(fH t 1 ~ s-,;2 2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 1 of 15 Pg ID 1

I

AA

\'? '

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT QR\G\NA.L
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.

07 .. 11 7 0 2
SEAN f. GOA

Richard R Bernstein (P585 51)

MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEPE

David M. Cohen (P55883)

Law Offices of Samuel I. Bernstein

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

31100 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, MI 48334 248-737-8400
----------------------------~/
COMPLAINT

r· .. ·~ ,"'.•
'"
..... ,..,
·~··!
'
_.,. .. ,.~~···)
~~,~.·;

,.....,
~;;
,-_--
-o
:.:t,:.)
--' )>
~·'?

='1-1-
r~n-
0

Plaintiff, Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America state as follows:

w
0

LAW OFFICES
SAMUEL 1. BERNSTEIN
31100 NOIIT~WII:$Tl~~ lllt;;HWAV
f'ARMII'iOiON HU.L.$,
MICH14AN 4U!4•2fi19
(2.48) ,37·8400

INTRODUCTION l. Plaintiff brings this action to put an end to the University ofMichigan's failure to
comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act of1990, 42 U.S.C. 12131 et seq. ("ADA"), at the University ofMichigan Football Stadium. 2. The University ofMichigan is discriminating against Plaintiff, Plaintiff's members, and others similarly situated by denying them equal access to seating at University ofMichigan Football Stadium (stadium). The discriminatory acts and omissions include, but are not limited to, the following:

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 2 of 15 Pg ID 2

a. The University ofMichigan has undertaken costly and substantial renovations to the stadium that it knows, or should know, triggers compliance with the ADA.
b. Under ADA guidelines, the stadium should ensure that I% of its seats are accessible to attendees who are wheelchair users or are otherwise mobilityimpaired. Yet, less than I00 seats are currently available for the disabled out of a seating capacity of over 107,000.
c. ADA guidelines further provide that seating be provided throughout the stadium at various locations and at various price ranges. Currently, the stadium has disabled seating only in the end zones.
3. By ignoring ongoing discrimination and continuing to deny equal access to the stadium for Plaintiff and others with disabilities, the Defendant treats them as second-class citizens, unjustly disregards their basic rights to equality and dignity, and causes embarrassment, humiliation, harassment and emotional distress. Therefore, Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and declaratory relief to redress Defendant's past and continuing violation oftheir rights under federal law.

LAW OP'PICI!:S
SAMUEL 1. BERNSTEIN
~1100 NOFITHWESTUN HHIHWAV
FARMINGTON HII.LS, MICHIIJAN 483S4•2!H9
(248) 737·8400

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 1331, because
Plaintiff's claims arise under federal statutes, the ADA and Section 504. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff's claims for declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S. C. 220 1-02.

2

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 3 of 15 Pg ID 3

5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District ofMichigan, Southern Division, because the University ofMichigan is situated within the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391, and because the events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred in this district.

LAW OP'FICE:S
SAMUH I. 9E~N$TEIN
31100 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY FARMINGTON HILLS,
MI¢HJ(f.AN 4Slnl4·ii:.IU9
(248) 737·8400

PARTIES 6. Plaintiff, Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, is a chapter ofthe Paralyzed
Veterans of America, and a non-profit organization based in Novi, Michigan. 7. The Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America has standing to bring the present
cause ofaction. a. Plaintiff has many members who are physically disabled according to the
definition provided by the ADA, as they are "substantially impaired in the major life activity ofwalking". Many of these members wish to attend football games in Michigan Stadium but are being denied their right as provided to them by the
ADA
b. Other members ofPlaintiff's group, have attended games and/or have season tickets to the stadium, but are denied enjoyment ofthe game through difficulties with accessibility, obstructed views, and being treated in a derogatory manner due to the lack of ADA compliant accommodation.
8. The University ofMichigan is a public entity within the meaning and definition of the ADA, as it is a public university.

3

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 4 of 15 Pg ID 4

LAW OFFICI;;;!;>
SAMUEL I. BERNSTEIN
FARMINGTON Hlli,.S, MICHIGAN 48334·2519

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. The University ofMichigan owns and operates the stadium, site ofall home games
for the University ofMichigan Wolverine Football Team, University Undergraduate Education Ceremonies, and various other university wide events and other public events throughout the year. 10. The Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America has members who would attend Michigan football games and other events held at the stadium, but they are effectively barred due to the lack of accessibility. 11. The University ofMichigan entered into a Commitment to Resolve Agreement {Agreement) in 1999, with the United States Department ofEducation, Office for Civil Rights. The Agreement was aimed to resolve issues regarding the lack of accessibility for the disabled. 12. The University has taken some steps to increase training and provide better signage at the stadium subsequent to this Agreement, but the major issue of improved accessibility remains unaddressed. 13. As of the filing ofthis Complaint, the University remains under federal investigation for failing to comply with their legal obligations to provide accessibility for disabled patrons. 14. In recent years, the University has undertaken a massive and costly rebuilding and renovation to large sections ofthe Stadium, including the installation of new benches, the replacement of the concrete foundation ofthe stadium, and other massive renovations, and plans to undertake further renovations and alterations in

4

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 5 of 15 Pg ID 5

LAW OFfi'ICES
SAMUEL J. BERNSTEIN
31100 NORtHWESTERN HIGHWAY
fARMIN(HON HILLS, MICHIGAN <4.e:!l!4·~1!!11e
(2.48) 737·8400

the future. Such work triggers the need to comply with the higher accessibility requirements spelled out in the ADA. 15. Specifically, the ADA provides in Section 504 at 34 CF.R. Sec. 104.23 that each facility or part ofa facility which is altered by, on behalfof, or for the use of a recipient in a manner that affects or could affect the usability ofthe facility or part of the facility shall, to the maximum extent feasible, be altered in such manner that the altered portion ofthe facility is readily accessible to and usable by an individual with a disability. 16. Additionally, 28 C.FR. Section 35.151 provides additional obligations triggered by the alterations to the stadium. 17. Although built in 1927, The Stadium would, nevertheless, have a minimum obligation to be accessible to and usable to individuals with disabilities, even absent the substantial renovations that have occurred. This is more specifically defined in 34 C.F.R. Section 104.22(a); 28 C.F.R. Section 35.1SO(a) et seq. Yet, even this standard of compliance is not met by the University. By way of example: a. Only limited end mne seating is available to Disabled fans. b. This end zone seating fails to provide adequate companion seating, as
companions are forced to sit behind loved ones, and only one companion can accompany a disabled attendee. c. The seats available offer compromised and/or obstructed views ofthe playing field.
5

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 6 of 15 Pg ID 6

LAW OFFICE'S
SAMUn I. BERNSTEIN
31100 NORTHWESTERN HIGHWAY FARMINGTON HILLS,
MICHIGAN 48.334·2!!19

d The seats provided in the end zone are further obstructed by constant pedestrian traffic which further obstructs the view and enjoyment ofthe game and/or other events at the stadium.
e. This seating is limited to less than 100 seats, out ofthe 107 thousand seating capacity ofthe stadium.
f. The seats available can not be accessed via ramps that meet minimal architectural guidelines for the disabled.
g. Stadium aisles, causeways, and other passages filii to meet minimal architectural guidelines for the disabled.
h. Restrooms remain largely inaccessible. 1. Concession areas remain largely inaccessible j. The "M-Den" section ofthe stadium remains largely inaccessible k. Adequate parking for the disabled remains un-established I. Adequate trained staffto assist disabled patrons needs to be determined and their
training updated, or in some cases initial training of staff needs to occur. m Other examples ofthe University's failure to accommodate the disabled remain
to be determined through the course of discovery. 18. These acts and omissions by the University of Michigan violate clearly established
federal law. 19. Other complaints have been filed concerning these accessibility problems with the
United States Department ofEducation. Most recently, these complaints have been consolidated under claim 15-05-2023 with the United States Department of Education, Office ofCivil Rights.

6

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 7 of 15 Pg ID 7

LAW OFPIICES
SAMUEL I, BERNSTEIN
FARMINGTON 1-111.1.$,
MICHIGAN 48834•2!119
(248) 737·8400

20. The Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America have participated in public and private meetings held by and with the University, but no resolution has been offered.
21. The denial of basic accessibility to the stadium impedes Plaintiff, its members, and other people with disabilities from full and equal enjoyment ofthe rights of citizenship in a free society. In particular, this denial results in isolation, the perpetuation of social stigmas, loneliness, and social deprivation; it produces humiliation, frustration, and low self-image; limits recreational and educational opportunities' restricts participation in numerous programs, activities, sports and services, and imposes unnecessary irrational and unlawful obstacles to enjoying the benetits available to others without disabilities_
22. The University ofMichigan has seriously injured Plaintiff, its members, and others similarly situated in other ways as well. Plaintiffs injuries include, but are not limited to, emotional distress, time lost from education, time lost from social interaction, loss of camaraderie, and pain and suffering.
23. On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that the University ofMichigan, through their agents and employees, have acted intentionally, willfully, in bad faith, and/or with reckless indifference for the federal legal rights ofPlaintiff, its members, and other with disabilities, in committing the acts and omissions stated here.
24. Defendant continues to discriminate against Plaintiff and others based on their disabilities, by denying plaintiff and others with equal access to the stadium, resulting in ongoing injury to plaintiff, its members, and other disabled individuals.

7

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 8 of 15 Pg ID 8

25, Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. While Plaintiff reserves the right to seek monetary relief, they are not expressly doing so through this complaint Plaintiff seeks equitable relief for Defendant's ongoing acts and omissions, as stated herein, and wishes for the stadium to be brought into compliance with the ADA
26. Tn short, the stadium is not accessible to the disabled, and as such, The University of Michigan is in violation ofthe American with Disabilities Act and its own announced standards of inclusion.

I,AW OFFICES
SAMUEL I. BERNSTEIN
~111)1) MOR'I'MWESTERH HIGHWAY
'MMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN 4U34•21!119'
(.2.48) 1:!.'7·8400

COtiNil VIOLATION OF TITLE ll OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT,
SPECIFICALLY, SECTION 504, 34 C.F.R., SECTION 10423 ET SEQ AND RELATED
27. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs I through 26, inclusive
28, Tn enacting the ADA, Congress expressly determined that society tends to isolate and segregate people with disabilities; that individuals with disabilities continually encounter prejudice and discrimination, including outright exclusion and the failure to eliminate exclusionary criteria; that this nation should assure equality of opportunity for all participation, independent Jiving, and economic self -sufficiency to individuals with disabilities; and that continuing discrimination impedes them from competing on an equal basis and pursuing opportunities available to other citizens, 42, U.S.C. 1210l(a),
29, The express purpose of the ADA is to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities; to

8

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 9 of 15 Pg ID 9

LAW OFFICES
SAMUEL I. BERNSTEIN
~1100 I'IORfHWESTERN HIGHWAY
j"ARMINGTON HILLS, MICHIGAN 4S!U·21519

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 42 US. C. 12101 (b). 30. The Plaintiff is composed of persons who constitute "qualified individual(s) with a disability" under the ADA 31. The University ofMichigan is a "public entity" as defined by the ADA 32. Through the acts and omissions alleged here, Defendant has acted in disregard of Plaintiff's disabilities, excluded Plaintiff and its members from access to sports programs, graduation ceremonies, services, and other activities, and subjected them to discrimination, in violation ofthe ADA 33. Defendant's acts and omissions are in violation of the equal access and nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title II ofthe ADA, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to Plaintiff and its members. 34. Defendant's acts and omissions constitute an ongoing and continuous violation of Title II ofthe ADA Unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, Defendant will continue to violate this statute and to inflict irreparable injuries for which Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. 35. The American's with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities (ADAAG) defines the term"Alteration" as utilized within the ADA 36. The ADAAG states in relevant part that an alteration is a change to a building or facility made by, on behalf of, or for the use of a public accommodation or commercial facility, that affects or could affect the usability ofthe building or

9

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 10 of 15 Pg ID 10

LAW OFFICES
SAMUEL I. BERNSTEIN
31100 NQRTMWE&TERN HIGHWAY FARMINGTON HILL.:il,
MICHIGAN 4"JJU~h~$19
(24&) 13'1·4400

facility or part thereof Alterations include, but are not limited to, remodeling, renovation, rehabilitation, reconstruction, historic changes or rearrangement in the plan configuration of walls and full-height partitions. 37. The University ofMichigan has been engaging in ongoing renovations and an essential rebuilding ofthe stadium since at least 199L The stadium has seen the replacement of whole sections ofseating and underlying concrete in 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1998 and subsequently. 38. Other recent alterations include, but are not limited to, the placement ofthe "halo" around the stadium, and the subsequent removal ofthe "halo" from the stadium due to its Jack of popularity. 39. The University plans continued massive renovations including the construction of luxury boxes and the erection of a new scoreboard. 40. Upon information and belief, the cost ofthese renovations totals in the hundreds of millions ofdollars. Even indexed for present day value, the renovations and alterations are a great many times the cost ofthe original stadium construction in 1927. 41. Upon information and belief, this rebuilding ofthe stadium was intentionally staggered so as to mask the nature ofthe extensive renovation and attempt to avoid responsibility to comply with the ADA and ADAAG. 42. The University ofMichigan entered into a Commitment to Resolve Agreement (Agreement) in 1999 with the United States Department ofEducation, Office for Civil Rights. The Agreement was aimed to resolve issues regarding the lack of

10

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 11 of 15 Pg ID 11
accessibility for the disabled, amid the clear evidence that the University was intentionally avoiding its legal obligations under the ADA to the disabled. 43. The University ofMichigan continues to denigrate its disabled students, alumni, boosters, and fans by avoiding its obligations to comply with the ADA. Intentionally delaying the implementation of disability accommodations, masking major reconstructions efforts, and seeking delays in resolving this issue at every juncture. 44. The massive rebuilding ofthe stadium, through the demolition ofold concrete, pouring of a new concrete foundation, replacement of seats, planned construction of luxury boxes, and other massive projects which will become more clearly defined through discovery, all constitute individually and collectively a "substantial alteration" under the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). 45. The UFAS provides that major alterations, such as those detailed above, trigger additional obligations to add accessible seating and to increase the accessibility of other parts ofthe stadium, such as routes, restrooms, and entrances. UFAS 4. I.6(3). 46. As stated above, the University has failed to comply with even the most minimal provisions ofthe Americans with Disabilities Act Architectural Guidelines, and is woefully in violation oftheir obligations to provide accommodation. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests the relief set forth below.
LAW OFFICES
SAMUU I, BUNSTEIN
~1100 HORTHWESTEIHJ Hl<lHW,I.V F.t.RMINGTOt-1 HILl.$,
MICHIGAN 488!4•2!11B (248) 737·8400
11

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 12 of 15 Pg ID 12

LAW OFFH;r;;;s
SAMUEL I. BERNSTEIN
:moO NORT~wt5itRN l'lllifi'IWAY
pi'AAMINiiiTON HIU$, MICHICIAN 48334•2518
(248) 737·8.400

PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff prays for the following relief: 47. A declaration that the University ofMichigan's acts and omissions unlawfully
violate plaintifrs rights under the American's with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), ADAAG guidelines, and the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards (UFAS). 48. An injunction restraining the University of Michigan from receiving further federal funding unless and until it actually provides individuals with disabilities with full and equal access to its stadium 49. An injunction restraining the University ofMichigan from proceeding with any further construction at the stadium unless and until it actually provides individuals with disabilities with full and equal access to its stadium, and allows Plaintiff, or Plaintifrs representative to review all plans and drawings prior to construction. 50. A further injunction requiring the University ofMichigan to provide individuals with disabilities with full and equal access to its stadium, and restraining the University ofMichigan from discriminating against individuals with disabilities who wish to utilize and attend the stadium. SI. Although Plaintiff seeks no compensatory damages at this time, Plaintiff wishes to reserve the right to amend and request compensatory damages should it become necessary to encourage the University to comply with federal law. 52. Although Plaintiff seeks no actual attorney's fees or costs, Plaintiff wishes to reserve the right to amend and request attorney's fees and costs should it become necessary to encourage the University to comply with Federal law.

12

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 13 of 15 Pg ID 13
53. All other relief that this Court deems just and proper.
Re~_pectfully su~ By7f'~ Richard H. Bernstein (P58551)
LAW OFFICES OF SAMUEL 1. BERNSTEIN
Attorneys for Plaintiffs 31100 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, Ml48334 (248) 737-8400 {248) 737-4392 (facsimile)
Dated: April 16, 2007
LAW OFFICE;;S
SAMUEL 1, BERNSTEIN
.!11100 NORTHWUTIUIN HI~~WAY FARMINGTON HI"-L$,
MICHIQA.N 48334•2!119 (248) 737·8400
13

.J!J!!!!:!~~~(/ 2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 14 of 15 Pg ID 14

CIVIL COVER SHEET County 1n whim this-..........

__

DEFENDANTS

MICF{IOANPARALYZEDVI!TERANSOF AMERlCA

THE UNJVERSTIY OF MJCFIIOAN

(b) CounlyofR..id<noooffin!Li>t.dl'lointlll' _,O'-'AKLA,....,ND~----­
(EXCBPT IN U.S. PLA!Nf!ff CABBS)

t'.o""ty ofR.,idenco ofFinILi>t.d Dof..,danJ WAS!!TENAW

(tN' U.S. PT..A.JNTTFF CASES ONLY)

NOTF.' !NJ.AND~'F.,A(l)tUSBtlll!LOCATIONOFTHR

T..A.ND ThlVOL .

V'lll ..

