4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago

Press Release
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH, MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.

No. 19 C 6322 Judge Bucklo

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF

The United States of America moves, unopposed by the parties and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24, to intervene as a plaintiff, as of right or by permission, and in support states as follows:

1. This civil rights action was brought by the American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago (“ACBMC”) and three of its individual members, alleging that the City of Chicago’s failure to implement accessible pedestrian signals—meaning signals that provide safe crossing information for those who are blind or have low vision in the same way a “walk/don’t walk” sign does to a sighted pedestrian—violates Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

1/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
(“Title II” and “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794. Plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief on behalf of all persons with vision-related disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in Chicago. Dkt. 15. Further, Plaintiffs seek “the implementation of a remedial plan to make signalized intersections across the City systemically accessible to blind pedestrians.” Dkt. 40 at 14.

2. The plaintiffs also filed a complaint with the Department of Justice regarding their allegations, which the government diligently investigated. The United States’ investigation substantiated the plaintiffs' allegations that Chicago violated Title II, Section 504, and their implementing regulations by failing to provide pedestrians who are blind, deaf-blind, or have low vision1 with accessible street-crossing signal information at over 99 percent of the city’s street intersections currently equipped with visual-only pedestrian signal devices. The United States notified the City of its determination on April 6, 2021. As a result, the United States seeks to file a complaint in intervention, attached as Exhibit A, which seeks declaratory relief and an injunction defendant to provide individuals who are blind equal access to pedestrian signal safety information, as well as compensatory damages in an appropriate amount for injuries, including emotional distress, suffered as a result of Chicago’s failure to comply with Title II and Section 504.

3. The United States seeks to intervene in this matter to ensure that Chicago complies with Title II and Section 504 by providing individuals who are blind, deaf-blind, or have low vision equal access to pedestrian signal safety information. The United States seeks intervention as of right because it has a significantly protectable interest in the enforcement of Title II and Section 504, which is 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). Alternatively, the United States asks the Court to exercise its discretion to allow permissive intervention, because its claims against the defendant present questions of law and fact in common with the main action, and the main action involves the interpretation of statutes which the Attorney General is entrusted by Congress to administer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1), (2).

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

2/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
4. To intervene as of right, Rule 24(a)(2) states that, upon a timely motion, the Court must permit anyone to intervene who “claims an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action, and is so situated that disposing of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect its interest, unless existing parties adequately represent that interest.”

5. As an initial matter, the Court should find this motion timely. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a), (b). The Seventh Circuit looks at four factors to determine whether a motion is timely: “(1) the length of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in the case; (2) the prejudice caused to the original parties by the delay; (3) the prejudice to the intervenor if the motion is denied; (4) any other unusual circumstances.” Grochocinski v. Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw, LLP, 719 F.3d 785, 797-98 (7th Cir. 2013) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Upon receipt of the complaint by the plaintiffs, the government diligently investigated these allegations and now moves to intervene to allege violations of Title II and Section 504 upon substantiating the complaint allegations. There is no prejudice to the original parties, who were aware of and participated in the United States’ investigation, and do not oppose intervention. Further, fact discovery remains open and expert discovery has yet to begin. And as explained below, the United States would be prejudiced if the motion were denied.

6. The United States’ interest in the matter is significant. The Department of Justice is the federal agency charged with enforcing the ADA and Section 504, and it issues the ADA’s implementing regulations. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). It has a substantial interest in the subject matter of the pending litigation. Underlying the enactment of the ADA was Congress’s intent to “provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities . . . .” 42 U.S.C. § 1210l(b)(l). 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 of the 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).

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

3/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
7. In this case, the United States’ interest is in enforcing the ADA and Section 504 and their implementing regulations in the context of the accessibility of pedestrian signals. The private plaintiffs do not and cannot represent the United States’ views on the proper interpretation and application of Title II, Section 504, and the relevant implementing regulations in this context. Cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). Furthermore, if this case proceeds to a remedy phase (as the United States expects it will), the United States’ participation will be important to assure that the remedial plan for Chicago, a large municipality, comports with those interpretations. Conversely, if intervention is denied and the United States is not a party to the process, the United States’ interests and responsibilities will be impaired. Therefore, the Court should grant the United States intervention as of right.

8. Alternatively, the Court should exercise its discretion to permit the United States to intervene as a plaintiff under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B) and/or (b)(2). Under Rule 24(b), the Court may allow intervention, on a timely motion, by:

(1)(B) Anyone who "has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(l); and (2) A governmental officer or agency “if a party’s claim or defense is based on: (A) a statute or executive order administered by the officer or agency; or (B) any regulation, order, requirement, or agreement issued or made under the statute or executive order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(2).

9. The United States satisfies Rule 24(b)(1)(B), because the proposed complaint in intervention implicates several questions of fact and law that are not only common but identical to those already in the case. Indeed, the most essential questions—whether and to what extent Chicago has provided pedestrian signals for sighted pedestrians but failed to do so for pedestrians who are blind, and whether that violates Title II and Section 504—are identical.

