/2006
06/29/2006
01/30/2007 01/30/2007 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 02/01/2007 07/12/2007

counsel on both sides and the Court hears from the following Individuals and as Class Representatives: Joanne Daniels−Finegold,Rogera Robinson,Reginald Clark, and Robert Park. The Court signs the The Order of Final Judgment in open Court. Order to issue (Court Reporter Marcia G. Patrisso.) (Howarth, George) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
50 Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered. FINAL JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1−Settlement Agreement)(Howarth, George) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
51 EXCERPT TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on June 15, 2006 before Judge Lasker. Court Reporter: Marcia G. Patrisso 617/737−8728. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 06/28/2006)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : Electronic ORDER entered.Granting on Consent re 49 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Eileen Brewster,, Boston Center For Independent Living, Inc.,, Janis Harris,, Matlyn D. Starks,, Rogera Robinson,, John Alleyne,, Gene Smith,, Reginald Clark,, Louise Beach,, JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD,, MADELYN JOAN GOLDEN,, MYRNAIRIS CEPEDA,, MAUREEN CANCEMI,, ANDREW FORMAN,, DANFORD LARKIN,, ROBERT PARK,, Thomas Gilbert, (Howarth, George) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
52 COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT of Fairness Hearing held on June 15, 2006 before Judge Lasker. Court Reporter: Marcia G. Patrisso 617/737−8728. The original transcripts are maintained in the case file in the Clerk's Office. Copies may be obtained by contacting the court reporter or the Clerk's Office. (Scalfani, Deborah) (Entered: 06/29/2006)
53 Joint MOTION for Order to Appoint Independent Monitor by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD.(Manning, Daniel) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Hearing : For Approval of Independent Monitor.Hearing set for 2/1/2007 11:00 AM in Courtroom 8 before Senior Judge Morris E. Lasker. (Howarth, George) (Entered: 01/30/2007)
Judge Morris E. Lasker : Electronic ORDER entered granting 53 Motion for Order appointment of independent monitor (Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
54 Judge Morris E. Lasker : ORDER entered.granting re 53 Joint MOTION for Order to Appoint Independent Monitor filed by JOANNE DANIELS−FINEGOLD,(Patrick J. King Appointed as Independent Monitor(Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
ElectronicClerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Morris E. Lasker : Status Conference held on 2/1/2007. Tkhe joint motion for appointment of a Independant monitor is approved. (Court Reporter none.) (Howarth, George) (Entered: 02/02/2007)
55 COPY OF GREEN LINE EXTENSION PROCESS REPORT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Copy of letter to Mr. Woelfel# 2 Exhibit B copy of letter to Mr.Talbot)(Howarth, George) (Entered: 07/17/2007)