(C) Atfumey'• (Firm NIIIDq,Add·en. and Tclo~ Num.OOr)

Ri<l1IIIU H, B""'"""in (PS85S I)

(248) 865-0875

T..aw 0~! of Si.tmtcl L 8r.mstc:in

AUom.y.(lfKoowri> MAGISTRATE JUDGE PEPE

II
(] 1 U.S. G(1vommc.nt j>l<icti!'J'
(]2 U.s. Ouvennnftllt
~

(]4 Divmity
m (lli~Citi:un.hipGf~ IJ.Om DI)

OF PRINCIPAL

(for Divmity O.Soo Only)

and ()M Box for~)

Ci.t.izm!. ot'"l'h*' Stnl.l.'

I'TF r:J 1

DEF
n 1

IMorporated or Priut;ipnll'ISD~~ otBta~• Jn Thill St.atici

1'TF DEY !l 4 l":'.. 4

Citimt ofAni:Jt.1.N stn111

l"l 2 (] 2 """l'l""d .md ~Pl.,. l"l l"l 5
of Bullitll:tall In Aoother St.atM

Citinn,tW Su1:9aot a£n

n3 0

Fortign Natiat

n 6 n6

~no A~rpklm
:;115 Airplicm Produ:t Lillhilley
320 Aum,Jit,. J.ih(ll &
Sl"'"" ~~ li'!l&mtl &:tpk:J:Yan'
Liability 340 Marino 345 MwirJ:I Product
LiAbility
3:SO Mt11t:!r Vehiole :USJ\klb Vt~biole
Product LiiSbility
360 O!hot P•'"'"ol

PE!UnNAL lN.nmv 0 362 PCIEIKillll Il'!iwy ~
Mod. :M..Ipllatioe CJ 3~ Pa~ .lqjury •
Produtt L:ill.bility
n 368 A»b¢lltot P01'lf.Oml U,iuryPrOO...t
I.~\ity
PERSONAl, PROFERT\:' C 310 Odusr Fraud (] 371 'fruih :in Lending
(] 3&) Othor """""" PrQPNty Du:ro.~t:~
n )S.'i Propcrrty Damase
PrOO.Iet Littbilil;Y

LJ 220 FDniDll;llllrC
0 230 Ra Loll• & Ejeeb:rulttt
CJ :240 ram to J..md
CJ :24J Tari~LiJbility
0 l90 AIL Other.t lteel Pro,:my t.~::'~~~:~illii••.

-U.INIMCarp~~~:
!30o...m.l 535 Doath l'M>Ity :540 Mondamw: & Otlw!r sso Civil Righi»
555 PriBon Croditiot:J

610Agri~e

LJ 422 AppeR-128 USC !58

400 Stab! Ita~

<520 Othor Food & On,;;

LJ 423 Witi:Jhwsl

41 0 AtJI.i:tn.t

62S Drug ltelat.od """"" o£Propcrty 21 USC 881
6:W Liquor l.aWB. 6«) R.R. & Tnw)r

2l!I:USCI~

"E!JE.f.!iiiiili:::jl ~

~ ~~ 443~0C,o.m.n.t,e"r"~" """"""
44670 ()~]jJJ]-and

650 AfriiOQ Regs, 660~

furupl~
480 C'l;lfl!\11101' Orodit

&l'ely!Health

4~ CUblo/Sat TV

lltltC=~" 810 Seleative ~il;!rll' B:5o Seourit.ie&ll..anJII!lditim/ ~

'" 7'1» Ll!bortrvfaml;. Rl!'liltionJ

87j C."Uitoiuar cbnlkiv,sr:t 12UiC 3410

~~~~~t~~j~ 730 """'IM""'.F.opmillt! & Diacbnn Am

740 ltttilway Labor AQt

~

8S() Orbflr Stallltmy Alrlimlll $89912~ Agj riouQltursatw!MbilaiZIIItion

190 other l~ t,itijlltion 791 Bmpl. Ret Inc.

:em.s.r 893 Erwll'omtMtal MA!Mfi.

894

AllooatiQ:l.AQt.

Security Acrl:

8~ F'ntcdom or Infmnatian

Am

-........ IXJO.Appealo(Fr:~r:~ Det«ttilil.ll.tim u~ A«:a~~ to Jwtiot! 9:50 Con.lituti01mhl;y of

Cito tho U,s. Civil Statut4 wtd« which you arc filins (Do 111.ot dte jurladldioaal statates ualesll dtverllty);
Vl CAUSE OF ACTION TIIEAMERlCANSWITHDISAIIlLITIESACTOF 1990

VII REQUESTED IN COMPLAINT:

Bri.CdOI<riptioo of """•'

' t sceb l:i) hl\Ve Dettodmt oo ~with ADA

!l.tadiwn acx:es:!iibili

n CllllCK IF TillS IS A CLASS ACTION

DEMAND S

UNDERFJtC.P.23

Equitable Relief

c:H:EcK YRS only if~' JURY DEMAND: 1J y.,

VTIL RELATlW CASE(S)

IF ANY

(S.. imtructloo.): JUDGE

DOCKI!T NUMBER

OATB
Aprill6, 2007
fOR OFFJCE triif ONLY

SlCNATtiR.B OF ATIORNEY OF~
~~~

-------- - - - - ----- llBC.tiiPT H

AMoUNT

Al'l'L YlNO IFP

JUDC>B - - - - - MA<l rutl<>E - - - - - - -

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 04/17/07 Pg 15 of 15 Pg ID 15
TO LOCAL RULE 83.11

1.

Is this a casa that has been previously dismissed?

If yes, give the following information: Court: ________________________________

DYes
[l] No

Case No.: -----------------------~----
Judge:-----------------

2.

Other than stated above, are there any pending or previously discontinued or dismissed companion cases in this or any other

Oves

court, including state court? (Companion cases are matters in which [l] No
it appears substantially similar evidence will be offered or the same

or related parties are present and the cases arise out of the same

transaction or occurrence.)

If yes, give the following information: Court: _____________________________

Case N o . : - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Judge:----------------

Notes:

 
 2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 1 of 30 Pg ID 93
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DNISION

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNNERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.

No. 07-11702 Honorable Sean F. Cox Magistrate Judge Pepe

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNNERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Defendants.

UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the United States hereby moves this Court for leave to intervene in this action as ofright, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) or, alternatively, in permissive intervention pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(b). As explained in the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, filed herewith, the United States has substantial enforcement responsibilities under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which statutes form the basis ofthe

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 2 of 30 Pg ID 94

federal claims in this case. The United States has significant protectable interests that may be

impaired by the outcome of this case and the United States' claims have questions of fact and law

in common with the plaintiffs claims. Accordingly, the United States respectfully urges the

Court to grant this motion for leave to intervene in this case.

The plaintiff concurs as to the United States' intervention in this action. With regard to

the defendant, the United States explained the nature of this motion and its legal basis but did not

obtain the defendant's concurrence.

Respectfully submitted,

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY Attorney General of the United States

For purposes of service only: STEPHEN J. MURPHY United States Attorney

RENA J. COMISAC Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

Is/Susan K. DeClercg SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-9149 E-mail: susan.declercg@usdoj .gov (P60545)
Dated November 20, 2007

JOHN L. WODATCH, Chief PHILIP L. BREEN, Special Legal Counsel RENEE M. WOHLENHAUS, Deputy Chief Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division
Is/Kathleen Devine KATHLEEN S. DEVINE DAVID BOOTH Trial Attorneys Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - NYA Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0480 Facsimile: (202) 307-9775 E-mail: kathleen.s.devine@usdoj. gov

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 3 of 30 Pg ID 95

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant.

No. 07-11702 Honorable Sean F. Cox Magistrate Judge Pepe

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF THE UNITED STATES' MOTION TO INTERVENE ·

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 4 of 30 Pg ID 96
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ............................................. m STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .......................................... vi ISSUES AND AUTHORITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii INTRODUCTION ...................................................... 1 A. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .................. 1 B. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................... 5 C. ARGUMENT .................................................... 9
1. The United States is Entitled to Intervention of Right ............... 9 (a) The United States' Application for Intervention is Timely ..... 9 (b) The United States Has a Substantial Legal Interest in the Action 13 (c) Intervention is Necessary to Protect the United States' Interest. . 15 (d) The United States' Interest is Inadequately Represented by Existing Parties. . ................................. 16
2. The United States' Application for Permissive Intervention Should be Granted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
CONCLUSION ....................................................... 19 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ............................................ 21
11

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 5 of 30 Pg ID 97
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Cabot LNG Corp. v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 162 F.R.D. 427 (D.P.R. 1995) ........ 17 Ceres Gulfv. Cooper, 957 F.2d 1199 (5th Cir. 1992) ....................... 14, 16 Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343 (6th Cir. 1989) ............................... 10 Grutt~r v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) ...................... vii, 13, 16 Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 612 F.2d 84 (3d Cir. 1979) .......... 19 Jansen v. City ofCincinatti, 904 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1990) ................ vii, 10, 16 Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997) .... vii, 9, 13, 15, 16, 18 Midwest Realty Management Co. v. City ofBeaverwood,
93 Fed. Appx. 782, 786 (6th Cir. 2004) .......................... 10 Nat 'l Farm Lines v. Interstate Commerce Comm 'n,
564 F.2d 381 (lOth Cir. 1977) .................................. 17 Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694 (D.C. Cir. 1967) .............................. 14 Purnell v. City ofAkron, 925 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1991) ............. vii, 9, 13, 15, 18 Scotts Valley Band ofPomo Indians ofthe Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States,
921 F.2d 924 (9th Cir. 1990) ............................... 16, 17 Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg,
268 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001) ................................... 17 United States v. City ofLos Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391 (9th Cir. 2002) ........... 15 United States v. Marsten Apts, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 265 (E.D. Mich. 1997) ............ 12 Statutory Provisions 28 U.S.C. § 2403 ....................................................... 1
111

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 6 of 30 Pg ID 98
29 U.S.C. § 794 ..................................................... vi, 1 29 U.S.C. § 794a ...................................................... 2, 8
42 u.s.c. § 12101 .................................................. 13, 14
42 U.S.C. § 12131 ................................................ ·. vi, 1, 2
42 u.s.c. § 12132 ...................................................... 2 42 u.s.c. § 12133 ................................................... 8, 14 42 u.s.c. § 12134 ...................................................... 14
42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.. ................................................. 8 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-1 (reprinting Executive Order 12250) ..................... 8, 14 Other Authorities 28 C.F.R. Part 35 ....................................................... 14 28 C.F.R. § 35.130 .................................................... 2, 3 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 ...................................................... 3 28 C.F.R. § 35.150 .................................................... 3, 4 28C.F.R.§35.151 ...................................................... 4 28C.F.R.§35.171 ................................................... 8,14 28 C.F.R. § 35.174 ..................................................... 14 28 C.F.R. § 35.190 ..................................................... 14 34 C.F.R. § 100.6 ........................................................ 6 34. C.F.R. § 100.8(a) ................................................... 6, 8 34 C.F.R. Part 101 ....................................................... 6
IV

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 7 of 30 Pg ID 99 34 C.F.R. § 104.4 ..................................................... 2, 3 34 C.F.R. § 104.21 ...................................................... 3 34 C.F.R. § 104.22 ...................................................... 4 34 C.F.R. § 104.23 .............-......................................... 4 34 C.F.R. § 104.61 ................................................... 6, 7, 8 45 Fed. Reg. 72995 (Nov. 2, 1980) ........................................ 14 Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 ................................... vi, vii, 1, 9, 13, 15, 18, 19 Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 ....................................................... 9
v

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 8 of 30 Pg ID 100
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES The United States of America (the "United States") files this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Intervene in this action for injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 794. The action stems from the alleged failure of the defendants, the University of Michigan and the Regents of the University of Michigan (collectively "the University") to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with equal access to the programs, services, and activities at the University's football stadium (the "Stadium"). The United States requests leave to intervene of right, or, alternatively, to intervene by permission, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
VI

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 9 of 30 Pg ID 101
ISSUES AND AUTHORITY 1. Intervention of right is warranted in this case because the United States has significant
protectable interests in the enforcement of Title II and Section 504 which are not adequately represented by the existing parties and which may as a practical matter be impaired if intervention is denied.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2); Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997) Grutter v, Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394 (6th Cir. 1999) Jansen v. City ofCincinnati, 904 F.2d 336 (6th Cir. 1990) 2. Alternatively, permissive intervention is warranted because the United States' claims against the University of Michigan and its Board of Regents have questions of law and fact in common with the main action, and the main action involves the interpretation of statutes that the Attorney General is entrusted by Congress to administer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2); Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240 (6th Cir. 1997) Purnell v. City ofAkron, 925 F.2d 941 (6th Cir. 1991)
Vll

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 10 of 30 Pg ID 102
INTRODUCTION The United States files this Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of its Motion to Intervene in this action for injunctive and declaratory relief to remedy alleged violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("Title II" and "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973 ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794. The defendants, the University of Michigan and the Regents of the University of Michigan (collectively "the University"), fail to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with equal access to the services, programs, and activities at the University's football stadium (the· "Stadium"). The United States requests leave to intervene of right, or, alternatively, to intervene by permission, pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. As discussed more fully below, the United States meets the standards both for intervention of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and for permissive intervention pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2). 1 Accordingly, the United States' motion to intervene should be granted.
A. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND The proposed Complaint in Intervention, attached as Exhibit 1, generally alleges that the defendants have discriminated and continue to discriminate, against individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, by excluding them from participation in and denying them the benefits of the services, programs, and activities at the Stadium in violation of Title II of
1In the event defendants were to challenge the constitutionality of Title II, as suggested by p. 18 ofthe Answer filed on May 21,2007, (Document 7, Answer) the United States has a right to intervene authorized by statute. 28 U.S.C. § 2403(a).
1

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 11 of 30 Pg ID 103
the ADA and Section 504. The Complaint in Intervention further alleges that this discrimination is evidenced by the defendants' failure to provide program accessibility at the Stadium and their failure to make alterations and additions to the Stadium so that the altered and added portions are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
Title II of the ADA prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by public entities, the definition of which includes an instrumentality of a State, such as a public university like the University of Michigan. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)(A) and (B) (defming "public entity" under the ADA). Title II contains provisions that apply to all public entities, and states that "no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity." 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 CFR 35.130(a).
Section 504 also prohibits discrimination against individuals with disabilities by recipients of federal financial assistance, such as public universities. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a) and (b). Section 504 states that no "qualified individual with a disability" shall "be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any
.
program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. § 794 (a) and (b); 34 C.F.R. 104.4(a).
Prohibited discrimination includes, in pertinent part, denying a qualified individual with a disability the opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid, benefit, or service; affording a qualified individual with a disability an opportunity to participate in or benefit from the aid,
2

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 12 of 30 Pg ID 104
benefit, or service that is not equal to that afforded others; providing a qualified individual with a disability with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result, to gain the same benefit, or to reach the same level of achievement as that provided to others; or providing different or separate aids, benefits, or services to individuals with disabilities or to any class of individuals with disabilities than is provided to others unless such action is necessary to provide qualified individuals with disabilities with aids, benefits, or services that are as effective as those provided to others. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(b)(l)(i-iv); see 34 C.F.R. 104.4(b)(l)(i-iv)~ Also, the public entity must administer its services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. 35.130(d); 34 C.F.R. 104.4(b)(2).
In addition to these general prohibitions against discrimination, both regulations contain specific requirements for program accessibility. The ADA regulations mandate that "except as otherwise provided in§ 35.150, no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a public entity's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be excluded from participation in, or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any public entity. 28 C.F.R. 35.149. See 34 C.F.R.104.21.2 The Title II and Section 504 regulations contain an overarching standard for
2The regulations implementing Section 504 require that no qualified individual with a disability shall, because a recipient's facilities are inaccessible to or unusable by individuals with disabilities, be denied the benefits of, be excluded from participation in, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity to which Section 504 applies. 34 C.F.R. 104.21.
3

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 13 of 30 Pg ID 105
achieving program access for existing facilities; additional requirements are imposed if the facility is altered or ifnew construction occurs. See 28 C.F.R. 35.150- 35.151; 34 C.F.R. 104.22 -104.23. With regard to existing facilities, program access requires that a public entity operate each service, program, or activity, so that when viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. 35.150; see also 34 C.F.R. 104.22. One method for achieving program access in existing facilities is to undertake alterations to make the facility accessible, and such alterations must meet the accessibility requirements of28 C.F.R. 35.151. 28 C.F.R. 35.150(b); see also 34 C.F.R. 104.22(b). Also, in choosing among available methods for satisfying program access for existing facilities, the public entity is required to give priority to those methods that offer services, programs, and activities to qualified ind_ividuals with disabilities in the most integrated setting appropriate. 28 C.F.R. 35.150(b)(l); 34 C.F.R. 104.22(b).
Additional requirements for program access are imposed if a facility or part of a facility is altered in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of the facility or part of the facility, 28 C.F.R. 35.151(b); 34 C.F.R. 104.23(b), or if new construction is begun, 28 C.F.R. 35.15l(a); 34 C.F.R. 104.23(a).
The United States' proposed Complaint in Intervention alleges discrimination by the University in failing to provide program accessibility at the Stadium in violation of Title II and Section 504, and their implementing regulations. Through intervention, the United States seeks to ensure that the programs and activities offered at the Stadium are accessible not just to the private plaintiff but to all other disabled individuals with mobility impairments who seek to
4