10. The United States also satisfies Rule 24(b)(2), because the parties’ claims and defenses entirely concern Title II and Section 504 and their implementing regulations, and the Department of Justice is a federal agency that administers and enforces the ADA and

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

4/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
Section 504, and issues the ADA’s implementing regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(3) (“the Federal Government plays a central role in enforcing the [ADA’s] standards”); 42 U.S.C. § 12134(a) (directing the Attorney General to promulgate ADA regulations); Executive Order 12250 (45 FR 72995) (delegating to the Attorney General leadership and coordination of Section 504 implementation and enforcement by Executive agencies); cf. Steward v. Abbott, 189 F. Supp. 3d 620, 626 (W.D. Tex. 2016) (the parties’ Title II and Section 504 claims and defenses were based on “a statutory and regulatory regime that the Attorney General has been charged by Congress with administering.”); see also Disability Advocates, Inc. v. Paterson, No. 03-cv-3209, 2009 WL 4506301, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 23, 2009) (permitting intervention by the United States under Rule 24(b)(2) in a Title II and Section 504 case).

11. Having met those requirements, permissive intervention is in the case management discretion of the court. Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Kaul, 942 F.3d 793, 803 (7th Cir. 2019). The court must weigh “whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the original parties’ rights,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(3), but otherwise does not place any restraints on the Court’s discretion. As discussed above, the United States’ participation as intervenor would neither unduly delay the proceedings nor prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties. On the contrary, the United States anticipates that its participation will further the goal of appropriate remediation of the violations and efficient resolution of this matter. Therefore, the Court should allow intervention here.

12. Attorneys for the United States have consulted with counsel for all parties, and no party opposes the United States’ intervention as plaintiff.

WHEREFORE, the United States should be allowed to intervene as a plaintiff in this case.

1 Hereinafter, the term “blind” is meant to encompass individuals who are entirely without sight, those who are legally blind or have low vision, and those who are “deaf-blind,” meaning that they have both little to no vision and little to no hearing.

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

5/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
By: /s/ Sarah J. North Sarah J. North PATRICK JOHNSON SARAH J. NORTH Assistant United States Attorneys 219 South Dearborn Street, 9th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 353-5327 Email: patrick.johnson2@usdoj.gov sarah.north@usdoj.gov

REBECCA B. BOND Chief
KATHLEEN P. WOLFE Special Litigation Counsel
AMANDA MAISELS Deputy Chief
By: /s/ Matthew Faiella MATTHEW FAIELLA Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division – Disability Rights Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – 4CON 9.114 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: (202) 305-6829 Email: matthew.faiella@usdoj.gov

Exhibit A: COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH,

No. 19 C 6322 Judge Bucklo

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

6/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendant.

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America, having moved to intervene in this action and that motion having been granted, alleges as follows:

Introduction
1. This is a disability rights enforcement action by the United States of America against the City of Chicago, seeking to remedy the city’s failure to provide people who are blind, including those who are deaf-blind or have low vision, equal access to pedestrian safety information at intersection crossings, which the city provides almost exclusively through visual-only pedestrian signals. The United States seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief for this violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

7/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
1990 (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulations for recipients of federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 C.F.R. Part 27.

2. This complaint uses the term “blind” to encompass individuals who are entirely without sight, those who are legally blind or have low vision, and those who are “deaf-blind,” meaning that they have both little to no vision and little to no hearing.

3. Chicago has installed visual-only pedestrian signals that provide safe-crossing information at approximately 2,689 city intersections. Chicago has equipped only 15 of those intersections with signals that are accessible to people who are blind. Thus, over 99 percent of the street intersections where Chicago deems it necessary to provide pedestrians with safe-crossing information are inaccessible to people who are blind.

4. Accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”) convey safety information at intersections to people who are blind through sounds, audible speech, and vibrating tactile buttons, in much the same way that a visual signal reading “walk” or “don’t walk” conveys safety information to sighted pedestrians.

5. Chicago’s failure to install APSs at signalized intersections in the city endangers people who are blind by depriving them equal access to the same safe-crossing information that Chicago provides to sighted pedestrians. This is unlawful discrimination under the ADA and Section 504.

Jurisdiction and Venue

6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this ADA and Section 504 action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.

7. 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.

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

8/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
8. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the defendant resides in this district, and the acts or omissions set out herein occurred in this district.

Parties

9. Plaintiff-intervenor is the United States of America. The United States, through the Department of Justice, is authorized to enforce the ADA and Section 504.

10. Defendant City of Chicago is the largest municipality in the state of Illinois and the third largest city, by population, in the United States. It is a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, and a recipient of federal funds, including funds from the United States Department of Transportation, making it subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.

Facts

I. Statutory and Regulatory Background

A. The Americans with Disabilities Act

11. Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). In enacting the ADA, Congress found that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as … transportation, communication, recreation … and access to public services[,]” and that the forms of discrimination encountered by individuals with disabilities include “the discriminatory effects of architectural … and communication barriers,” “failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices,” and “relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities[.]” Id. § 12101(a)(3), (5).

12. Title II of the ADA requires 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

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

9/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).

13. Chicago’s installation and maintenance of pedestrian signals that provide safecrossing information at street intersections throughout the city constitute a service, program, or activity under the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).

14. People who are blind and who travel or seek to travel through Chicago’s signalized street intersections are qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 35.108.

B. Section 504 and Chicago’s Receipt of Federal Funds

15. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits a “qualified individual with a disability,” solely by reason of her or his disability, from being “denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

16. Chicago’s Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) is the agency within the City of Chicago that oversees installation, alteration, and maintenance of signalized intersections within Chicago, including pedestrian signals at those intersections. It is a recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation.

II. Chicago’s Widespread Lack of APSs Unlawfully Discriminates Against People Who Are Blind.

17. More than 2.7 million people reside in the City of Chicago. According to a U.S. Census 2018 Community Survey cited by the Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, more than 111,000 Cook County, Illinois residents have a visual disability. Beyond residents, many millions of commuters and visitors come to Chicago every year, including individuals who have visual disabilities.

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

10/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
A. Chicago Provides Safe Crossing Information at 2,689 Intersections Through Visual Signals.
18. Chicago has determined that it is necessary to provide safe-crossing information by installing pedestrian signal devices at 2,689 street intersections (hereinafter referred to as “signalized intersections,” i.e., intersections with electronic equipment to direct the flow of traffic and to signal safe-crossing information to pedestrians).
19. All of those 2,689 intersections are equipped with visual pedestrian signals that employ textual or pictorial walk/don’t walk and/or countdown signals to communicate safe-crossing information to sighted pedestrians.
B. Chicago Fails to Provide Accessible Safe-Crossing Information to People Who Are Blind at Over 99 Percent of the Intersections Where It Has Installed Pedestrian Signals.
20. People who are blind cannot read the walk/don’t walk and/or countdown signals on visual-only pedestrian signals.
21. Accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”) are devices that provide people who are blind with safe-crossing information by communicating information about pedestrian signal timing in a non-visual format, such as audible tones, speech messages, and vibrotactile surfaces. An APS device is commonly attached to the pole and includes a tactile pushbutton with a three-dimensional arrow directing pedestrians to the adjacent crosswalk. The APS device emits a soft “locator tone” every second, which allows blind pedestrians to locate it as they approach the intersection. When pressed, the APS button responds with an audible message telling the pedestrian to “walk” or “wait,” which corresponds to the visual signals provided to sighted pedestrians. The push button itself also vibrates to alert pedestrians who are deaf-blind that it is safe to walk.

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

11/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
22. Although Chicago protects sighted pedestrians by providing visual signals for crossing 2,689 intersections, it has installed APSs at only 15 of those intersections.

23. At over 99 percent of Chicago’s signalized intersections, people who are blind do not have access to safe-street-crossing information that Chicago provides to sighted pedestrians, and they must use less safe and less reliable methods than sighted pedestrians to cross intersections.

24. Such methods include listening for the sound of vehicular traffic moving parallel to their direction of travel to indicate that it may be safe to cross the street. This method can be unreliable for many reasons, including inconsistent traffic patterns and the many competing noises in an urban setting.

25. In addition, Chicago’s elevated or ‘L’ train travels above many of the city’s street intersections, producing a loud, even thunderous, sound that can drown out the sound of vehicular traffic.

26. While ‘L’ trains are in transit above a non-APS signalized intersection, people who are blind must wait until the ‘L’ train has passed before crossing, often through multiple traffic cycles, as these pedestrians lack the same safe-crossing information that their sighted peers receive from Chicago’s visual-only signals.

27. Chicago also has many complex, six-way intersections, at which it is difficult for pedestrians who are blind to discern the sound of parallel traffic and to orient themselves in the direction of an adjacent crosswalk.

28. Additionally, an increase in the presence of electric vehicles, which are much quieter than traditional vehicles, has made using the sound of vehicular traffic as a cue for safe-crossing a riskier practice.

29. In addition, Chicago has installed leading pedestrian intervals (“LPIs”) at many

intersections with visual-only signals, making crossing those intersections even

more dangerous than before for people who are blind.

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

12/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
30. The LPI signal notifies pedestrians to begin crossing the street before parallel vehicular traffic receives a green light, giving those pedestrians a “head start” or extra time to enter the crosswalk before parallel vehicular traffic begins to move and turn right into the crosswalk. For those who can use an LPI, it improves safety because drivers can readily see pedestrians in the crosswalk before turning and thus more easily avoid hitting them.

31. For people who are blind, however, installing LPIs without APSs makes crossing even less safe because blind individuals will not know about the LPI, and will only begin to cross when they hear the parallel vehicular traffic begin. Consequently, people who are blind are deprived of extra seconds of crossing time provided to sighted pedestrians, and drivers may get a false sense that no more pedestrians will cross when the traffic light turns green because sighted pedestrians will have already stepped into the crosswalk.