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 14 of 30 Pg ID 106
attend stadium events.
B. FACTUALBACKGROUND
On April 17, 2007, Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, a chapter ofthe Paralyzed Veterans of America, instituted this suit against the University of Michigan alleging violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 through discrimination in the provision of services, programs and activities at the Stadium. The private plaintiff alleges, in pertinent part, that the Stadium has an insufficient number of wheelchair seats, those wheelchair seats are limited to the end zone areas, and have obstructed views; the Stadium has inaccessible routes, inaccessible toilets, inaccessible concession stands, inaccessible souvenir stands, and inaccessible parking; and that the University of Michigan also has undertaken significant alterations of its Stadium without complying with the relevant accessibility standard. (Document 1, ~~ 7, 10,37-41,4446.)
The U.S. Department of Education ("ED") has been investigating similar allegations regardingthe inaccessibility of the Stadium. It began one investigation in February 1999 based upon a complaint it received.3 As part of that investigation, the University provided to ED a simple, incomplete list of projects at the Stadium up to 1999 ("1999 List ofLists"), but did not provide any details about any of those projects. Exhibit 2, LOF, p.4. Because ED's complaint investigation manual at that time provided for voluntary resolution, without completion of an
3 See U.S. Department of Education's formal Letter of Findings, dated October 26, 2007, to the University notifying it that it has violated Section 504, Title II of the ADA, and their implementing regulations, ("LOF"), p. 2, attached as Exhibit 2.
5

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 15 of 30 Pg ID 107
investigation or findings of noncompliance, and in consideration ofthe University'.s seeming agreement, in pertinent part, to improve accessibility at the Stadium in all future renovations or alterations, ED stopped its investigation and instead entered into a Commitment to Resolve,4 thereby closing its investigation without issuing any findings of violations. See Exhibit 2, LOF, pp. 2-3.
The University submitted several summary monitoring reports pursuant to this Commitment, briefly stating that it had no plans to renovate or alter the Stadium. Exhibit 2, LOF, p. 3. However, in 2003, ED discovered that the University had, in fact, completed several million dollar construction projects at the Stadium and then observed, during a 2004 on-site visit to the Stadium, a massive alteration of the Stadium in progress. Exhibit 2, LOF, p. 3. Determining that the University had breached the Commitment, ED reopened its investigation in July 2004. See Exhibit 2, LOF, p. 3.
When ED reopened its investigation in 2004, it requested detailed plans and drawings of the various projects on the 1999 List of Lists, including specific information regarding the concrete "repair" projects in the 1990s, the construction to the souvenir stands, and the 19911992 field lowering project which added thousands of accessible seats, but the University refused to provide ariy of this information, thereby impeding ED's investigation. Exhibit 2, LOF, p.4. 5 It
4This Commitment included a provision that the "University would agree that future discussions regarding any renovations except projects currently pending approval will specifically include consideration of adding accessible sideline seating." Exhibit 2, LOF, p. 3.
5Nor could ED compel the University to provide this information absent pursuing an enforcement action or proceeding. See 34 C.F.R. 100.6, 100.8(a), 34 C.F.R. Part 101,34 C.F.R.
6

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 16 of 30 Pg ID 108
was not until three years later, after the U.S. Department of Justice (the "Department") indicated an interest in the private litigation and requested permission to participate in the facilitation, that the University began to provide to ED, in July and September 2007, some of these longrequested plans and drawings regarding work performed on the Stadium in the 1990s. Exhibit 2, LOF, pp. 4, 10, 18, 19; Letter from Gloria Hage, Interim Vice President and General Counsel, University of Michigan, to Harry Orris at ED, dated November 5, 2007 ("November 5, 2007 Hage letter"), p. 16, attached as Exhibit 3. Furthermore, it was not until August 2007 that the University submitted some plans, albeit incomplete, to ED for the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 concrete "repair" projects and updated its 1999 List of Lists revealing many more projects than it had previously disclosed to ED. Exhibit 2, LOF, p.4; Exhibit 3, November 5, 2007 Hage letter, p. 16. ED determined, however, that these plans and drawings "did not cover all relevant projects and did not include most of the information about the projects that [ED] had requested, such as specific details or descriptions of the work that was actually done." Exhibit 2, LOF, p. 4.
After efforts to resolve this matter administratively through informal negotiations failed, ED issued its LOF on October 26, 2007. Exhibit 2, LOF, p. 36. Attempts to negotiate continued but were unsuccessful. 6 As a result, on November 9, 2007, ED issued its formal ten day letter,
104.61. 6While issuance of the LOF did not preclude further settlement discussions, the
University was required to submit an acceptable remedial plan or show that it has complied with Section 504 and Title II ofthe ADA within ten calendar days of issuance of the LOF or ED would be obligated to initiate enforcement action. Exhibit 2, LOF, pp. 36-37. On the tenth day, the University responded, but did not provide any remedial plan. Exhibit 3, November 5, 2007 Hage letter. On November 7, 2007, ED contacted the University in an attempt to restart
7

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 17 of 30 Pg ID 109
attached as Exhibit 6, notifying the University that it would refer this matter to the Department for appropriate judicial reliefpursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000(d)(l); 34 C.F.R. l00.8(a). On November 20, 2007, 2007, ED formally referred this matter to the Department for enforcement, attached as Exhibit 7.
The United States has authority to take appropriate steps to enforce the statutes and regulations at issue, see 29 U.S.C. § 794a, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 42 U.S.C. § 12133, 34 C.F.R. 100.8(a), 34 C.F.R. 104.61, 28 C.F.R. 35.171(a)(3). In the interests ofjudicial economy, to avoid duplication, and because the private suit involves many of the same facts and issues, the United States is instead moving to intervene in the private litigation presently before this Court. However, because of the inability of the government previously to compel certain discovery from the defendants, see discussion supra, and the fact that the present discovery schedule concludes in March 2007, the United States may subsequently move to extend the discovery schedule to permit additional discovery from the University, with the full panoply of discovery tools as a party to the litigation.7 In addition, of immediate concern is that the United States have the opportunity to conduct a week-long survey of the Stadium by its architect before the University begins demolishing any of the structure of the Stadium as part of its upcoming $226 million
negotiations where they had left off at the time the LOF was issued, but the University refused. Letter from Hany Orris to Gloria Rage, attached as. Exhibit 4 ; letter of Gloria Rage to Thomas Hibino, dated November 8, 2007, attached as Exhibit 5.
7Given the University's extreme reluctance and, at times, outright refusal to provide salient and highly relevant information to the government, see discussion supra, the United States anticipates future discovery battles with the University, eating up precious discovery time.
8

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 18 of 30 Pg ID 110
dollar renovation, potentially spoiling evidence. The University has stated that such work will begin this month. Exhibit 3, November 5 2007 Hage letter, p.1. To that end, the United States is simultaneously filing an emergency motion for Entry Upon Land for Inspection pursuant to Rule 34 ofthe Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
C. ARGUMENT 1. The United States Is Entitled to Intervention of Ri&ht Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) provides that upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action: when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). An applicant for intervention of right must prove four elements: (1) timeliness of the application to intervene, (2) the applicant's substantial legal interest in the case, (3) impairment of the applicant's ability to protect that interest in the absence of intervention, and (4) inadequate representation of that inter~st by parties already before the court. Michigan State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (61h Cir. 1997). "Rule 24 should be 'broadly construed in favor of potential intervenors."' Purnell v. City ofAkron, 925 F.2d 941, 950 (61h Cir. 1991). The United States meets the prerequisites for intervention of right. (a) The United States' Application for Intervention is Timely The motion for intervention cannot be considered untimely given that the intervention followed in less than twenty-four hours after the deadline for the University's last opportunity to settle the case with ED, and well before any depositions or other discovery deadlines have
9

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 19 of 30 Pg ID 111
expired. The Sixth Circuit has identified several factors relevant to determining whether a request for intervention is timely:
( 1) the point to which the suit has progressed; (2) the purpose for which intervention is sought; (3) the length of time preceding the application during which the proposed intervenor knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case; (4) the prejudice to the original parties due to the proposed. intervenor's failure, after he or she knew or reasonably should have known of his interest in the case, to apply promptly for intervention; and (5) the existence of unusual circumstances militating against or in favor of Intervention. Grubbs v. Norris, 870 F.2d 343, 345 (6th Cir. 1989). "The determination ofwhether a motion to intervene is timely should be evaluated in the context of all relevant circumstances.., Jansen v. City ofCincinatti, 904 F.2d 336, 340 (61h Cir. 1990). As the Sixth Circuit found in a case where it permitted intervention after the expiration ofthe discovery period and settlement negotiations had produced a conditional settlement agreement, "[T]he time between the filing of the complaint and the motion to intervene, in itself, is among the least important circumstances. What is more critical is the progress made in discovery and motion practice during the course of the litigation." Midwest Realty Management Co. v. City ofBeaverwood, 93 Fed. Appx. 782, 786 (6th Cir. 2004), (internal citations omitted), attached as Exhibit 8.8 Applying these factors in the instant case, the United States' application for intervention is timely. Plaintiff filed suit on April 17, 2007, and the Department learned of the litigation shortly thereafter. The litigation is still at an early stage - at present, little discovery has been
8In Jansen, the Court permitted intervention several months into the discovery period and after briefing on a motion for summary judgement. Jansen v. City ofCincinnati, 904 F.2d at 339-341.
10

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 20 of 30 Pg ID 112
produced by the defendant, no formal architectural survey of the Stadium has been conducted, no depositions have been taken, and experts have not been named.
Second, the Department's decision to seek intervention reflects the results of its review of the factual information it was able to collect, its determination that the University does not provide program accessibility at the Stadium, and the importance of ensuring that the United States' statutes and regulations are properly interpreted and applied in this case, thereby ensuring that all individuals have equal access to the program, services, activities, and opportunities afforded by the University at the Stadium.
Third, while the United States became aware of the private litigation last spring, it reasonably anticipated that this case would settle, either through court-ordered facilitation or administratively with ED. Approximately one month after the Complaint was filed, the litigation was referred to facilitation. (Document 9, Order Scheduling Facilitation and Status Conference.) When this Court moved the case out of facilitation and entered a Scheduling Order, establishing dates for discovery (Document 11, Scheduling Order), ED and the University were involved in "intense settlement discussions" with the University that continued "right up until the time that [ED] released its LOF" late last month. See Exhibit 3, November 5, 2007 Hage letter, p.2. Because of the University's seeming interest in resolving this matter administratively and its participation in these heightened settlement discussions with ED during the summer and fall of 2007, see id., the Department determined not to intervene at that time, instead letting that process with ED continue in hope that the investigation would be resolved administratively, obviating the need for intervention and thus conserving judicial resources.
11

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 21 of 30 Pg ID 113
Fourth, defendant would not be unduly prejudiced by the United States' intervention at this time nor by any subsequent motion to extend the discovery schedule. U S. v. Mars ten Apts, Inc., 175 F.R.D. 265, 267-268 (E.D. Mich. 1997) (Court found that even though some discovery had been taken, the case was not significantly close to trial and the need for additional discovery would not unduly prejudice the party opposing intervention). Indeed, the University contributed to any delay in the United States' efforts to intervene by its repeated refusals to provide highly relevant. information, see discussion supra, its piecemeal partial production of salient information throughout July, August, and September, 2007, see Exhibit 3, November 5, 2007 Hage letter, p. 16, and its efforts to extend negotiations with ED throughout the summer and fall of 2007, see id., p. 2.
Finally, this case involves an important and complex issue, the accessibility of the University's renowned football stadium amid allegations that the University denies access to the Stadium to this country's paralyzed veterans and other disabled individuals. This case will be watched closely by other public colleges and universities for guidance regarding what is required to achieve compliance in other arenas. The Department's extensive experience with the statutes at issue, the important issues raised regarding compliance for this stadium and other public arenas, all militate in favor of intervention. The United States's expertise would likely increase efficiency throughout the litigation by avoiding duplicative discovery and by utilizing expertise and resources of the Department of Justice, the agency ultimately responsible for ADA compliance at the Stadium. In light of these facts, the United States' application for intervention of right is timely.
12

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 22 of 30 Pg ID 114
(b) The United States Has a Substantial Leeal Interest in the Action With regard to the second Rule 24(a)(2) factor, the Sixth Circuit takes a broad view ofthe requisite "substantial legal interest" for intervention: [I]n this circuit we subscribe to a "rather expansive notion of the interest sufficient to invoke intervention of right." Mich. State AFL-CIO v. Miller, 103 F.3d 1240, 1245 (61h Cir. 1997). For example, an intervenor need not have the same standing necessary to initiate a lawsuit. See id.; Purnell v. City ofAkron, 925 F.2d 941, 948 (61h Cir. 1991 ). We have also "cited with approval decisions of other courts 'rejecting the notion that Rule 24(a)(2) requires a specific legal or equitable interest."' Miller, 103 F.3d at 1245 (quoting Purnell, 925 F.2d at 948). "The inquiry into the substantiality of the claimed interest is necessarily fact specific." !d. . Grutter v. Bollinger, 188 F.3d 394, 398 (61h Cir. 1999). "[C]lose cases should be resolved in favor of recognizing an int~rest under Rule 24(a)." Miller, 103 F.3d at 1247. The United States' interest in the pending litigation merits intervention of right. As the federal agency charged with enforcing the ADA [and Section 504], the Department has a substantial interest in the subject matter ofthe p.ending litigation. Underlying enactment of the ADA was Congress' intent to "provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities ...." 42 U.S.C. § 121 01 (b)( 1). Congress sought "clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against individuals with disabilities," 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (b)(2), and explicitly stated that one ofthe purposes of the ADA was "to ensure that the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the standards established [in the Act] on behalf of individuals with disabilities ...." 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(3). The United States' prominent enforcement role is reflected in the statutory authorization given the Attorney General to commence a legal action
13

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 23 of 30 Pg ID 115
when discrimination prohibited by the ADA takes place. 42 U.S.C. § 12133. This case directly implicates the United States' interest in enforcing Title II of the ADA
to ensure the "clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards" envisioned by Congress. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(2). The United States also has a substantial interest in ensuring that recipients of federal financial assistance, such as the defendants, do not violate Section 504's similar prohibition of disability discrimination. Accordingly, the United States' significantly protectable interests in ensuring that this case results in clear, consistent, enforceable standards, both substantive and remedial, supports intervention of right. See, e.g., Ceres Gulfv. Cooper, 957 F.2d 1199, 1203 (51h Cir. 1992) (finding that the interest of the federal director of the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs in "consistent application of ... a statutory scheme he is charged with administering" was sufficient to support intervention as of right); Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694, 700-01 (D.C. Cir. 1967) (discussing liberalization ofRule 24(a) under 1966 amendment, and finding that state government official charged with administering a banking law had interest in advocating particular construction of the law that was sufficient to support intervention as of right).
The Department wrote the Title II regulations at issue in this case, see 42 U.S.C. § 12134, 28 C.F.R. Part 35; plays a central role in enforcing these regulations, see 42 U.S.C. § 12133, 28
C.F.R. 35.171, 28 C.F.R. 174, 28 C.F.R. 190; and plays the primary role in coordinating the implementation and enforcement of Section 504 among federal agencies, see Exec. Order No. 12250,45 Fed. Reg. 72995 (Nov. 2, 1980), reprinted in 42 U.S.C. § 2000d-l (Historical and Statutory Notes). Through this regulatory and enforcement work, the Department has
14

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 24 of 30 Pg ID 116
accumulated significant experience in guiding public entities in amending policies, practices, and procedures to conform to the mandates of Title IT and Section 504. Moreover, because the alternative to the United States' intervention in the plaintiffs lawsuit is a separate action including the United States' Title II and Section 504 claims, the efficiency goals implicit in Rule 24(a) are furthered if intervention is permitted here.
(c) Intervention is Necessary to Protect the United States' Interest Under the third intervention factor, "a would-be intervenor must show only that impairment of its substantial legal interest is possible if.intervention is denied." Miller, 103 F.3d at 1247 (citing Purnell, 925 F.2d at 948). "This burden is minimal." !d. This factor may be satisfied if a determination of the action in the applicant's absence will have a significant stare decisis effect to the detriment of the applicant. !d. Because the ADA is a relatively young statute, federal decisions interpreting and applying the provisions of the Act are an important enforcement tool. An unfavorable disposition of this case may, as a practical matter, impair the United States' interest in eliminating disability discrimination in other public entities' programs, particularly with regard to other assembly areas at public colleges and universities as well as other major assembly areas. Thus, the outcome of this case, including the potential for appeals by existing parties, implicates stare decisis concerns which support intervention of right. See Miller, 103 F.3d at 1247. See also United States v. City ofLos Angeles, Cal., 288 F.3d 391, 400 (9th Cir. 2002) (holding that amicus status may be insufficient to protect the rights of an applicant for intervention "because such status does not allow [the applicant] to raise issues or arguments formally and gives it no right of appeal");
15

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 25 of 30 Pg ID 117
Ceres Gulfv. Cooper, 957 F.2d 1199, 1204 ("denying intervention impairs, if not prevents, [the Director of Worker's Compensation's] ability to provide his interpretation of the law he is charged with administering ...").
(d) The United States' Interest is lnadeguately Represented by Existin2 Parties The fourth and final element to justify intervention of right is inadequate representation of the United States' interest by existing parties to the litigation. The burden to show inadequate representation is "minimal" because the movant need not prove that the representation will in fact be inadequate, but only that it "may be" inadequate. Miller, 103 F.3d at 1247. Instead, "proposed intervenors need only show that there is a potential for inadequate representation.'" Grutter, 188 F.3d, 394, 400 (6th Cir. 1999). "[I]nterests need not be wholly 'adverse' before there is a basis for concluding that existing representation of a 'different' interest may be inadequate." Jansen v. City ofCincinnati, 904 F.2d 336, 343 (6th Cir. 1990). "[I)t may be enough to show that the existing party who purports to seek the same outcome will not make all ofthe prospective intervenor's arguments." Miller, 103 F.3d at 1247. In this case, the United States' interest in enforcing the ADA and Section 504 to advance the public interest in ending illegal disability discrimination at an assembly area at a large public university is inadequately represented by the existing parties. The private plaintiff cannot and does not represent the Department's views on the proper interpretation and application of Title II and Section 504, and will not be able to make all the arguments that the United States will make if allowed to intervene. See, e.g. Scotts Valley Band ofPomo Indians ofthe Sugar Bowl Rancheria v. United States, 921 F.2d 924, 926-927 (91hCir. 1990) (city government's interest
16