32. Similar to LPIs, Chicago has installed exclusive pedestrian phases (“EPPs”) but no APSs at various intersections. In an EPP intersection, vehicular traffic is stopped in all of the intersection’s directions while pedestrians in all directions are given safe-crossing signals. As with an LPI, if the pedestrian signals provide visual-only safe crossing information at an EPP intersection, people who are blind are denied the benefit of the EPP and will only know when it is safe to cross by relying on the sound of parallel vehicular traffic.

33. As a result of Chicago’s failure to provide APSs at signalized intersections, people who are blind are denied benefits and services provided to sighted pedestrians and face risks and burdens not experienced by sighted pedestrians, including:

a. Fear of injury or death, including fear of just leaving home to get to work or social or community engagements. Once out of the house and traversing Chicago, the lack of APSs increases risk of harm or death when crossing the street: one aggrieved individual, plaintiff Maureen Heneghan, was hit

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

13/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
by a car while crossing at a Chicago intersection not equipped with APS, and another aggrieved individual, plaintiff Ann Brash, was nearly hit by a bus at a signalized crossing without APS but was pulled to safety by a stranger.

b. Having to use alternate and more circuitous routes than sighted pedestrians to avoid crossing at certain signalized intersections because of safety concerns.

c. Added delays and expenses not experienced by sighted pedestrians, because individuals who are blind may forgo travel by foot to avoid the danger of crossing signalized intersections without APSs, and use a hired ride service for even short distances.

d. Increased anxiety, frustration, and embarrassment, and decreased independence, when attempting to navigate the city’s signalized intersections.

C. Chicago Has Attempted to Increase APS Installation Since at Least 2006, but Repeatedly Failed to Meet Its Own APS Goals and to Provide Equal Access to People Who Are Blind.

34. Since at least 2006, Chicago officials have communicated internally regarding the need for APSs as a means to provide accessibility for and protect the safety of people who are blind.

35. A December 13, 2007 memorandum from the then-Commissioners of the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities (“MOPD”) and CDOT to Chicago’s then-Mayor, with the subject “Accessible Pedestrian Signal Initiative Update,” states:

In 2006, MOPD formed an APS Advisory Committee . . . In 2008, we

intend to launch a pilot project that will begin the installation of APS

at approximately 40 street corners throughout the City . . . [to be]

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

14/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
installed around blind service organizations, corners specifically requested by blind individuals, and at intersections that [] are difficult and dangerous to cross. . . . The APS initiative is a tremendous step forward for improving pedestrian safety and accessibility for our blind and visually impaired residents and visitors.

(Emphasis in original).

36. As of 2012, however, Chicago had installed APSs at only seven of its intersections.

37. In 2012, Chicago published a Pedestrian Plan, describing an APS as “a traffic signal that provides auditory and/or vibrotactile information to people who are blind or have low vision,” that “should be installed where there is a need to provide additional crossing information,” and “should be considered at locations with LPIs to provide information to people who are blind or have low vision.” The plan included a goal statement to improve “pedestrian safety at signalized intersections.” That safety goal included milestones to implement “accessible pedestrian signals at ten intersections by 2014” and include “accessible pedestrian signals with all new traffic signals by 2016.”

38. Chicago did not meet either of the 2012 plan’s APS milestones. Chicago installed only one APS in 2013 and then none were installed for five more years, until the next APS was installed in 2018.

39. Between 2012 and 2018, Chicago installed dozens of visual-only pedestrian signals at intersections throughout the city.

40. In 2018, the city informed community members that it intended to install APSs at approximately 50 intersections, with potentially additional locations to follow, and would consider community input in selecting locations for APS installation.

41. On May 14, 2019, CDOT published a memorandum requiring APS installation

at new signals and “full” but not “partial” modernizations, while requiring that

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

15/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
other technological enhancements be installed or considered for installation at all partial modernizations.

42. Chicago newly installed at least nine signalized intersections without APS since publication of the 2019 CDOT memorandum.

43. In July 2019, the city held a press conference and issued a press release announcing its APS plans, including that “[u]p to 100 intersections will get new traffic signals that aid persons with blindness or low-vision in the next two years through efforts of CDOT and Mayor’s Office of People with Disabilities.”

44. Despite the promise of APSs at 100 intersections within two years, as of one year later, July 2020, Chicago had installed an APS at only one additional intersection.

45. As of October 8, 2020, Chicago asserts that it has installed APSs at 15 intersections.

46. In February 2020, Chicago produced a table of “Planned APS Locations,” listing 113 intersections where it plans to install APS, the last four of which have an “Anticipated Project End” date of “2024 Q4.”

47. Even if the city’s February 2020 plan were to come to fruition, Chicago would have APSs at fewer than four percent of its signalized intersections by the end of 2024.

First Claim for Relief Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132

48. The United States respectfully incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth herein.

49. Chicago’s provision of visual pedestrian signals at thousands of intersections, while

providing APS at less than one percent of those intersections, denies qualified people who are

blind with equal access to safe-crossing information.

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

16/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
50. As a result, the City of Chicago is in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1213134, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.

Second Claim for Relief Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794

51. The United States respectfully incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth herein.

52. The City of Chicago’s traffic signal program is administered by the Chicago Department of Transportation (“CDOT”). CDOT receives federal grant funds for that program from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Chicago’s provision of visual pedestrian signals at thousands of intersections, while providing APS at less than one percent of those intersections, denies qualified people who are blind solely on the basis of disability, with equal access to safecrossing information.

53. As a result, the City of Chicago is in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation for recipients of federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 C.F.R. Part 27.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, the United States of America prays that the Court grant the following relief:

A. Grant judgment in favor of the United States on its complaint and declare that the City of Chicago has violated Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its relevant implementing regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 27, by denying individuals who are blind equal access to pedestrian signal safety information;

B. Enter an injunction requiring the defendant to provide individuals who are blind equal access to pedestrian signal safety information;

C. Award compensatory damages in an appropriate amount for injuries suffered as a result of

Chicago’s failure to comply with Title II and Section 504; and

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

17/18

4/9/2021

UNITED STATES’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF in ACMBC v. City of Chicago
D. Award such other additional relief as justice may require.

Dated: April 8, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois
By: /s/ Sarah J. North Sarah J. North PATRICK JOHNSON SARAH J. NORTH Assistant United States Attorneys 219 South Dearborn Street, 9th Floor Chicago, Illinois 60604 Phone: (312) 353-5327 Email: patrick.johnson2@usdoj.gov sarah.north@usdoj.gov

REBECCA B. BOND Chief
KATHLEEN P. WOLFE Special Litigation Counsel
AMANDA MAISELS Deputy Chief
By: /s/Matthew Faiella MATTHEW FAIELLA Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division – Disability Rights Section 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. – 4CON 9.114 Washington, D.C. 20530 Phone: (202) 305-6829 Email: matthew.faiella@usdoj.gov

ADA Enforcement Page | ADA Home Page

https://www.ada.gov/acbmc/acbmc_motion.html

18/18

 
 United States District Court Northern District of Illinois - CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.3.3 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:19-cv-06322

American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago Date Filed: 09/23/2019

et al v. City of Chicago et al

Jury Demand: None

Assigned to: Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights:

Cause: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

Americans with Disabilities - Other

Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago

represented by Nigel F. Telman Proskauer Rose LLP Three First National Plaza 70 W. Madison Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 962-3548 Email: ntelman@proskauer.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Christina Brandt-Young Disability Rights Advocates 655 Third Avenue, 14th floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 644-8644 Email: cbrandt-young@dralegal.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Chester Young Proskauer Rose LLP 70 W. Madison Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 962-3595 Email: eyoung@proskauer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Holly Renae Morris Proskauer Rose, Llp/chicago 70 W. Madison St. Suite 3800 Chicago, IL 60602

Plaintiff Ann Brash

(312) 962-3556 Email: hmorris@proskauer.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jelena Kolic Disability Rights Advocates 10 S. LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60603 (312) 559-4660 Email: jkolic@dralegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Caiola Disability Rights Advocates 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 (212) 644-8644 Email: mcaiola@dralegal.org TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nigel F. Telman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Brandt-Young (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Chester Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Renae Morris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jelena Kolic (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Caiola

Plaintiff Maureen Heneghan
Plaintiff Ray Campbell on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nigel F. Telman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Brandt-Young (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Chester Young (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Renae Morris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jelena Kolic (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Caiola (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Nigel F. Telman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Christina Brandt-Young (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Chester Young

V. Defendant City of Chicago

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Holly Renae Morris (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jelena Kolic (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Michelle Caiola (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/02/2020 PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew S. Mine City of Chicago, Law Department 2 North LaSalle Street Suite 520 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-7220 Email: amine@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Hansberry Fox Rothschild LLP Suite 2500 500 Grant Street Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 394-5539 Email: jhansberry@foxrothschild.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laura Elizabeth Caplin Fox Rothschild LLP 321 North Clark St., 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 312-276-1324 Email: lcaplin@foxrothschild.com

Defendant
Chicago Department of Transportation TERMINATED: 03/09/2020

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scot Payne Fox Rothschild LLP 321 N. Clark Street, 16th Floor Chicago, IL 60654 (312) 517-9232 Email: mpayne@foxrothschild.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan J. Marketich Fox Rothschild LLP 500 Grant Street Suite 2500 Pittsburgh, PA 15219 (412) 394-5544 Email: nmarketich@foxrothschild.com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Hardt Cavanaugh City of Chicago, Law Department 2 N. LaSalle Street Suite 520 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744-0897 Email: Peter.Cavanaugh@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew S. Mine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Hansberry (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scot Payne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan J. Marketich

Defendant Lori Lightfoot in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Chicago TERMINATED: 03/09/2020
Defendant Thomas Carney in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation TERMINATED: 03/09/2020

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Hardt Cavanaugh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew S. Mine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Hansberry (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scot Payne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan J. Marketich (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Hardt Cavanaugh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrew S. Mine (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John C. Hansberry (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew Scot Payne (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nathan J. Marketich