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 26 of 30 Pg ID 118
could not be adequately represented by another entity): Cabot LNG Corp. v. P.R. Elec. Power Auth., 162 F.R.D. 427, 431 (D.P.R. 1995) (allowing intervenion because a private party's interest is different to that of a government agency) (citing Nat '1 Farm Lines v. Interstate Commerce Comm 'n, 564 F.2d 381 (lOth Cir. 1977)). As the Ninth Circuit recognized in a case allowing private parties to intervene alongside government agency defendants, "[t]he interest of government and the private sector may diverge." Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 823 (9th Cir. 2001). The same reasoning applies when, as here, the United States seeks intervention into a lawsuit between private parties involving federal civil rights claims.
The Department brings to this action the Civil Rights Division's unique familiarity with the statutes, regulations, and accessibility standards at issue, and extensive experience in investigating and litigating disability discrimination complaints, including complaints relating to accessibility requirements for existing facilities, including alterations or additions to those facilities. Given the complexity of the statutory and regulatory scheme governing accessibility at large public facilities and assembly areas, the United States' participation is necessary to effectively litigate this case, to ensure that the defendants meet their obligations to provide equal access to the program offered at the Stadium for persons with disabilities, and to advance the United States' interests on behalf of the public.
Because the United States can prove each of the requisite elements for Rule 24(a)(2) intervention, we respectfully request that this Court grant our application for intervention of right.
17

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 27 of 30 Pg ID 119
2. The United States Application for Permissive Intervention Should Be Granted
Rule 24(b) states, in part: Upon timely application anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action ... when an applicant's claim or defense and the main action have a question oflaw or fact in common. When a party to an action relies for ground of claim or defense upon any statute or executive order administered by a federal or state governmental officer or agency or upon any regulation, order, requirement or agreement issued or made pursuant to the statute or executive order, the officer or
agency upon timely application may be permitted to intervene in the action. In
exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b). As discussed above in conjunction with the Rule 24(a) analysis, herein incorporated, so long as intervention is timely and there is at least one common question of law or fact, and intervention would not result in undue delay of excessive prejudice to the original parties, permissive intervention should be granted. See Miller, 103 F.3d at 1248; Purnell, 925 F.2d at 950-951. The United States' claims against the defendants share both common questions oflaw and common questions of fact with those in the pending litigation. For example, the plaintiff and the United States would assert as a common question of law whether the defendants' conduct and compliance at the Stadium violates Title II and Section 504, and the relevant implementing regulations. The factual basis in the United States' proposed Complaint is, in many respects, essentially the same basis for the plaintiffs' allegations of discrimination. Furthermore, the Department's intervention in this case would fall squarely within the language of Rule 24(b). See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory committee's note (explaining that subsection (b) was amended in 1946 to include explicit reference to governmental agencies and officers in order to avoid exclusionary construction of the rule, and citing, with approval, cases in
18

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 28 of 30 Pg ID 120
which governmental entities were permitted to intervene). The Department's extensive enforcement and coordination authority increases the United States' vital interest in enforcing the statutes and regulations at issue on behalf of the public interest in ending illegal disability discrimination. See, e.g., Halderman v. Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp., 612 F.2d 84,92 (3d Cir. 1979) (en bane) (permitting United States to intervene based on its enforcement of federal statute and regulations protecting individuals with disabilities, and noting, "Large amounts of federal funds flow to Pennsylvania from the federal government, and the United States is vitally interested in the enforcement of the conditions on which those grants are made."). That interest is magnified where, as here, the public programs are as popular and unique as football games at the University.
For these reasons, and those addressed in our discussion of intervention of right, we respectfully request that this Court grant our motion to intervene by permission.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant the United States' motion to intervene.
19

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 29 of 30 Pg ID 121

Respectfully submitted, this 20th day of November, 2007

For purposes of service only: STEPHEN J. MURPHY United States Attorney
Is/Susan K. DeClercq SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 226-9149 E-mail: susan.declercq@usdoj.gov (P60545)

MICHAEL B. MUKASEY Attorney General of the United States
RENA J. COMISAC Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division
JOHN L. WODATCH, Chief PHILIP L. BREEN, Special Legal Counsel RENEE M. WOHLENHAUS, Deputy Chief Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division
Is/Kathleen Devine KATHLEEN S. DEVINE DAVID BOOTH Trial Attorneys Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW - NYA Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0480 Facsimile: (202) 307-9775 E-mail: kathleen.s.devine@usdoj.gov

20

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 13 Filed 11/20/07 Pg 30 of 30 Pg ID 122
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on November 20, 2007, I electronically filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
DAVID M. COHEN dcohen@sambemstein.com KEEFE A. BROOKS brooks@butzel.com
KATAHERINE D. GOUDIE
goudieCCilbutzel.com I further certify that I have mailed by U.S. mail the paper to the following non-ECF participants:
s/SUSAN K. DeCLERCQ Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001 Detroit, Michigan 48226 Phone: (313) 226-9149 E-mail: susan.declercg@usdoj .gov (P60545)
21

 
 2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 1 of 10 Pg ID 290
lO

UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISlON

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.

No. 07-11702 Honorable Sean F. Cox Magistrate Judge Pcpc

UNITED STATES OF Al'v!ERICA,
Plainti ff-lntervenor,
v.
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF 1\HCHIGAN
Defendants.

s
=zN"""
-..1

-....,
I~-
C11

-...u~

0

V1
\0

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION Plain!ifflntervenor United States of America, by its attomeys, allege, upon information and belief:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The United States of America brings this civil action to enforce the provisions of Title
IT of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the "ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 2 of 10 Pg ID 291
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended ("Section 504"), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the regulations implementing Title II and Section 504, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and 34 C.F.R. Part 104, against defendants University of Michigan and the Regents of the University of Michigan (collectively, the "University" or the "defendants").
2. As set forth more fully below, defendants have discriminated, and continue to disc1iminate, against individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs, by excluding them from participation in and denying them the benefits of the services, programs, and activities at the University's football stadium (the "Stadium"), in violation of the ADA and Section 504, by failing to provide program accessibility at the Stadium and by failing to make alterations and additions to the Stadium so that the altered and added portions are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who use wheelchairs.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. This Court has jurisdiction of this adion under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345,42
U.S.C. § 12133, and 29 U.S.C. § 794a. The Court may grant the relief sought in this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12133, 29 U.S.C. § 794a, and 28 U.S. C.§§ 2201 and 2202.
4. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, in that all of the claims and events giving rise to this action occurred in this district.
THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiff-Intervenor is the United States of America. 6. Defendant University of Michigan is a "public entity" within the meaning of the ADA,
-2 -

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 3 of 10 Pg ID 292
42 U.S.C. § 12131, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, and is therefore subject to TitlclloftheADA, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.P.R. Part 35.
7. Defendant University of Michigan is a "recipient" of"lcdcral financial assistance" within the meaning of Section 504, 29 U.S. C. § 794, and 34 C.F.R. § 104 and is therefore subject to Section 504 and the relevant implementing regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part 104.
8. Defendant University of1'1ichigan owns the University of Michigan Stadium. 9. Defendant University of Michigan operates "services, programs, or activities" within the meaning of the ADA, including at its Stadium. 10. The Regents ofthe University of Michigan is the corporate body having general supervision of the University of Michigan, including control a11d direction of expenditures from the University of Michigan's funds. 11. Upon information and belief, the Regents of the University of Michigan is a "public entity" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S. C. § 12131, and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104, and is therefore subject to Title II of the ADA, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35. 12. Defendant Regents of the University of Michigan is a "recipient" of"federal financial assistance" within the meaning or Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 34 C.P.R. § I04 and is therefore subject to Section 504 and the relevant implen1enting regulations, 34 C.F.R. Part I 04. 13. Defendant Regents of the University of Michigan owns or operates the University of Michigan Stadium. 14. Defendant Regents of the University of Michigan operates "services, programs, or activities" within the meaning of the ADA, including at its Stadium.
- 3-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 4 of 10 Pg ID 293
15. Defendant Regeuts of the University of Michigan approves the expenditure of funds for construction projects at the University of Michigan Stadium.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 16. On Apri\17, 2007, plaintiff Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America filed a Complaint in this Court against the University of Michigan alleging violations of Title II ofthe ADA and Section 504 at the Stadium. 17. The plaintiff, a chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, has members who are "individualjs) with a disability" within the meaning of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12131, and Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and have attended, or have tried to attend, football games at the Stadium. Members of plaintiffs organization have been injured by the defendants' failure to make the University of Michigan's Stadium and the services, programs, and activities at the Stadium accessible to people with disabilities. 18. Upon infonnalion and bcliet~ there are other persons who have been injured by the defendants' failure to make the Stadium and the services, programs, and activities at the Stadium accessible to people with disabilities.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT ONE
19. The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 18 of the Complaint in Intervention are hereby roallcged and incorporated by rctcrence.
20. The University of Michigan and the Regent~ ofthe University of Michigan, as public entities, arc required to operate each of their services, programs, and activities so that the service,
-4-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 5 of 10 Pg ID 294
program, or activity, when viewed in its entirely, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.(\ § 12132; 28 C.F.R. 35. !50(a). See 29 U.S.C. § 794; 34 C.F.R. § 104.22.
21. Because the Stadium and the services, programs, and activities provided by the defendants are not readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities, including individuals who usc wheelChairs, the defendants have excluded individuals with disabilities from participating in or receiving the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity and have discriminated against individuals in violation ofTitle II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132,28 C.F.R. §§ 35.130, 35.149, 35.150, 35.151, and Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, 34 C.F.R. §§ I04.4, I04.21, 104.22, 104.23.
22. The defendants' violations of Title II and Section 504 with regard to failing to provide progran1 accessibility at the Stadium include, but are not necessarily limited to:
A. Failing to provide a sufficient number of accessible wheelchair scats in the Stadium; B. Failing to disperse accessible wheelchair seating throughout the Stadium's seating area; C. Failing to provide accessible ramps and routes into and around the Sladhtm for individuals with disabilities; D. Failing to provide accessible toilets and appropriate signage directing patrons with disabilities to accessible toilets; E. Failing to provide accessible c.oncession stands in the Stadium and appropriate

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 6 of 10 Pg ID 295
signagc directing patrons with disabilities to concession stands; F. Failing to provide accessible souvenir stands in the Stadium and appropriate signage directing patrons with disabilities to souvenir stands ; G. Failing to provide accessible parking at the Stadium.
H. Failing to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures
when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability.
COUNT II
23. The allegations orParagraphs 1 through 22 of the Complaint in Intervention are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference.
24. Upon infom1ation and belief, the defendants have made alterations and additions to the Stadium since January 18,1991.
25. Upon infom1ation and belief, alterations and additions to the Stadium made after
January 18, 1991, affect or could affect the usability of the Stadium. 28 C.P.R.§§ 151(b), (c), 35 C.F.R. § 104.23{b), (c).
26. Upon infom1ation and belief, defendants have violated Title 11 of the ADA and Section 504 by failing to make alterati\ms and additions in such a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered and added portions of the Stadium a1e readily accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities, including individuals who usc wheelchairs. 28 C.P.R. § 35,151(b), see34C.F.R. § 104.23(b).
- 6-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 7 of 10 Pg ID 296
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the United States of America prays that !he Court: A. Grant judgment in favor of the United States on its Complaint in Intervention and declare that the defendants have violated Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. ~~ 12131 e!§S!.Q., Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973,29 U.S.C. § 794, and the relevant implementing regulations; B. Enjoin the defendants, its agents and employees, and all persons in active concert or participation with them, !Tom engaging in discriminatory policies and practices against members of the public based on their disabilities, and specifically ±rom failing or refusing to take appropriate steps to ensure compliance with the requirements of Title II of the ADA, 42 US.C. §§ 1213 I et §£Q,, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the relevant implementing regulations: C. Order the defendant to modify its policies, practices, and procedures as necessary to bring the University of Michigan football Stadium into compliance with Title TT of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et scg., m1d Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Ac! of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the relevant implementing regulations; D. Award compensatory damages in an appropriate amount to individuals with disabilities for injuries suffered as a result of the defendant's failure to ensure compliance with the requirements ofTitlc II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et illJ,_, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, according to proof; and
Order such other appropriate relief as the interests ofjustice require.
-7-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 8 of 10 Pg ID 297

Jury Demand The plaintiff-intervenor hereby demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dated this NOV 20 2007

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
MICHAEL B. MUKASEY Attorney General of the United States
~~--/ RENAic ilSAc· Acting Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 9 of 10 Pg ID 298

;L t'Uio{'-----
---/-,1-----
JO L. WODATCH, Chief
PH lP L. BREEN, Special Legal Counsel RENEE WOHLENHAUS, Deputy Chief Disability Rights Section
Civil Rights Division

For purposes of service only: STEPHEN .J. MURPHY
it~~
S SANK. DeCLERCQ Assistant United States Attorney 211 W. Fort Street, Ste. 2001 Detroit, MT 48226 (313) 226-9149 E-mail: susan.declercq@usdoj.gov (P60545)

THLEEN S. DEVINE DAVID BOOTH Trial Attorneys Disability Rights Section Civil Rights Division U.S. Department of .Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW- NYA Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 307-0480 Facsimile: (202) 307-9775 E-mail: kathleen.s.dcvine@usdoj.gov

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 17 Filed 11/27/07 Pg 10 of 10 Pg ID 299
..
CERTIFICATE 01<' SERVICE
or It is hereby certi lied that servic~ the Complaint in Intcrven\i(ln and Certificate of
Service has this 27th day of November, 2007, b~en made upon defendants' counsel, KEEFE A.
BROOKS, by placing same in an envelope, and depositing said envelope in a United States
Postal receptacle at Detroit, Michigan addressed:
KEEFE /\. BROOKS But~.e1 Long, P.C:. 41000 Woodward Avenue Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 482304
RICHARD H. BERNSTEIN Law Offices of Samuel!. Bernstein 31100 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, Michigan 48334

 
 2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 1 of 30 Pg ID 326

UNTIED STATES DISTRICT C:OliRT fOR THE BASTER:.'\: DISTRICT 0.1:' MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

MTCHTGAN PARI>,LYZED V.l:il.f:!I{AJ\S OFAMRRICA,
Plaimilf, v.
TilE IIKTVTIRSnY OF MICHIGAN,
Defendant.

No. 07-! 1702
Honorallie Sean r. Cox
MA£i<tral.c Jndr,:: Slr.vcr, D.l'cpc

UJ\lTED STATES OF AY1ERlCA,
Plainlilf-fnt.:rv<mor,
v.
THE Li~lVERBITY OF MIC:TITGAN AND
THE REGENTS or TITE 1.:'-m'llRSTJY
OF MICHIGA.'l
DelenilA.n1~.

t:ONSI!:.NT DECREE
On April !7, 2007, MichigaH Paralyzcol V~tcrau~ of Arucrica ("MPVA'-), a chapter ofthe Paialy~d Veter<:ns :>f Amet·ica, t:led ~complain: aQ,ain&t the University ofMichig-,m. Ml'VA 's cmnpliiint alleged that the University ofMichigan d<--nicd C<lual access to se-ating to individuals with mohi lity irnpairrnenr.~ at if.' font'>a11 sta<li wn ("l)t,, Sta<.Hurc.1") in •liolatlon of Tltle II of the America:lS with Disahiiitie~ Acl ("ADA"), 42 U S.C.~§ 121:H et seq.

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 2 of 30 Pg ID 327
Onl'ovemb~r 27, 2007, the UniLed Staies of America p;,e U~ired Stares'') filed a Compl<lint-in-lnterve:~tion far inj·Jnctive and C.eclaa:ory reliefto remedy al:eged violationfo of
Tille ll of the !\DJ\ and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1:;n ('"Secti<•n 504"), 29l:.S.r:.
§ 794. The t:nil~.:d St:<l<:$' Cornplaint-in-IntcPrclltion aEcgcs that the defenda1~1s, the llnive~sity
discriminated ami con:inue :a discriminate agaimt individ:.tals with disabilities, irlcluding ir.ldiv:duals who usc whcclci:.airs, by cxci•Jdillg them from participati:m in, tmd denying U1em the
benefits of, the services, programs, and activities at f:te Stadium, in violation of Tit'e ITo f the AnA •nd ScetioT' :'>i)4. Sp"'i:fk•.\ly, lhc compkint a(lct;r-~ that the University failed to provide J>rogram accessibil:ty at t1lc:: S1:$.dinm aeod failed ;u I11akt alteration~ and additions :o ll1c Sl<:dit:m so f~at the altered znd added portions are readily accessible to and us:i~le by individual~ with
disabilities, including hdividuals who us~ whed:httirs.
Nr,twith;;tanf-ing the a~sertions made hy 1he r ltoiterl Stl\1.e~ a.ml 'v1 PV A, 1h<' Univc,-~ity denies tb1t it has violate<! any o~the provisions ofthe ADA a:l£1 Se-ction 504 witb respect to the Sl.<diurn. The TJr,i•cr.;ily d<.:11ic;s lh.al it has viob~;:u Lhc implcmr.mling regulations, inclutlbg lhe rniform Federal Accessibility Standard~. Appendix t\ to 41 C.F.R. part 101 19.6 ("ill'.>\S"}. Kotl:ing in this Crmsent Decr~e shall con~titutc any admission of \iabiJty by the University. The
or Lniversit)·bas ~greed to entl-y ofthis Consent Dec.ree witbom admitting the allegations the
complaint or any issne of ;"act or law lo avoid the tioe, exp:~me, and dismption oflitigation.
.\1PVA, the United State<:, and the Universir; 3gree that the entry of this Consent Decree, witltcut 1i.uther litigation, 1sin the public it:te•e.<tt.