Intervenor United States of America

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Peter Hardt Cavanaugh (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Matthew J. Faiella U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, Disabilit 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 4CON 9.114 Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305-6829 Email: matthew.faiella@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Patrick Walter Johnson United States Attorney's Office (NDIL - Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 (312) 353-5300 Email: patrick.johnson2@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sarah J. North U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street Suite 500 Chicago, IL 60604 312-353-1413 Email: sarah.north@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 09/23/2019
09/23/2019

# Docket Text

COMPLAINT filed by Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash, American

1

Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ray Campbell; Filing

fee $ 400, receipt number 0752-16262034.(Telman, Nigel) (Entered:

09/23/2019)

2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 09/23/2019)

09/23/2019 09/23/2019
09/23/2019
09/23/2019 09/23/2019 09/23/2019 09/24/2019 09/24/2019 09/24/2019 09/24/2019
09/24/2019
09/24/2019

3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan by Nigel F. Telman (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan by Edward Chester Young (Young, Edward) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan by Holly Renae Morris (Morris, Holly) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Jeffrey Cole. Case assignment: Random assignment. (td, ) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendants Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Thomas Carney(mc, ) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant Lori Lightfoot (mc, ) (Entered: 09/23/2019)
6 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16265990. (Caiola, Michelle) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
7 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16266005. (Brandt-Young, Christina) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
8 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan by Jelena Kolic (Kolic, Jelena) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ray Campbell as to City of Chicago on 9/24/2019, answer due 10/15/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ray Campbell as to Chicago Department of Transportation on 9/24/2019, answer due 10/15/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
11 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ray Campbell as to Lori Lightfoot, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Chicago on 9/24/2019, answer due 10/15/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 09/24/2019)

09/24/2019 09/24/2019
10/02/2019 10/03/2019 10/04/2019 10/08/2019 10/08/2019 10/08/2019

12 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ray Campbell as to Thomas Carney, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation on 9/24/2019, answer due 10/15/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
13 NOTICE TO THE PARTIES - The Court is participating in the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP). The key features and deadlines are set forth in this Notice which includes a link to the (MIDP) Standing Order and a Checklist for use by the parties. In cases subject to the pilot, all parties must respond to the mandatory initial discovery requests set forth in the Standing Order before initiating any further discovery in this case. Please note: The discovery obligations in the Standing Order supersede the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1). Any party seeking affirmative relief must serve a copy of the following documents (Notice of Mandatory Initial Discovery and the Standing Order) on each new party when the Complaint, Counterclaim, Crossclaim, or Third-Party Complaint is served. (jh, ) (Entered: 09/24/2019)
14 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Scheduling Conference set for 1/17/2020 at 09:30 AM. Rule 26(f) planning report re MIDP due 1/14/2020. The report must comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot program of the district court. The report form can be found on Judge Bucklo's page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
15 First AMENDED complaint by Ray Campbell, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash against All Defendants (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 10/03/2019)
ALIAS Summons Issued as to Defendants Thomas Carney, Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot. (jg, ) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ray Campbell, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash as to Lori Lightfoot on 10/7/2019, answer due 10/28/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ray Campbell, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash as to City of Chicago on 10/7/2019, answer due 10/28/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
18 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ray Campbell, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash as to Chicago Department of Transportation on 10/7/2019, answer due 10/28/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 10/08/2019)

10/08/2019 10/11/2019
10/17/2019
10/28/2019 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 10/28/2019 10/31/2019 12/10/2019

19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Ray Campbell, American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Maureen Heneghan, Ann Brash as to Thomas Carney on 10/7/2019, answer due 10/28/2019. (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 10/08/2019)
20 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Scheduling conference set for 1/31/2020 at 09:30 AM. Rule 26(f) planning report re MIDP due 1/28/2020. The report must comply with the requirements of the Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot program of the district court. The report form can be found on Judge Bucklo's page at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
21 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Application to appear pro hac vice 6 of Michelle Caiola is withdrawn. Ms. Caiola is admitted to practice in the Northern District of Illinois. Application to appear pro hac vice of Christina Brandt-Young as counsel for plaintiffs 7 is granted. Counsel is directed to file their appearance. The scheduling conference set for 1/17/2020 is stricken, the scheduling conference set for 1/31/2020 to stand. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 10/17/2019)
22 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan by Michelle Caiola (Caiola, Michelle) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
23 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan by Christina Brandt-Young (Brandt-Young, Christina) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
24 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Thomas Carney, Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot by Peter Hardt Cavanaugh (Cavanaugh, Peter) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
25 MOTION by Defendants Thomas Carney, Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot for extension of time (Cavanaugh, Peter) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
26 NOTICE of Motion by Peter Hardt Cavanaugh for presentment of extension of time 25 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 11/1/2019 at 09:30 AM. (Cavanaugh, Peter) (Entered: 10/28/2019)
27 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Defendants' motion for an extension of time to answer or otherwise plead in response to plaintiffs' amended complaint up to and including 12/12/19 25 is granted. Motion hearing set for 11/1/19 is stricken; no appearance required. Mailed notice (mjc, ) (Entered: 10/31/2019)
28 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Chicago by Matthew Scot Payne (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 12/10/2019)