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 3 of 30 Pg ID 328
NOV>', F JS HDR:O.BY ORDERhD, AD.It;DGED, l\ND DT:CRBTID as follows:
1. JURISIJICTJON II.ND V~:"'liF. T~.e C.otu't has jurisdiction o!'L.1i~ matter :lur~man: to 28 U.S.C. §~ 133: lll>tll345, <md 42 U.S.C. § 12188(b). Venue is appropriate in this Distric; pursuantlo <.8 U.S.C. § 1391.
A. 1l1c 'Cnivcr.3\ty i~ a "public entity" within the r.1eaning ofthe .ADA, 4'). 1..'.8.C.
§ 12B:, and 28 C.l'.ll. 9 35.104, and is therefor~ ~uhject io Til.i<: U of the ADA, and its
imple:nenth:g regulati<},s, 28 C.F.R. P<m 35. lt is also a "'recipiellt" or "l'edt:ral .lirum;;ial :.:s~istanc.:'' within the meaning of Section 504, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and 34 C.P.R.§ 10•1 and is thctcfotc subject t.o Seclion 504 arul the relevant iinrler.1cnting r~gulntions, 34 C.F.R. Pmt 104. The University owns lhc Stadium and opcrntcs "services, programs, or activiiies" within the m.camng or' the ADA, including at it.~ Stailium. Th" T.~11ivcrsily elected to fJ!Iow l)FAS as ils acccs~ibility standard fur pur;Joses of CODlJ>Iiauce wi\11 Ti\1" IT oflhc .IDA
B. The Unltcd States J)cpartment ofJuslice (DOJ") is the federal agency re~ponsible for initiating <md ;:lUrsuing enforcement proccodings in federal couns for vioktions, o: suspcctc.:l •Jiola:ions, ofTitlc 11 of the i\DA and Section 504 fi)r puhlir. e>1titi.:~, such as the University, inr.lu;ling itlterpre.tal.inn of UFt\S, when used as :he acc.essibil ity standard Jor any Tille ll enlity
opting to adopt TJFAS Lo wmply with Tille 11 ofthe ADA. See 29 l.i.S.C. § 794a, 42l.:·.s.c.
§ 20Cl0d e; seq., ,12 U.S.C. § 12133, 34 C.F.R. § 100.8(&}, 34 C.F R. ri 104.61, 2~ C.r.R.
§ 35.1'/l(a.)(3).
->• -

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 4 of 30 Pg ID 329
C:. The i Jnited Stat~~ Department. 0f! :dn~arion ("ED") i~ th~ i·(,dere,l "t."'""·Y no~p:.msihl" for lnvo!stigatjng aUegatlon$. o~·dl:;c•·jn.:.}ation, ana:! JJUrSlliu~ adru iuj sL.raii vc cnJur:;c;nt:nt if a.uy such violations are found, of Title JJ ofthe ADA and S~tion 504 for pnh.lic instjt,nions ofhigher educution, 28 C.I'.R. § 3S.I90(h}(2), 34 C.F.R. §§ 104.61, 100.7.
U. Ail.cr rcccivin~ a complainl,I!U opened an mvc.stigation regarding the alleged inac.ce.ssil>ility oEtlle Stadium in Febm~u y l'l'l'i. '" 2000, ED eultred iulll a Ct:mmiL,;cuL LD Resolve "'ilh lh~ University, without issuil!g findings ofcompliance ornoncompli<w-:e. mtd
closed its investigation. A'ler receiving two additional complaints. ED rcopcr.c,1 its inv~~tigation
in2004. H. Uuring the course of il8 invcslig;tlio:J, l::lU ~ondt:ct.od several site smvcys, revicweci
a:·chitecturaJ plf:ll.S and dra~vings., intervie\ved co :Jplajtlant~ a11d •.vi':ncs:;t:s: aud met uuwcn.1~ limes with University represemaLives. However, efforts to reaolve this matter ~,dministratively through infonnal n"gotiations failec, :md ED issoed its formal Lell~r of l'indbgs ('LOr") of violations on Ocmh~r26, 2007: Th~ University :ti8putcd the concill&ions of U> 111> set fort:. in the LOY On November 20. 2007, ED tor.nally reterreC. this matter to DC H lor e:lto1·cement.
F. Wlrilc: l?.P's invcsli!!aliol\ was on-!Joil.g, x.!PVA file,! it.; ~ornplainl in this a~lion on April 17, 2007, claiming that the Un:versi.ryviolatcd Title IT of the 1\DA and cllegiltg that the Stadium !las an ins\tfficicnt number of wheelchair scats, that those wheelchair scats are illnited to the end mne area.~, and ha-ve obstructed views; that the St:Uiiurr)llas inAC(;e~.~ihle routes,
lnaccessihle toile~s, inaccessjh)e Cfmcession stands; iuaL.:ccs~ibl..; souv~u:.r sLa.rH.l~!' and
-4-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 5 of 30 Pg ID 330
ina(;c~ssibh parking; urul Llutt:lc Uuiv~;n;ily al~c b.:r~ u:Jdcr Lak.cn ~i~ni fi.o"nl aller>f.ior:s of, ar:d addition~ to, it~ Stadium without eomphing withth~ rcl>:'•ant acccs~ibility standard.
G. The L'nivcr~ity answered the .Yi.l'VA eomplaint, dcn)~ng that t::c~c have been any vioklions nfTitle H ofthe .ADA. litigation was granted upon the stipulation ofthe parties.
I. Frcm :-Tovcmber 27, 2007, through D~omher 2, 2C07, the Uuited .State~ conducted a site inspectio:J and survey of all areas ofthe Stadium, including seating areas, entrance gatos, c.:xkrinr anrl inl~riM n)utes, exterior ~nd interior -amps, the "Wi II (:alI" ticketing m·ea, tr>i let [l)Oms, lockef roon1s, c.oaches and ualnl.ng areas, coc.c.esslon areas. press areas, areas r~£Clvcd for the Regents cf the Univ;nsity and l')'esidem of ibe University, souvenir sales ar~as, a:Jd Lniver~ity parking loB servicing the Stadium.
.T. The partie.« lher~fter imt:Jediately conmen~ed settlem:mt negotiations in <m attcmp: to avoid protracrod litigaticn, lcadine to the a~cC~ncni o.:-ll'" p•>1.i<:' >>:set fi1rlh in l">i~ ('.(Jnsent.
1)..,-~rcc.
-5-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 6 of 30 Pg ID 331
IJI. S.r¥cU'lC RE1.1F.F1 A. :\.LTERATIQ;\S AND ADIIITIOC\S
t.ny allemtions or ad.:lition.~. a.• d c.<c.·hccl in ').8 C.f Jl §§ 35. 150 a:xl :15.1S1, ami in L foAS ~§ 4.15 >\nd 4 J.6, oompl!:tt:'d atthe: Stadi11111 afwnhc tla l~: of m l<y of this Coment Decree, or modilic.ati,,"·' " '"'lc pur~uanllu ttis Consen: Decree, shall c::>mplv in all respects with Till-= If oflhe ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1?:111 <ll svq., il~ imp;ementing regulati()n, 2~ C.l'K pl. 35, Sec+ion 5()~. 29 U.S.C. ~ 794, its implemen1ing ~gulation, 3 4 C.l:'.lt p:. 104. nnd lii'AS 2
Any <K~ions token or modifl~ons mauc pursuant to this Consent D:crce .•hall not crea:e additior.al ohlivotjuJ\\1 e>r liability ft>r 1he Uuivers.ty in~ufl!T ..s illost: actions and modifications arc consistent w:th the ADA, Sct:!ion 504, ami UFAS.
1 Seve.r.! dra"'ings arc anochcxl to this Cons;:ut lkcree as Exhihit n. ,:;:x of tho$c dimYings,
Drawing I (Shed !.-103), Druv.ing 5 (S:'leet A-1 02), Orawiu~ 6 (Sheet A·l02.07), Drawing 7 (ShcotA· l O:L.m~). Drawing 8 (Sheet A· Jil2.0?j, an<I lr:awmg 9 (Sh~e: A·l 02.'10), arc pr.,viJcd
\.0 illuslra(e ag;eed-upon rnodific.1.tioru:: rcf~I-..mc\td in thia Con:1uot Dccroc; anc.f in .B.xh1bit /\. !\ny
other intonnation contained in !hoso; six drawisJgl 1e~aruing the .2(; l 0 ExpmL\iion Project no~ specifically referenced in the Con~ent Decree o r .:5xhibil l\ is not part ofihi.>Cnnsenl. ne.c:nx: ~nd has nol beer. reviewed for complianc~ by the 'United States or· l\1PVA. 'The Univen;i~y elected to faHow UFAS ratbe:- r.huu the ADA Star.dards fM Ar.~cs~iblc Jlcsign,
pursuant to the e1c:cliw• ~>ccuri~-d for alterations :n 28 C.r.R. 9 3S. L51 . AI tbe s.une time, E
opt.;:cl 10 provid~ companion =~a~ part oft hi.• ('.o.cscnt Deaee e¥eu thuugh UFAS ,It.v.:s ll'Jl require rompanion scats. Accordingly, companion sears :uc bcludeC iu lh~ plans tor the a=.• of Accr:ssibJc scatil:.g. l'urSllMlf to this Cw1.>enl nwcr'-"• r~ruovable companion scats in those
wheelchair .•eating arciiS mft)' ]>(;reconfigured to ~mv'rle :\rlchinn;~\ •.vhr.ckhnit· seating on a par~cular pkll'o:!ln if: (a) the Univel'f.ity dotcr:nines not Lo provide conJpmion acatJlli, in whi:h
case additionaJ whe~kh•ir ~~:atiug must oe added in 1•la.:c ''rall r<o.m:;vetl oompar.ior, seats: or (b)
thll.l is reque~ted by particular· ticJ<ct holders to pun1il multiple wheelchair ku~~l.inn~ to~~lhcr fur groups o!'wlrecldrair u~~r~ who a::~ at~ntlin;; eventr. togetli.or.
.(,.

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 7 of 30 Pg ID 332
B. SI'I'E AIUUYAL POII'TS. CONCOURSf, c\PPROACH ROUTF.S. AND CIRCULATION CONCOlfRSl:S The L'nivcr~ily will provide UF1\S-compliant access ihlc routes fl'Otn the main ~itc arrival
points at the StadiJlll to all a<;ccssiblc seating in lbc Stadk.m and to all accessiblc clements wilhin the Stadium a~ ~et torth in this Consent Dec,·oe a:Jd attached Exh1'1iK !\. detai ICC:
approach rou~c~: ..:in. uJa(juu l:um;•.Jlll :-.es: a1Ld UJe ;chcdule for lmplellten:ing these ;nodHi;;atlons. is Jlrovided in Exhibils A m:<l B, Dmwing l (Sheetl..-103, r'IJJA Grading & Site l'la11, March 7, 2008), incoiporat.ed herein by reference.
2. Tn addit:on, each co:npanion se.lt t:ltt the University provides pursuant 1D this Consent Decree shall be lo~;r.ed in the s;<Jne row 1md iiiUuediatdy adjacent, to the lig::.t or to the let!, of'·"" whedch;tiT loca.tinn, :\nd s 1all he oftl·e ~ame or herter quality seating cnnstmct1on as ll1e Jixed seats IKovided in the inur,ediate area.
3. All wheelcllliir seaLing lcealit>ns req.;ired puxsu~m <o t!J.i~ C<ms~.-11. Deere<.: shall
adjoin an accessible ro·.1te, be level, and provide lines ofsight co~parable to those in the ad;acent viewing a~cas. See UJ:-'AS §§ 4.33.1, 4.33.2, 4.33.3, 4.33.4, aad Fig. 46.
4. By the ~~~rl of lhc 200S foolbiill ~~'"UII, Lhc Univtrsily shallpmvidc p~rrn:lll~ll[ locations for wh~elchair seo'l.ts and companion scats in the St.adnm ~.s i'ollows:
_7_

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 8 of 30 Pg ID 333
a. ap::uoximaldy 96 •.><hedcllair ~nd \16 comp;mioJn s~ats in a eonlin·Jot.:s pcnnancr:t ToW a.lnne 'ho e:lsl sideline()[ the Srarli urn :.·nm Ihe 8oulh erie:: of portal 39 lluout;:h lh.: north ed,lle of portal 7 at •·ow 54, consistirA of 12 p~rmanent plattbrm> ("th~ East Sidelin~
Row 54 Wheelchair Seating~), sea Exi1ibits A and n, Drawing 2 ('l<lleelchair Platform
Loc~tionl'l;m, February 27, 2003} mul Drawing 3 (ADA Se<'ling L<~youl Row 5.:; East Side, March 7, 2008)(Dt·awing J i~ inclnrled here sim(llY a.• ilhl.~trative), ir,corpnrated hGtcin by rcfcr-::n~.c; and b. the U:aivet~~ity shall continue to provide a total of approximately 31 permanent wheebhair seats mtd 81 ~ompanion seat& (i) in lhe nortlt end zone, from portal31 through portal 37 at Row 72 ("Norlh End Zone Row 72 Wh.edchaii Seating") :.0. a cont:.Uuous permanent TOW, and (ii) in t:.e south end 1.one, fmm portal 9 throngh port.al 15 ~f. 'Row 72 ("Sou:h. End Zone Row 72 Whee:chair Seating") in a continncns pennru:ent row. S:!.l!
E"hiDi: A aml B, Drawil1~ Z aud Drawir~t; 4 (Cros.s-1~i•lc llchiml B~tisting Vv'h<:~:chair
Platforms- TYJltCSI @-:-forth and sour:1 Endzones, January 1i\, 2.00/1), incorporatctt here:n by referen~e. 5. By th1' stml. ofU1c /.010 fc-obaL scawn, lbc Un~vcrsity shall provide additional
:.1 tJcnJ,;uJ~ul iocatiom; for wh~;~Jchair seal~ :uul conp<i.uiun sca·.~ the Staditwt a!; follow•:
a. approximataly 56 wb.cclchair seats and 56 companion seats in a continuous
ptnnll!lcnt row lllong U1c c~st sideline of ·.he Stadium from tlr~ so·.1th edge ofportal 41 lbJ::ntgh. the nordJ edge of portal 5 on row i2, <.:t>misting of 8 pcnnllncnt plati(ums ("East
-~-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 9 of 30 Pg ID 334
Sideline Row 7 2 Wheelcnair Sea·:ing"), s<e Exhibits A and B, Drawing 2 and Drmv:ng 3 (Dmwing 3 is induded h~1-e sin1ply as ill&"trative), ;nco!]>orated herein by referer.ce;
b. apprm imaldy 24 wr.eekhair ~eat; ant 24 cor::panion seals in a conlinuOU3
""" ruan.:;nt 1ow in th<o 1\0lthw.:si come-J· ofrhe. Stadium f(c>lll lh" soul.hwe•l. oclge of1lO:-:a1
3: through U1e norU1 edge of port<~I 28 tlll ww i2, consisting or3 permanen: platfonns
("the Northwest. Cor.n~ Row 72 Student Wheeldmir 'ie~lin~"), see Exhibits 1\ and B, Drawing 2 and Dravling 3 (Dmwing 3 is inctudoo bcrc simply as illustrative), inCOJ}:tora~ccl hc:rcin hy Te rerence; e.nrl
a miniu~un·. of an additional permment 7? wh'"''"h~ir se~l.s ~nil 72 companion
seats located on lhe wes, s~delinc Qll Lhi.: new '"'"t concou:·se_, added as part of :he University's 2010 Exp:;,mion Plan. ap[)roJtimate:y herw~en column lines 2W rutd l6W and between I9W and 33W ('':he West Concourse Sideline \\:bcelchair Seatirog"), see
Exhibits A and .B, Drawiq:: ?, Dr>.winr, ~ (Sheel A-·1 02, Ez.~t Outdoor Cub Level & Wcsl Ov..-rall Upper Concour~e Plan, December 5, 2007), Dmwi.ng (o (Sheet A- I07..1.17, West Upper Conco·.lrf.e Seu--tor 07, December 5, 2007), l>mwin~ 7 (Sh<;;cl A-1 02.08, \Vest Upper Conco:lrse Se:::tor 08, Ja~uury 14, 2008)., Drawing 8 (Sbc~t A-1 02.09, West Vpp:~r Concouroe Se.:tor [)9, January 14, 20()/l),Urawin,g 9 (ShccrA-102.10, West Upper Concour>e Sect.or I0, D~c<:mb"'r 5, 200i;, io:cnrpo,·ated herein by re!er~JICe. Ct. In additicn, iftbe s~nior stuc<mt sea:ing scctio:l includes the seating on Lh~ wesl sideline in !i·ont of the n:::w West Concourse, all S{.'Ilio: students who purchn.~e tickets to events at
-9-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 10 of 30 Pg ID 335
lh~ Sl.•iiinm •nd l"C<Jni·-,, ;rcccssi-~lc ~c;•lin!J will be ]>rovided whe-e~c.hair seats in 'l1e new ':Vest Concr;urse Sideli:~c \\'lt<:dclrai,- Scaliug.
7. The TJ:Jiversirywill reserve the wheelchair seating in :;he J:!(rst Skeline Row 54 Wlleelchair Seating, the East Sideline Row 72 Whcelchai r :Seating, the Korth l:.nd Zone Row T2 Wh~ckhait S<:al.ine, 1h<: Srml h End /.nne Row 77. WhcclcJ~air Seating, the- Northwest l'orn<.>.r Row 72 Student \\'heelchair Seating, and the West Cmrcow>:o: Sitieliuc V1hc<.:lchair Seating pcnrt:ult.-1Jiiy and r.:xclu.;i~cly ft>r indivit\u;ili; whc use whee!cburs and thei: cmnpar.iorrs or other patrons with mohiliry impairments.
8. By the start of the 2010 football s~asan, pursnant to paragraphs 4 anC: S, \he 1~nivcr.:rity \vi II he pro·v·lciln~" 1nlnim1m1 of 3/.9 pcnn<1ncn~ wheek.hair seats and a Jcinimurn of 32~1 per:nment companion seats vertically and ltorizouLally dispcr~cd Lhrougfwul lhe Suwbm as des<.,nbed in U1is Cons::m Decree. The lo-~;ttion of these seats is set thrth in Exh lhit B. Drawing 2.. This munocr do~s not includa r;11y addi:ional wl:eelchair seating th;:.t the {Tniversity may provide in tlle club scatll, luxury ~uitcs, and o;hCllltC?.S as paxt of \he :Sltldium·5 ~UlO t.xpansion l'rojcct (with the -~ccption ofthe sea:s on the West Conc.ourse Sideline Whee:chair Seating, w.hi~h an; iu~lud~.:1l iu this nwml>r..T bul also ar~ :Jut of ihe Expansion Proje:t).
9. If, in tile fu-:urc, the U:riversily moves ihe student seating section tor all Univet·sity students to a different part ofthe StadiutD, it will seck mld obtain prior written ap]lmval fi-om MPVA ~wl1he Unit~d Sl.,lt:s l.o mov1: lhc No1thwest Ccmer Row 72 Student Wheelchair s~alUlf-1, which ;,pprov<d ~hall not oc umca~onably denied. U!lder no circumstances, howeve~.
. ]()-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 11 of 30 Pg ID 336
will it reduce the r.otf.l nuntbcr of whoolcbair platform$ or the tota·, number of wheelchair sc.<~.ts and cmnpani0o sea~s provided ptu-sur.t ~~ the terms of this Consen: Decree, no~ will it eli minat.e or re~uce the nw:r.ber of wheelchair ~eats in the s:t.:dent sec~ion.
L0. Atlh~ end of the 2010 football season, the pa11ies will negotiate in good iai:h rcgardi ng whether a.cicllt:ona! permanent whe·~lchai r ~eating should be added to the Stadium. The pat1ics agree to ;nitiatc sttch negotiations at a lim:: and place mutually a~,orceable to all counsel
or and al. 1h~ invi,:al.itm t)f any party, con~i.~l.enl. with the terms 'his C:on~ent Oecree. In 110 event
shall U1e negoliations be unnmsonably <M<~yeu. TI1e p;u·Lies ;~gree lo meet no later than January 31,20ll. D. TiCKETING .POLICY .I>"'RINDIVJDUALS 'W.IlO USE WHEELCHAllts A::\D
THEIR COMPANIONS 1. Tile Univcr·sity shall en3ur·e that its t ckcting and pr:cing polices, pra:::tiecs, and p~ocedures, inch:ding its Prefened Seu Donatior. Program und Priority ?oint P~ogmm, aftord individuals wl::o usG whcclc.bairs the opportunity to fully participate in, ;md bs;ndil from, the St£rdi\lrrr'& ser'\'ic.~&, programs, ru·,d activ:ties, to the sam~ exter.t as all oth~r patrons of Ihe Stadium, ex:e11t as modified by !he lenr..s of this Consent Decree. 2. East SideEne Row 54 Wl::eelchcir 8eating. North End Zone Row 72 'lrVheelchuir Sca:ing. and s~ulh ~nd Zone Row 72 Wheelchair Seatint; a. lndivid:1als wl:.o use whcclchairs <.!ld their companions Jr:,ay purchase seaso:: tickets for football g<l!lle~ iJ:: lh~ .E<llit Siddine Row 54 Wheelchair Seatitig, the 1\ortb End Zone Row 72 Wlteelchair Sealing, o: Lhe South End Zone Row 72 \'1':1eelchuir Ser.ting
11

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 12 of 30 Pg ID 337

w:lhaul regartlw any ambulatt>ry patrons lh:J.t are on the l:niversity' s cutent waiting list tor ~ea.>on ticket~ to football g~mcs. All individuals who use wheelchairs and !heir

comprio:JS who currently have seasor, tbket• tor football games or who a::e cummt:.y 011 the 1Jniversity's wait:ng list for sea5on tk:ccts for football game~ ~h,lll have first priority :or thes~ wh:~elchai:· sc<!.ls. T:1c "l_;nivcrsiLy will nu1rket, oiler, and sell these •.vheelchair sc:;.ts only to individua:s w:1o use wheelchairs anti !heir ~;ornpillltuns. b. The Univa:~ity will create a:1d maintain a scpar,;_te •.vaiting list for season rickets

for whoclcilair scats. This waiting list will he comptised s.olely ofiru:ividuuls who use wheelchair~ and their companions who-ate inlcrc~t~d in purchasing season tickets for

wheelchair seating in t~>c Stadium. c. The UniverRitywi]J sssign indivkilals who pu-rchase se<oson tickets for Illes~ wheelchs.ir seats and companion seals !he ~ame specific assigned scats for the entire

s::ason.

d.

In ~ddtbon, lor the :ltJ(l~ and :lOllY :oo:ha\1 seasons, tt:c Utriv-::rsily wi.l waivc its

Priority Point Progra:n contrib•Jtion rcqciremcms both f<>r indi vit.uals whu use

wheelchairs_and their companions who p•uchas-~ season tickets fur the 2008 or 2009

footba:l seasons :'"or the East Sideline Row 54 WhQolchai r Seating, the Nm1h End Zone Row 72 Whc,,Jd-<~ir Scal.ine, or the Son!.~ l'nf. 7.one Row 72 Wheelchair Seating. Thes;:; ne·.• season ticket hold<.;I~ v<i Jl ht: IUJ".iml tL> pay the al'l'licable season cicket price and

-1?.-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 13 of 30 Pg ID 338

l'rctcncd Seal Uonatior. c:•ch. ycac to be cli.giblc lo pJrc:tas~ and to renew the! r season
""i lic.l:.d8 for l.hr.:T [':Jlc<l wheekhair se~ts Or C:01l1!':l.lliOn seaM.

c. Ir,dividuals wl:o use wheelchairs &nd their companiom who purchas;: >omson

tickets tor t:1e East Sideline Row 54 W1te~lchair Sea:ing, the North l::!nd Zone Row 72

Wheelchair Seating, or Ut" South btt.C Zo::1e Row 72 Whcclchcir Sca:ing for the 2G08 o~

2009 football sea.~o:1s willlta\'e the .~arne ongoing right atlet· 200'1 to renew Utcir lickcb

a;;. ambulatory patron~ without rcg<trd to t.1c w>itjnt: list requirement. either lor amh•1latory

vatrons or wheelchair plltrons. They will he required to :Jay the <tpplica/Jle l'ref=l Sr:al

Donation and ticket price, '::lul will not be required to pay thd'riority Point Prop,ram

conllibliLion a~ lung as they maintain s~cn tickets every sc~on.

1. East Sideline Row ?2 Wheelchair Seating. ~.~!~'t!w.e~tJ~Qftl~.r Row 72 Student

'Wlteelchair Seati.:lg,.!.l.!!<l..W~t.Cr,m~;omse Sideline Vtheeichair SCOitin;~

a.

lndiv:duals wlto lH>I.! ..y}u;clchalr!> and Lbc:r cmu:Jauiuns may puJ (;hase season

tickc:s for. f(lotl)all games fo:· the &st .Sideline Row 72 WJ:eelchair Seating, the

"orthwest Comer Row 72 Student Wheelchair Seating, Wid the West C.oncours·~ Sideline

Wheekhair Scatlllg without rce~rr.ll.o tile Uni·,ersi'y'~ ''·ailing.li~t lhr sea~on ticket« to

foolb<~ll g~n:.~.:::; for arnb•JI<~Iory pat.wus. All iml.i viduals "'ho u~e ''heelchairs and their
compnnioll.S who ·~urrml.y have season tickets fur football gan\es or who are currently on

<:he University'~ waiting list for season :ickcts for football games shall have first prinrity

13

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 14 of 30 Pg ID 339

Lo J,e,,o;: wheelcl•a:r seats. The 'l'niversit~ will m~~i<cl, nff,:r, :md sC:lL hese wheekhai1·

.c:eats onJy m individua~s wt1v u~c ',),.• hc:;l(.:baii~ a.nd 1ht:ir ~urupaniou~.

h. ne Univer~ily will conTinue to .maintain a seiJarate waitir.g list tor se.ason tickets

tor wh~clchair sc;"s. This waiting list will he comprised soleiy of individuals who u~e ·..vhctkhairs and their con:panion.s "vbo <tlr: lnl·cn;,;;bd ln pnrr.hac.cing :r<C::L«on ticket.~ for

wi:eelclwir <1nd cuxnpauion s.:a!s i11 tl1e Stadi-.:.m.

c.

The Ul:iversity will <lSsign in&~ku<Js who pu,o;h21SI.' ~C"-l'OTI lic~els roo· these

wheelchair seats ~md their companions spoci f.ic assign~d seats.

d. Jn addition, for the 20 i 0 and the 20 I I tootbnll seusom, the L'Diversity will waive

its Priori~y Point Program contribution rqu1nom:"'l" hn1.h fC>r inc'ivinual~ who n~c

whe~Jchairs <md :hodr compe-nitJI" wl10 tm•·chast season tkk~ for the 2010 or 2011

fooC:Jal! seasons for the 'Ea.~t Sideliue Row 72 Wlr.~elcha:.r Se<~Ling, Lhe Nortawc~l Corner

Row 72 Student Wheelchair Sealing (if s~ason ·.ickct holders in this section othe1wise

would be nxtuircd to so contribute) and :be West Concourse Sideline Wheelch<lir Semir.g.

These new season ticket l~olders will be 1'('\qui.red to pay the applicaok s<:~>O'l Jicokc:L. prir.r.

and Pe'Cfe11-ed Seat Donation ea.ch year to be cli!!iblc to pu.o:cha~~.: aud tu n:new tloei•

sea-son tickets for their assiguec wheelch.oeir sear.s or companion s:ats.
e. lnrlivictuals who usc wheelchairs md their compilllio.c.s wio pUNhase sea.~on

tickets br the East Sideline Row 72 Whcck.hair S.:~Jin~, lht': Noo1:hwe.~1. Comer Row 72

Student Wheelc:1air Seating, ami U1e W..:s: Concvursc Sideline 'Wl•ce)chai:· Scati;·og J'or the

-14-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 15 of 30 Pg ID 340
2010 or 201 l f(lotball seasons will have he same -::mgoir.g right as <Jmbulalory patrons !)ave after 2011 co renew tl1eir tickets without regard ~o the waitil~g listJ"e(JUiremer,t either ti1r amhulato:-y patrons or wheelchair patrons. They will IJc r~(JUircd 1.0 pay th~ applicable l'rd<'rrc<.l Sc•t Oon•lion •.mlti::l"''tnice, hut will n;)l he r~<lllired !.() p,Jy the Pr~oril}' Puiut Frt)~[a;n ~onhilmtlan as long as r:1ey 1nabtain season tickets every season. ·1. kdividual Gam~ li!).!tet C.hange-Ou·.s. lhc Uni.versity may rctaill r.o r.Jo:c than40 wheelch;tir seats acd 40 companion seats for individual game ticket change-o•1ts and no c:1nngeonts may he ottered to any ticket holder who docs not nocd the ~cat for 1t pi-TSon witt:. a di8a1Jility as defined by4:?. U.S.C. § 1?.)0?. •n•l ?.ll C.F.R. § 1S.104. Fnrpurposes of'T.henegotifltion £.1 !.he ciJd uf th~ 2010 rou(ball season,·""' parag,·aph In.C.! 0, all wheelchair seats and companion seats withheld for use as game day chan~ooe-outs wiJ be .considered ~old "heelchair seats and sold companion se.Us. These gilme day ~hange. oms will l>e retained as follows: a. No mo~e !.han 10 pairs of seats (\vheelchalr seats and companion seats) in the Ea.~t Sideline Ro''" 54 Whee"chair Scatbg. dis>eJ:scd tlunuj1out .l:'.ast. ~:bdclmc ){ow .~4 Wheelchair S~tin.':llo illcltrdc ~'"'~ iulhc Blue, l'vf.a,;,,,, Valianl, ar.d Vi~tors ~eating
b. No mot~ than IS pairs of whco\cha:t seats and companion seats ir. the Nonh End Zone Rrr~· 72 Wheelchair Seatkg area; ~. No nJ(Ire than 15 pa'rs of wheelchair .seats and companion seats ir: the Soutcl End
Zone Row 72 Wheelchair Scatir.g area.
-15-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 16 of 30 Pg ID 341

S.

&ub.:cct ~~availability of acccssib:c s~a.:ing. wben~v~r tickets be~omc available

tor sale as single game tickets to season ticket holder,;, individuals on the waiting list fer season

ti::k~ls, or lo the ger.enrl publ:c, the L:niversily will also offer fo: sale single game tickets for

wheelchai:: seats and oomp<mion s~ats to wheekhair ~ser.o <lnd their comp:rnions.

6. The Univ8rsity will pre•vi de inrlivi·~uals wishing to pufchasc f.casoo tickets en the

l:iast Sidel:ne Row 54 Wl:cclchair Seating, the hst .Sid~Jinc R8w 72 Wheelcharr Scat:ng, the

North nn.i 7.rme Row 72 \V.~eelchair Seating, the Sollllr Enri 7.one 'Row 72 Whetlch~.ir S~at.i11g,

lhe Norihwesl Comer Row 72 Student WheeJc.hair Sealing, <md ihe West Concourse Sideline

Wh~lc.lrur Se<lt:nglhe option cfchoosing their seats among all available wheelchair seats. If

· P'Jrchasor.s d·J not expre<:s a p£8.fcrcncc, t:1c University will p1ace them in tlre best scats availabl~

in th·~ ticl\et price and Preferred Seat [)onation c~tegory sekcted by those purchasers.

E. 'l'OILE'l'S ~D TOILE'l' ROOMS

1. TlJt: lJHivel3ity has agreod to HJ~~kt: r utnerous chan~es t•) uuu.y of its e:ti:;tlug toibt

rooms in order to m<lke these toilet room~ accesS::ble or as accessible <IS structuraEy pnrcticable

in compli:mce with the relevam statutes, regulation;;;, and U.f:i1\S, as setlbrih in tbis Consent

Decree. 111 a.-Jdit.ion, the Univer.>it.y will nticl act:essihle feAillres 1!.) .~ever.~1toilet r0<m1S in 20fr8
that will be dernol iRhed al1:er the 2009 football season. An itemized Iist oreach rnolii licatiorr tiLe

University will make to each toilet room is arra:lr~d as Exhibit A, incorpo•·ate:i herein by
oc reference. S:;t forth ·Jc:ow is the sohcdltlc for wbcn each toil ot wom will .modified.

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 17 of 30 Pg ID 342
2. Ily the ~tart o:·tbe 2003 football sc<•Sull, the Un;vers.ty will modify tbe followit~g toilet rooms in accordm;ce witlt Exhibit A:
a. .East Concourse Men'8 Lower :...eve! (Section I) h. East Co;,couJse Women's Lo·.•et Level (Section I) c. ~ow.hcast Women's Lower Lc·;cl (Scctiort 7) d. Norb Men'g Lo-,.;er Level (Se.;ticn 32) e. Notch Wome.n's Lower Level (Section32) f. N•)r\h Men's Upper Level (Sc~ioR 32) g. Nortlt Women's Upp1.:r l,...,wl (Sectiun 32) h. Northwest Womcn'5 (Hection 29) i. West Men's l:nde1· Pre~~ box (Section 23) Lower j. Vlc$1. Wom"n's llnder Pre" hn (Sedion 21) TA1We1· k. West Women's Under l'ress box (Sectiun24) Upper No1th I. West Wome-n's Under Pre5s l>e:( (Section 22) Upper So:1th
m. SouUtwcsl Women's (:Sectionl8) n. South M~n·~ Luwer Level (.Se•:t.it:nl4)
o. South Women's L:;we.r Level (Section 14)
p. South Men's Upper Leve~ (Seetionl<I) q. South Women's Upper Level (Section 14)
r. Secon<ll'loor (Print Pres~ Area) in the Press Ilox Facility 3. .By the sta11 of the 2009 foctball s>!'a-1011, the Cnivcrsi:y will 'll"l<c 111'1<lilk•.linns '"
4. By the Rtarr of the 20·1 0 to:>tball season, the l:niversity will :nake modiiko.tions t.o th-~ Northeost Women's J....~wer Level (-Section 40) toilet room. J( l'ARKING
Stadit:m, the Utuversity "ill add desigt~<~ted·<~:;cessibk :Ja:::rin.g space~ in nvo parking lots, the Blue Lo~ West parking area lLol SC36) and the l:lluc Lot inside Kipkc l>Iivc lLol SC:.:!), which border the Stadium. These additions aulmodif:C<Itio:Js <•rc sd forlh in r.xbihi18 .A. W.lcl:>'l,
-17-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 18 of 30 Pg ID 343

J)ra'.ving I, inco•1lOI'A.T.ed herein hy relerenr.e. Xs1\ T.he Uni,·t:~>;il.y ,.;ill pmv;<k "'"·.r..~~iblc

means oftrilllspol1atio:J to ferry individuals with disabi:ities to a1.d frnmtlie h-.> d10p·off

location~ en the north <mJ sotuh side of the St<:dbm and tJ and from the a.ccessihle parking Jo+s

serving the Swdium. See l::!xhibh ll.. Jn <:.<kition, 1:1e purties agree t:1a:·any time alter March ; 5,

2009, s~.or.ld either MPV.A. or· the ITnitcd E,tarc~ bvc concerns ~belIll the ailcfjuac:y nf c:x:<tine

acc~ssiblc parking or accessible tran~portation to and from the two drop-off locations at the

StaditlllJ aiJiiJOI' to a!ld rmlu the scc.essihli! parki llg lots, !lit: varti.:.~ willucl'(olial~ in ~ood faith

r~garding wi:.ether additional accessible tnmspm1ation or additional accessible parki:Jg should he

provided. ln no event shall 'he negotiations be u::u·easonably delayed. The pm·lies a!,oree to meet

uo :at~r than 30 days from the !Uttc when cithcr MPVA or the l.rtitcd State~ 1m wide~ wri!kn

UJJtice of such conce-rns.