12/10/2019 12/10/2019 12/10/2019
12/11/2019 12/11/2019 12/16/2019
01/02/2020 01/02/2020 01/02/2020 01/02/2020 01/08/2020

29 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City of Chicago by Laura Elizabeth Caplin (Caplin, Laura) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
30 MOTION by Defendant City of Chicago for extension of time Agreed to Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead in Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
31 Notice of Agreed to Motion for an Extension of Time to Answer or Otherwise Plead in Response to Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint NOTICE of Motion by Matthew Scot Payne for presentment of extension of time 30 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 12/18/2019 at 09:30 AM. (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
32 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16519911. (Hansberry, John) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
33 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-16520001. (Marketich, Nathan) (Entered: 12/11/2019)
34 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Agreed motion for extension of time to 1/02/2020 to respond to plaintiffs' amended complaint 30 is granted. Scheduling conference re MIDP previously set for 1/31/2020 to stand. Motions of John Hansberry and Nathan Marketich to appear pro hac vice 32 and 33 are granted. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 12/16/2019)
35 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Thomas Carney, Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot by Andrew S. Mine (Mine, Andrew) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
36 MOTION by Defendants Chicago Department of Transportation, Thomas Carney, Lori Lightfoot, City of Chicago to dismiss Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
37 MEMORANDUM by Thomas Carney, Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot in support of motion to dismiss 36 First Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
38 NOTICE of Motion by Matthew Scot Payne for presentment of motion to dismiss 36 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 1/9/2020 at 09:45 AM. (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 01/02/2020)
39 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: The Court sets the following briefing schedule on Defendant's partial motion to dismiss first amended complaint 36 as follows: Plaintiff to respond by 1/30/2020. Defendants to reply by 2/13/2020. Ruling before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 3/19/2020 at 9:45 a.m. The scheduling

01/30/2020 02/13/2020 03/09/2020
03/09/2020 03/16/2020 03/16/2020 03/20/2020

conference date of 1/31/2020 is stricken, pending disposition of motion to dismiss. No appearance required on 1/9/2020. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 01/08/2020)

40 RESPONSE by American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghanin Opposition to MOTION by Defendants Chicago Department of Transportation, Thomas Carney, Lori Lightfoot, City of Chicago to dismiss Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint 36 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Young, Edward) (Entered: 01/30/2020)

41 REPLY by Defendants Thomas Carney, Chicago Department of Transportation, City of Chicago, Lori Lightfoot in Support of its Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint (Hansberry, John) (Entered: 02/13/2020)

42 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Defendant's partial motion to dismiss first amended complaint 36 is granted in part. Enter Memorandum Opinion and Order. Scheduling Conference set for 3/27/2020 at 9:45 a.m. Rule 26(f) planning report re MIDP due 3/24/2020. No appearance required on 3/19/2020. Lori Lightfoot (in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Chicago), Thomas Carney (in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation) and Chicago Department of Transportation are terminated. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 03/09/2020)

MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order signed by the Honorable

43

Elaine E. Bucklo on 3/9/2020. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered:

03/09/2020)

44 ORDER Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on March 16, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Amended General Order. See attached Order for guidance.Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 3/16/2020: Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

45 ORDER Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on March 16, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Amended General Order. See attached Order for guidance.Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 3/16/2020: Mailed notice. (ecw, ) (Entered: 03/17/2020)

46 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Pursuant to Amended General Order 20-0012, Scheduling Conference is reset for 4/27/2020 at 9:45 a.m. Rule 26(f) report re MIDP due 4/24/2020. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 03/20/2020)

03/30/2020
04/13/2020 04/13/2020 04/24/2020
05/26/2020
06/08/2020 06/17/2020

47 ORDER Seconded Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on March 30, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Second Amended General Order. Amended General Order 20-0012, entered on March 17, 2020, and General Order 20-0014, entered on March 20, 2020, are vacated and superseded by this Second Amended General. See attached Order for guidance.Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 3/30/2020: Mailed notice. (docket3, ) (Entered: 03/31/2020)
48 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Pursuant to Second Amended General Order 20-0012, the Scheduling Conference set for 4/27/2020 is stricken and reset to 6/24/2020 at 9:45 a.m. Rule 26(f) report re MIDP due 6/19/2020. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
49 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Pursuant to Second Amended General Order 20-0012, the Scheduling Conference set for 4/27/2020 is stricken and reset to 6/24/2020 at 9:45 a.m. Rule 26(f) report re MIDP due 6/19/2020. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 04/13/2020)
50 ORDER Third Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on April 24, 2020. All open cases are impacted by this Third Amended General Order. Parties are must carefully review all obligations under this Order, including the requirement listed in paragraph number 5 to file a joint written status report in most civil cases. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 4/24/2020: Mailed notice. (docket6, ) (Entered: 04/27/2020)
51 ORDER ORDER Fourth Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on May 26, 2020. This Order does not extend or modify any deadlines set in civil cases. For nonemergency motions, no motion may be noticed for presentment on a date earlier than July 15, 2020. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 5/26/2020: Mailed notice. (docket7, ) (Entered: 05/26/2020)
52 ANSWER to amended complaint and Affirmative Defenses by City of Chicago(Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 06/08/2020)
53 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: The court on its own motion amends the order entered on 4/13/2020, as follows: the court will enter a schedule on the parties' Rule 26(f) report and no appearance will be required on 6/24/2020. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 06/17/2020)