G. TUAINING

P1im· to rhe start of e~.ch football se.a.~on, 1bc Cnivcrsity will provide t:"aiJling on all

components ofthis ConseJr. Dec.ree, includ:ng a[ exllibirs ir.cm·porared herein by reference, to

all nf ifs i:111ploycl~S ~l1ci '~cm:rn~r.ors who h(':lv<: ix.ntad with patrons with disab1ities who use the

Stadit1111. The D<::f>aJtlllt"rlt oi'Ju~tice may tied to attemlthc tsainu•g c.;a~h year for Ute :o.:rn:: of Ibis

Deer~e.

H.

~\>IARKETING

i . negim1 i ng with entry ofthis C011<en·. Decree and t:rm'inuinf: thmuzh<lllt the: life: of

lhi~ Co;:se<.t Dec.ee, the UJJivtr3ity shall agg•·e~sivdy J>ab\icilc tit~ availability of, lucali()Il, m1tl

·l~·

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 19 of 30 Pg ID 344
ticketing prices. policie~. llractices, and p~ocedures ror, wheelchair ~eatiLg and companion seari11g at toe Stadium, in relcviml and ap?ropriatc publications of the Univcrsiw. 7hese communica:ions and puiJiica~ion:s includ~, bu~ ~~~~au:: not li•ui;:ed to, those direere.:' ro its general alumni population and retiree cluh members; Urr.versity football communicaliuru;, p<t~nplai~Ls, programs, arl.vertiset:Jents, publications, and maLngs tim~ contain i.c:formation regarding ~eating or season t.ckcls at the :::it!ldi~m. and its website, particularly tl1ose sections of its website .:on1.:tining rootball game schedules and information tor fooiiJaJl ;season lickd.holders ami potential football se.~soolick~;~ hold<.:rs. These p~tblicatiOTlS ru1d cotwuunications v.ill indude targe;_ed outreach to the disshled commtm'ty, iu particular 1.0 individmtls who may n<!l b~; included in the University's comnmnications to its general alumni population, its rerire~ club members. c-~rrerrt tbotball season tickc~ holders, and individual~ on tho current wajting Jist tor footiJall ~c~>on. iic.kc:t•. The publications anrl cnmmm1 ications targ-:::ted :o the disabb.l CUIIIHIUIIily will include idorn;a.tion infurming individuals 'Nith disabiliLie• huw to timely o'.,r;,.in not~ticatiml~ fron1lhe Univt..ntity rcgarUin~ aU.}' ~inglc gamt: tii.;k~u; Llu·n umy b..,..;u1uc availc1Ul~.
2. The advertising, cou-.munica.tions. and ;mblications rde:enced in paragraph .I wE.! oc:(:llr <h:ring the time period when such tickets •-ill be offcrctl fur s:.J~ to indiv:dual8 who usc w};cdch"-i •~ a11d tlleir companions.
3. By June l, 200B, the U~v;m;ity will <.lo:vo:k'P am: •11b111il to MPVA a11d !be UtJiled States forrcvivw and approval, its poli~y and sc-hedule !Or advertisiug and selling the w:1cc\ch~ir
-19-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 20 of 30 Pg ID 345
seats z.nd com;Ja;Jion seats rdercnc~.d in ttis ConscntlJo-~rcc, ~nd such approveJ will no: b8 mu:easonably de-<Jied. I. OTHER FACILITIES A::'iD S.ERY.!.«;!.JiS.<\TTHF. STADIL"\f
Tbc Uni"crsity has agt·eeC. to mak~ changes to the Heme Team Loc~(er Room Facility, rhc t·emaining existing M-Den, md to sigruLge Jenoling th~ ac~essiblc entrances, access:blc scati ng, acc·..,s.~iblc muk.<, and other a.cce~~ihle elem~nts flf t~e Stadium. A:1 itemiz~d list ofeach such modification the University will make is attached ill Exhibit A, inc""Jlmat.r:d htrein hy ~eference. Jn addition, the 'Cnivc::sity has agreed that facilit.e.~ and setvices, such as :he location fo:rpkk-up
and drop-off of Assistive Ligtening. Devices, any public Lelephones, Aut.omlt.tic 'feller Machines,
the Lost nnd Found, nnd the "Will c~JJ" ti~ket offices \viii be on a.:ccs.siblc routes. J. ltEVIEW ANDAP.I:'.ROVAL OF A1WIJJ1T:CTTrRAL DR.\WINGS
Give" time con~1f<.int.>, tl~e 1Jnive.rsitywas unable tq p:ovide dctailcd ~rdJik-"lura.l drawings for several <lb'Teed-upon modificali;,ns io Lh" Staui ur:r ami tlr" Stadium gruur rds. As
sucll, :he prtnies have agrecc that once the Universiry ~omplete.s each auch drawing, 'me p:ior to
ini~iMing implementation, it will provide each such demiled dmwir.g to MI'VA ~nd the Umted States for their review and ~.pproval for complimlcc wi1h UFA S and th.: i11f.enl. of the parties under this Ccusent De<.-ree. Such r~vir:w and approval wi\11rut b<: urrrea,mrahly delayed. Detr.iled drawings to be provi,\ed by t:J.e University to MPVA and the 1,;'nited States include:
1. the accessible rou~as onlhc Main Conc0ursc at L~vcl 'i2 {;he concrete concourse drcling lhc S:adiwn inside th<= exi·~Or crm~ourse and adjoining
-20-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 21 of 30 Pg ID 346

iJJc porl<Js imo the Stadium howl) includinA bm noc limit~ to the

accessible routes cormecti::g portals 1.1-1.5 anc con~J)CtiEg ponul~ 31-33,

.~f'£ Exhibit A, paragraphsll.J\.1., TT.A.2., TTT.O.I., 7TT.C.4, ancl III.C.S;

2.

n,., the ac~essihle rm.:te,, into Sl~<bnu oo"•l, see Exhibit A, p<uag•·aplos

JC.4, 1.C.5., l.C.6,l.C.7., JIB. I., TT.B2, U.B.3., Il.l:l.4., ill.C.J., and

lll.C.2;

3. accessibl.: loilet rooms in the Press Box facility, see Exhibit II., paragraph~

J.E.2.d.iv. and 'I'.;

4. an <-.ccessible shower area. in ihc Glick F';ttilllyCoaches .Suite, see Exhibit

A, p~r~.~:aph ILD.l.a.ii.(3);

a map designating the accessible parking, accessihlc routes. accessible

entnmces, accessibl~ r.mtps, acces~ible porlals, accessible seating, and all

olher acce~sible elements oftho Stadium,·""' "" ~ihil..,,., paragraj)h l.F.

IV. RF.I'ORl'T:';G, MONfiOIUNG, AND El\"FORCJ)MEYI

A. lllil'ORTDIG AND MONTTORlNG

1. By Jtu~c l ofeach year from 2008 tiYough 2012, the University will submir ro

MPVA and the United States repres~tative examples ofmukcting ma~crial nxluircd under the

terma ofthis C:onscnt TJccrc,).

-2l-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 22 of 30 Pg ID 347

'). By August I of each yt'-ar from 2C08 through 2012, :he l:ni>·er>ity will submit toJ

MPVA ;tJKl ili~ Unit~(: S(a~~s all u-ainiq; rualr;:rial infonna~ion required under the tenns of this

Consent Dc~rcc.

3. On ot· hefnre September I, in each y~ar ~rom 2.008 thrOU.!P :4012, U1c llniv~rsity sb.<t ll subnut to .'vii•v ''· ~nd tlw. l..nitc:d ~~" lcs ;o w:itten re-::-orr ('"Arcclitectural Report") detailing

its compliano::e witb those ohligatioo,s referenc.ed htlow and set out intbis C<>us<.:nl D<.:cr~c thm

were requ:red to be comple~eJ in lhe preceding twelve months. In tae event the University

enters into contracts for thio:d -parties to complete t'lc work. the Universi:y sh:ill also provide

MPV1\ and the United .States with a copy. ofany nch contract.• ns well as any certifications of

comp.\.-,tion or su bstmti;o Ip<r:fonuanc.(: ~ubmittc.d by the co:rtractor. Tills Architectural Report

will indtld.; :JLLt is nollirnil.ed to:

a.

Final construction drawings de:nonstrating the ~~-built conditiOJl of all

wheelchair sea.ling are<lll, si.~ mrivcl poims, con~ourse approach routes,

circulatior. conCO'.lTSCS, ramps, oo.d portal cntrP-llCCS r~quil:ctl t.o IJc modified

pursuant to the Consen~ Dec-ree or .llxi!ibirs A and 13.

b. Delailrod s(ai.<,'Ul:mls ar.d phot.ographs cerlifying lh<tt all modificatioros,

additio:JS, an.d alteratioDS t.o 1he whedciair se<~.tin~ ;u-eas, parking, site arrival

points, conoour~c ~pproach ruul~~. circ•Jkt.ion concourses, ramps, portal

cntr;m:.:cs, toilr.:t to:>om.~, C1c Press 3ox f~cility, h8me team loc.ker room facility, M-

-22-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 23 of 30 Pg ID 348

Den, and sig::ai!c req11ircd ·.mc'er lhe tenus ofthis Couse.nt Decree or set forth in

Exhibits A ami B hav~ b~.>:u wrnplt:t"d.

4. On or before Dcc~mbcr 30, ir, each 1car fr:lm 20:)8 Through 2()12, tb.e ·cniver~ity

sl1all su.hmit to MPVA and the '(:nited States a IM·itten report ("Seating and Ticketing Rc::.ort')

dcl~iliJ.IB its camphane~ w1tn tbosto obl.:~lio:.s ref~rence~ below and set out in tlus Consent

Dei::ree tl:at ....·~·~ reqllirc:d tu ·:Je con•p1eteC in tln::: tm~~.:t=dlug twelve mcm~l1s. T:: tl1t ~vcul tln;

University enters inl.o conlracl.s for llrinlparlies to complete the work, !he University shall also

proviric MPVA and t::J.c United States w.ith a copy of any sucn contracts as we:!~$ any

·certifications of c.omtTietion or substar.tia! pcl'for'llance ~ubmitted hy the contractor. Tbis Scaljng

and Ticketing Repot1 will include, hut is not lim:7~.d to:

a.

A t!ctaileoi tlescripliou ofth,; uurnbcr, luc>~li"u, liiJti lu(;.l. cost(>[each lic!(ct

sold as season lickels tor seating in e~cr. of the wheelchair ~eating lo:ation~

referencetl k. IIi~ Consent D~cree.

b.

·wnclh~r ca.:ll s·Jch wllCc~chair s~al or companion scat w~s

(i) sold on l. soe-~son tickel basis to an individual who uses a wheelc:1air,

.(ii) sold on a seuson ticket basis lo ll1e companion of <m individual who

use~ a wheelchair,

(iii) used as an in~ividual ganc ticket changc-o'Jt by an individ11al who

uses <1 whcdch<1ir, iccn1ificd ·Jy each i>articular game suci1 ticket ·.v~s

<telua11y us~d and ll1e loca•.ion of such seat,

-23-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 24 of 30 Pg ID 349

(iv) used t1s a·.l individual gr.m~ ticket change-out by a companion of an

indi'>'idual who uses ~ whodchai:, id(;lllific..l IJy each p<U·Iicular game such

tick~t WaS actua\l~ used :l1 o:J tl1t Joc..tiun UrSlid: >tal,

(v) sold as<: single game t:cket to an individual who uses a wheelchair,

identi.Jle.:\ by ~a~h p~rticul<lr game ~uch tickel wa~ actually us;l() at:d U1e

location of s1Jch scat,

(vi) sold as ~ single game ~ickct to the companion ofan individ•J.al who

uses a wheeJchair, :&uti lied by each particul~.. gam.;: sud1 til'let was

aclually tcsed.and the loco.~on of such seat.

c.

If any, the number and locatio~ ofaziY seals in e.1cl:. of the wheelchair

seat:ng locations r·ofcrenccd in thi; Consent Decree !hal arc noT. sold as season

tickets. For purposes of this repor::ing pmvi;;i on, wheelchair seats and con:panion

seals wi\hhdd for ~"c as game da:; ehongc-outs will be considered sold

d. Whether lhe l!niversity was able to fu]fll\ all requests for season tickets

fur the wheelchair s.:~i:ing ucas, imd ifr.ot, how many Sitch requests were denie-d,

~nd the Jqlpm•ima\.: lot:<1ficmr; rC\fUCStc•l for lhosc wheelchair scats.

c.

auu a::.u Tho.: Hu.cr.b~r

cxa~llocation of wh;;~:1chair

~o::npuuion ~""'-~

withheld .from sale for iudiYidual game ticket cffi:uge-lluts.

-24-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 25 of 30 Pg ID 350
t: T::e number of indivjduals on the waiting list for w::eekhair seats andior companion seats. 5. ro: thf. 201B, 7.01.19, /.010, 'l.l)l', ami'l.Hl :l fholbll season.~. ihe lTniv-eN\it.y will mail ~urccys to all intli viduals whu pul'd ta.~e sea.~ml ticket; in the wheelchair seating sec.tiollS referenced i~ tl:is Consent Decree during the month of huu.axy Jollowin.~ thr: r..ml (>fY.t<.: fl>olball sea~on. These survey~. which the llnivcrsi•;y wil. rcquc~t be returned to them w[thir, 20 days, will soJic:t comments, suggc~tions, nnd intonnation from these se~son ticket holdt:~s regarding their exj)erienc.es and opinion~ with '"l'<"'d in t.h"~'·.ccssihilil.y t)t'the <i~:adinm. An1mal survey quc~Licms vtiE iudu.tlc, but not be lin:ited to, inquiries regarding the average length oftin:.e
disabled individuals waited tor ac-cessible l:ansportalion w l<;ke th"'m to and from lh~ drup·" rr
loc~tions and to and from the a,;,-e~ssible:,Ja:king ,ifeas (se-e paragraph m.F.). The Universitywir provide U1c ac: ual survey rcspomcs to 1\.fl'VA and the United St!!.tes by March 15 of each year.
6. Upon reasonable- advanc.e not1c.e. to tile Univcrsi1y, Ml'V J\ or :h<: L.ni l.::cl Sl~lc~ and
Stadbm to review compl 'ance with this Consent Decree, ir,cluding during home football games at the S:arlimn ami during training sessions regnrijng complllince with the terms of this Constnt
ne~ree.
B. ENFORC1U1K'IT OF TilE CONSENT DECltEE 1. T':1e United .States or .\'IPVA may re·;iew compli<tnc<: v.ith tbis Conscn: Decree at
c. ~tc'ly rime an may enforce this Consent Decree if the Unile<l SUt1e~ or MPVA believe tllat it or
-25·

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 26 of 30 Pg ID 351
any requirement thereof has heen violat~d. lftt:c United State£ or 1\fl.>VA believes thnt :his
Consent Decree or any pmt:on of it has been violated, it will nisc its COt:CtllllS with the
University and the Jlalti~s will attem;lt to resolve the eoneen-.s in good ra.il.b. In lh" '"''''m that iVfPVA m·th<: United Ste.tcs b.,Jj.,vcs toot the Unr;ersity has violated any pwvision of il1is Consent Decrtc, MPVA 01 Ll:e U11iled Slato:;,; will give wtiLLo..1lllvLict.: ('indu<iing re~sonable particnla:rs) of such viou1tio::. <1ntllhe l!niversity lhall :hen respond to such notice andf0r cure such non-compliancc withio 30 caloodar days. The parties shaJ negotiate in good tilith in a:~ attempt to :resolve any dispute relatir.g t~ereto before MT'VA or 'the TJnit.ed StAtes .<eeks tdicf urderpar~.zr~pl! R1 hdnw.
2. Wherever in this Consent D"""'" there i~ a r"'juircmcnl lfutl. Uw U1riversity submit material to the Lniletl S1:2.1es or MPVA for spproval, such a.~ [n ;la:'t m.J. of this Consent Decree, iJ the Uuiv~sity is unable to obtain any approva.i lhat it believes has been wrongfully \1\>ithltcld.• the TIn i'•e1·si:y will raiac its ~onc2n1s witn the lIT'; lcil St.>tJc.• m· MPVA and the pmks w:ll (1~h:J.:J.pt to rc.solvc the· C·OllCQ'll~ in good faith. !J.l the event that tl~e l:"11ited S:atc."''l,. \.fPV:\ Ju~ "'~'""!.!rully wilhbt:lu approval, ltlc Uuiv~rsily wi.l give wrillen nolice {includini( reasona.hle p3rticulars) of the issue 3nd the l,;nb~d States or IYIPVA shilll then respond to such notice and!or issue the approval wi;hin 30 cabndar days. The parties sflall negotiate iu good faith in an arte.mpt to resolve <CLYdispute relating ther~o helor::: seeking,·c\icf undcrp<lragra])h B.3. 'lelow.
-26-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 27 of 30 Pg ID 352
:J. If any dispute under this Conser.I. De::ree is nt)~ n:snlvc.d pu:su~nt to j>aragraj)lts TV.B.1. and /.. ilbo•·~. any aggrie,·ed ].)atty may petition ti·,e Court ror rd icf unu"r. lhi~ Cons~m Decree.
V. :11TSCELL<\NEO'(;S
Tn consi.ier.Jirm of, '"'d con~istrnt with., all the. terms ofthis Consellt Decn::e, the Unitul States and Ml'VA agree to refrain li:o1u m.tkrlakirrg furlh<!r .iJJV<.:$Iig<!.lion int.o cr pursuing fllliher legal vr::~cccd.ings regmdi.ug all ID2.tlers contained within this Consent Decree and it~ attaci:.men.ts,
except as provided in paragraph IV. B. above.
8. DURATION' Ol'' TffJ; CONSit:NT ll~:nu:t.~ .<\NU HU: COUHT'S CONTJN UIN(;
.JCRIS))ICJJQ~
Tins Consent Decree shall rem~in in ~ffcct. for 5 years from •he date of entry. 1l1c Court shall rcla:lljuri~di"tion t'br the duration of this Co.nsent Decree to en Ioree ~:he tem1s nfllu:
I :onsent De·:ree, alter whi<:h lime: t.:"' """shall be:: dis1.rli~scd with pr~judice. Any party may
"PPIY tv the Cuurl for such further orders as may be ncccs~ary :Or, or consisreut with, the cnfor~czncnt of rl::.is Con~"nt Decree. C. E:'ITlllE CONSENT DECREE
Thi <C<>n~e:11 ])(:err.<:, inc:Jvdint: il s 'llbci'UXI ~hibits aE<l drawings, constitutes t':~e erriirc ago eeu rtrrl by Lht Urr il<;•l Stalw ~nd U1.::,Jarlie.; and ll() o:her sla1ement, pl'Omi~e. or aQ_r~cm~.o.t, either written l).t oral, made l>y o.ny party or agenls of<my party, that is not containe-d io thi~ WTiitcn Consent Decree .shall be ·::ntorcc.ablc regzrding the matters raised in thi~ Decrt:e.
-2/-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 28 of 30 Pg ID 353

D. BINJ>ING I!:J:iltl!:C'l'

This Co~5ent Decree i.• final and has binding effect on the parties, i:Jc!uding all

prin<;ipals. agents, executors. adn1in.istr2.tOfS, represeutatj vt~, empluyc:·~~, .suc<.:t·.s~m~ :n iutcrc:st;

bo:udkillli"s, assign~, ~J:d legal :..:prcst:nl<~lil•es her~of.

E.

NO~-WAIVJn{

J:iailure by JYIPV!1. or th~ United States to aeek cnforcem-~nt o( t::lis Consent Dc~rcc

pursuant ta its terms with respect to any ir.st<or.ccorpluYi.sion shall not be construed as a waiver

to such cnto:ccmem w1th regard to oth~.r instances or provisious.

F. CO~Vll'LlAXC.£ Wl'l'H APPLICABLE LAWS

This agreement does nor ail''e;;t the du;y to coa:.ply with the provisions ofthe ADA or

Section 504 or any other law except r,s set f011h in this Co:Jscr.t IJcct:ec.

G. AUTlLUIUTY TU BINI) 'l'tn: PART[[o;.S

The undersignec re;.:~reaentative~ or the part' c~ ccrl~fy that they m·: autholized tc enter

.lul.v ~..wJ vvu~c:.:11l ~o w.a~ •~u•~ e~utl cu~itiuu:: of tbt Cuus~u LD~cn:t: ami LU C!<CC\ttc amll~gally

bind the parties to it

H. SEVl:i{AH!Lll'Y

Jfar.y provision ofthis Oecree 's ileT.enninec~ by ~ny ccmJt to be. tnu:nforccabl:. tire other

tenns of this Dec;·ee shall nonetheless •·ec nain in full furcc ant.! ciT~cl, pruvidec.l hoVvever. !haL 'f

llle severar.ce of a:1y such Jlrovi r.inn matcri aJ ly ~lew \he righ\6 or obligaliuns of the pru1ies, t:Je

Depm1ment 11nil the TJn ivc1·s'ty s~.al J c'lgag~ in good f:til h n<~r.o•ia:ions in :>nkr to ado!Jt such

-28-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 29 of 30 Pg ID 354

mntually agreeilhle amend111o::nls In Ihis l)(:c,.:cc a; may be r.ecessary to res1ore the plu ties as closely as possible to the initially agrc:cd-t.pou rda:.ive rights :;ml obligations.

SO OlU>ERbD J>atc: M~rch 10, 2008

·--~ gc__:/
United States Distticl Courl.'udgc

The patties hereby stip~late to entry ofthe foregoing Conse:Jl Decree:
.• · For Michigan Piiraly7.cd Vcl.~~-ns Cl:' Ameri.,~:

..~m.f\VID M COHEN (w/conscru1 RICHARD H. BERNSTEIN (P5855l)
DAVlD M. COllEN (1'55~R3) LAV>1 OFflfCES OF S>\;."v!UEL I. BERNST.I:ill\" AUnnJ")'"S for P.J•intiffs 31100 Northwestern Highway Farmington !fiJs, MT 4&334
dcohen~;i,sambentstein.c ~111

-2~-

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 23 Filed 03/10/08 Pg 30 of 30 Pg ID 355

1':-:r the I;nited States of America:

Fe-r purj)oses o: service. only:
STEPECN J. Ml:Rl'HY
United SUites Attomey
s!SUS&'\K. DcC:LE:itCQ(wj..QOUS~-~t). SUSA.t-- K. DeCLERCQ Assistant lJnited ~tales Attorney 211 W. Fcrt Street, Ste. 200: Oc:·.-nil, MT 4!\?.?.6
(31.3) 226-9149 E-mail: stlSar!-'~eci{'J'C<!(<ilu£dQi,g!)v.
(l'MM~)

GRACE CHL1'G BECliliR Act ·1g A~sistant At.t<lr.ncy Gc11cra: Civ:l Ri¢ts Division
JOHN T. WODA'T.'CH. Chief
l:'.l::l.I.I..I.P 1... BJ.U-:.E.r--, S?~cial L~gal Caunsd REX£':E M. WOHLENTTAlTS, Depu:y Chjef DisahilityRigr.ts Section Civ· ~ Rizhb Olvi!-.;nn
siK:\.THLEEK S.lJ:BVlNI::! (w/consenil KAlllLEE'I :-;_DEVIN~ DA_iTID M. BOOTH

Tri<.: Attomeys Di ~ah:lity Ri gilts Section Civ:l Rit:hl~ J)j Yi~ion
l f.S. Departmem of Justice 950 Peo 111~ylvaroia Aveuc.c '\"W- NYA Vl'ashinglor., ll.C. 2.0531J Telepho:1e: (202) 307-0-180
r~..:.;imile: (2()2) .10?-9775
J:.··mail: kalhleen.s.jey ine<!i:~t~ridoi. go'v

For the Univcr.•:!y -~·-Michigan anrl the Rcg-:::nts ~fthc TTnivcNlit.y of:vfichigan:

J.sQ!KEeFeEfeAA. ..l:B:lHroOoOk.sK·S-··(·-1··'-3·1·-6·.8. 0)
KATHERINE D. GOl;DJ.E (P62&06)
RT.:'I'7l'T. LON'G, 1' C . Artomeys lor Llefendant Sloncrid_uc We~(
41000 Woodward Avenue
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
(248) 258-lc.Ju
IJ~ooks{li!.bu l:tcl.~om

-30-

 
 2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 15 Filed 11/26/07 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 285

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

MICHIGAN PARALYZED VETERANS OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, v.

No. 07-11702 Honorable Sean F. Cox Magistrate Judge Pepe

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant. - - - - - - -- -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Intervenor,

v.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AND THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN

Defendants. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

ORDER PERMITTING ENTRY UPON LAND

As stated at the hearing on the record held on November 21, 2007, the parties have

agreed that plaintiff-intervenor, the United States of America, with be provided entry and full

access to the land and entire space within the footprint of the University of Michigan football

stadium and its surrounding grounds. The terms of the stipulation are as follows:

1. The United States and its expert will be provided full and unfettered access and

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 15 Filed 11/26/07 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 286
entry to every space at the football stadium and on the surrounding grounds in order for the United States to conduct a survey of the football stadium and the surrounding grounds. 2. The full and unfettered access to the football stadium and the grounds will begin at noon on Tuesday, November 27, 2007, and will continue for a minimum of five consecutive days. If the United States determines that it needs additional time to complete the survey, the University has agreed that it does not object to any additional days for completion of that survey. 3. An illustrative list, providing the minimum, but not the maximum, spaces that the United States will be given such unfettered access as part of its survey will be provided to the University by the United States by noon on Monday, November 26, 2007. The United States will also provide the University with the identity of the individuals who will be at the survey by noon on that same Monday. 4. Also by noon on Monday, November 26, 2007, the University will provide the United States with a construction schedule or list specifically describing what, if any, work had been done, the scope of that work and the location of all such work, since November 16, 2007, up to and including the last day of the survey.

2:07-cv-11702-SFC-SDP Doc # 15 Filed 11/26/07 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 287

In light of the foregoing stipulation, the United States’ Emergency Motion for Entry Upon Land is GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.

Date Entered: November 26, 2007

s/ Sean F. Cox SEAN F. COX United States District Judge

 
 Case: 2:07-cv-11702 As of: 09/10/2012 09:13 AM EDT 1 of 4
U.S. District Court Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:07−cv−11702−SFC−SDP

CLOSED

Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America v. University of Michigan Assigned to: District Judge Sean F. Cox Referred to: Magistrate Judge Steven D Pepe Cause: No cause code entered
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/17/2007 Date Terminated: 10/14/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America

represented by David M. Cohen − INACTIVE Samuel I. Bernstein Assoc. 31100 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, MI 48334 248−865−0868 Fax: 248−737−4392 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Richard H. Bernstein Sam Bernstein Law Firm 31731 Northwestern Highway Suite 333 Farmington Hills, MI 48334−1669 248−737−8400 Fax: 248−737−4392 Email: rbernstein@sambernstein.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Michael J. Blau The Sam Bernstein Law Firm 31731 Northwestern Highway Suite 333 Farmington Hills, MI 48334−1669 248−737−8400 Fax: 248−737−4392 Email: mblau@sambernstein.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Plaintiff United States of America

represented by Susan K. DeClercq U.S. Attorney's Office 211 W. Fort Street Suite 2001 Detroit, MI 48226 313−226−9149 Email: Susan.DeClercq@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant University of Michigan

represented by Katherine D. Goudie Butzel Long (Detroit) 150 W. Jefferson

Case: 2:07-cv-11702 As of: 09/10/2012 09:13 AM EDT 2 of 4
Suite 900 Detroit, MI 48226−4430 313−225−7000 Fax: 313−225−7027 Email: goudie@butzel.com TERMINATED: 04/27/2009 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Keefe A. Brooks Brooks Wilkins Sharkey &Turco, PLLC 401 S. Old Woodward Suite 400 Birmingham, MI 48009 248−971−1710 Fax: 248−971−1801 Email: brooks@bwst−law.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Intervenor Defendant University of Michigan
Intervenor Defendant University of Michigan, Regents of

Date Filed 04/17/2007
04/27/2007 05/02/2007 05/04/2007 05/04/2007 05/07/2007 05/15/2007
05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007 05/21/2007

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America against University of Michigan, Receipt No: 6529−AA − Fee: $ 350. (SMar) (Entered: 04/17/2007)
2 CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. University of Michigan served on 4/19/2007, answer due 5/9/2007. (CGre) (Entered: 04/27/2007)
3 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 5/15/2007 10:00 AM before Honorable Sean F Cox (JHer) (Entered: 05/02/2007)
4 NOTICE of Appearance by Keefe A. Brooks on behalf of all defendants. (Brooks, Keefe) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Katherine D. Goudie on behalf of University of Michigan. (Goudie, Katherine) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America POS − Status Conference Notice (Cohen, David) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 5/15/2007 before Honorable Sean F Cox. Disposition: HELD AND CONTINUED TO 7/20/07 AT 9:00 A.M. (JHer) (Entered: 05/15/2007)
7 ANSWER to Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by all defendants. (Brooks, Keefe) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
Minute Entry −Telephone Conference held on 5/21/2007 before Honorable Sean F Cox. (JHer) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
8 ANSWER Answer to Affirmative Defenses by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America. (Cohen, David) (Entered: 05/21/2007)
9 ORDER SCHEDULING FACILITATION AND STATUS CONFERENCE: Status Conference set for 7/20/2007 09:00 AM before Honorable Sean F Cox Signed by Honorable Sean F Cox. (Refer to image for additional dates) (BSoc) (Entered: 05/23/2007)

Case: 2:07-cv-11702 As of: 09/10/2012 09:13 AM EDT 3 of 4

07/18/2007 08/08/2007 08/08/2007
11/19/2007 11/20/2007
11/20/2007
11/21/2007 11/26/2007 11/26/2007 11/27/2007 12/17/2007 12/20/2007 01/07/2008 01/30/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 03/10/2008

10 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 8/8/2007 02:00 PM before Honorable Sean F Cox (JHer) (Entered: 07/18/2007)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 8/8/2007 before Honorable Sean F Cox. (JHer) (Entered: 08/08/2007)
11 SCHEDULING ORDER: Final Pretrial Conference set for 9/8/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Sean F Cox, Motion Cut−off set for 4/11/2008,Trailing Trial Docket set for September / October 2008,Discovery due by 3/10/2008 Signed by Honorable Sean F Cox. (Refer to image for additional dates) (JHer) (Entered: 08/10/2007)
12 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 11/21/2007 10:00 AM before Honorable Sean F Cox (JHer) (Entered: 11/19/2007)
13 MOTION to Intervene by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Complaint in Intervention# 3 Exhibit 2 − U.S. Dept. of Education's 10−26−07 Letter of Findings to U of M# 4 Exhibit 3 − 11−5−07 Letter from Gloria Hage to Harry Orris# 5 Exhibit 4 − 11−7−07 Letter from Harry Orris to Gloria Hage# 6 Exhibit 5 − 11−8−07 Letter from Gloria Hage to Thomas Hibino# 7 Exhibit 6 − 11−9−07 Letter from Stephanie Monroe to Gloria Hage# 8 Exhibit 7 − Referral Letter# 9 Exhibit 8 − Midwest Realty Management Co. v. City of Beavercreek# 10 Exhibit 9 − Michigan State AFL−CIO v. Miller# 11 Exhibit 10 − Grutter v. Bollinger# 12 Exhibit 11 − Jansen v. City of Cincinnati# 13 Exhibit 12 − Purnell v. City of Akron) (DeClercq, Susan) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
14 Emergency MOTION for Entry Upon Land by United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits # 2 Exhibit 1 − 11−5−07 Letter from Gloria Hage to Harry Orris# 3 Exhibit 2 − Access 4 All, Inc. v. W &D Inv. Co.# 4 Exhibit 3 − Sanford v. Del Taco, Inc.# 5 Exhibit 4 − Doran v. 7−Eleven) (DeClercq, Susan) (Entered: 11/20/2007)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 11/21/2007 before Honorable Sean F Cox. Disposition: Held(Court Reporter Joan Morgan) (JHer) (Entered: 11/25/2007)
15 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Entry Upon Land. Signed by Honorable Sean F Cox. (JHer) (Entered: 11/26/2007)
16 ORDER granting 13 Motion to Intervene. Signed by Honorable Sean F Cox. (CGre) (Entered: 11/27/2007)
17 INTERVENOR COMPLAINT filed by United States of America against University of Michigan. (NHol) (Entered: 11/28/2007)
18 ANSWER to Intervenor Complaint with Affirmative Defenses by all defendants. (Brooks, Keefe) (Entered: 12/17/2007)
19 TRANSCRIPT of Status Conference, Motion to Intervene, Rule 35 Motion held on 11/21/07. (Court Reporter: Joan L. Morgan) (Number of Pages: 11) (CGre) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
20 STIPULATION AND ORDER Extending Witness List Deadline.Witness Lists due by 2/7/2008 Signed by Honorable Sean F Cox. (JHer) (Entered: 01/07/2008)
21 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 1/31/2008 03:00 PM before Honorable Sean F Cox (JHer) (Entered: 01/30/2008)
Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 1/31/2008 before Honorable Sean F Cox. (JHer) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
22 NOTICE TO APPEAR: Status Conference set for 3/10/2008 02:00 PM before Honorable Sean F Cox (JHer) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
Reset Scheduling Order Deadlines:Witness Lists due 3/10/2008 (JHer) (Entered: 01/31/2008)
23 CONSENT DECREE by Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America, United States of America, University of Michigan, University of Michigan, Regents of (Attachments: # 1 Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit A−Specs for Consent Decree, # 3 Exhibit B−Index of Drawings) (Brooks, Keefe) (Entered: 03/10/2008)

Case: 2:07-cv-11702 As of: 09/10/2012 09:13 AM EDT 4 of 4

03/10/2008 03/10/2008 03/10/2008 04/27/2009 05/03/2010

Minute Entry −Status Conference held on 3/10/2008 before Honorable Sean F Cox. (JHer) (Entered: 03/10/2008)
ORAL EXPARTE MOTION for Leave to File Exhibits in the Traditional Manner by University of Michigan. (JHer) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
24 ORDER Granting Oral ExParte Motion for Leave to File Exhibits in the Traditional Manner. Signed by Honorable Sean F Cox. (BSoc) (Entered: 03/11/2008)
25 ATTORNEY SUBSTITUTION for University of Michigan: Keefe A. Brooks added. Attorney Katherine D. Goudie terminated. (Brooks, Keefe) (Entered: 04/27/2009)
26 NOTICE of Appearance by Michael J. Blau on behalf of Michigan Paralyzed Veterans of America. (Blau, Michael) (Entered: 05/03/2010)