06/19/2020 06/23/2020
07/08/2020 07/08/2020 07/10/2020
07/23/2020 08/17/2020 08/18/2020

54 Rule 26(f) Report for Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot (MIDP) / Joint Status Report, filed by Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan. (Young, Edward) (Entered: 06/19/2020)
55 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: The Court adopts the report of parties planning meeting. Parties written discovery to be issued by 7/22/2020. Plaintiff is given to and including 7/10/2020 to amend all pleadings and to add any additional parties. Defendant is given to and including 7/31/2020 to amend all pleadings and to add any additional parties. Fact discovery ordered closed by 1/22/2021. Plaintiff shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 1/31/2021. Defendant shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 3/31/2021. All expert discovery to be completed by 4/30/2021. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 5/31/2021. Status hearing set for 1/22/2021 at 9:45 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). The parties shall file a joint written status report by 1/11/2021. The court will enter a scheduling order in response to the status report. The scheduling conference date of 6/24/2020 is stricken and no appearance is required. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 06/23/2020)
56 CERTIFICATE of Service of Rule 26(a)(1) and Mandatory Initial Discovery Pilot Project Disclosures by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
57 CERTIFICATE of Service OF PLAINTIFFS' MANDATORY INITIAL DISCLOSURES by Nigel F. Telman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 07/08/2020)
58 ORDER Fifth Amended General Order 20-0012 IN RE: CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PUBLIC EMERGENCY Signed by the Chief Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on July 10, 2020. This Order does not extend or modify any deadlines set in civil cases. No motions may be noticed for in-person presentment; the presiding judge will notify parties of the need, if any, for a hearing by electronic means or incourt proceeding. See attached Order. Signed by the Honorable Rebecca R. Pallmeyer on 7/10/2020: Mailed notice. (Clerk6, Docket) (Entered: 07/10/2020)
59 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
60 CERTIFICATE of Service OF PLAINTIFFS' PRODUCTION DOCUMENTS by Nigel F. Telman on behalf of All Plaintiffs (Telman, Nigel) (Entered: 08/17/2020)
61 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 08/18/2020)

09/11/2020 10/28/2020 11/25/2020 11/25/2020 12/02/2020 12/22/2020 12/29/2020 12/30/2020
12/30/2020

62 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 09/11/2020)
63 MOTION by Attorney Michelle Caiola to withdraw as attorney for American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan. No party information provided (Brandt-Young, Christina) (Entered: 10/28/2020)
64 MOTION by Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan for order / Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for the Entry of an ESI Protocol and Confidentiality Order (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Young, Edward) (Entered: 11/25/2020)
65 NOTICE of Motion by Edward Chester Young for presentment of motion for order, 64 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 12/3/2020 at 09:45 AM. (Young, Edward) (Entered: 11/25/2020)
66 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Motion to withdraw as counsel for plaintiffs 63 is granted. Attorney Michelle Caiola is terminated. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for the entry of an ESI Protocol and Confidentiality Order 64 is granted. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 12/02/2020)
67 MOTION by Plaintiffs American Council of The Blind of Metropolitan Chicago, Ann Brash, Ray Campbell, Maureen Heneghan for extension of time to complete discovery Filed jointly for all parties (Brandt-Young, Christina) (Entered: 12/22/2020)
68 CERTIFICATE of Service City of Chicago's Objections and Responses to Plfs' Amended First Set of Requests for Production of Documents by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 12/29/2020)
69 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Joint motion for 3-month extension of time to complete discovery 67 is granted. By agreement, plaintiff to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) by 4/30/2021; defendant to comply with the same by 6/30/2021. Expert discovery deadline reset to 7/30/2021; dispositive motion deadline reset to 8/31/2021. Fact discovery deadline reset to 4/22/2021. Status hearing reset for 4/22/2021 at 09:45 AM (to track the case only; no appearance required). Joint status report due 4/19/2021. The court will enter an order based on the report. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
70 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Joint motion for 3-month extension of time to complete discovery 67 is granted. By agreement, plaintiff to comply with Rule 26(a)(2) by 4/30/2021; defendant to comply with the same by 6/30/2021. Expert discovery deadline reset to 7/30/2021; dispositive motion deadline reset to

02/26/2021 03/29/2021 04/07/2021 04/08/2021
04/09/2021 04/13/2021 04/14/2021 04/14/2021 04/14/2021 04/14/2021 04/15/2021
04/16/2021 04/19/2021

8/31/2021. Fact discovery deadline reset to 4/22/2021. Status hearing reset for 4/22/2021 at 09:45 AM (to track the case only; no appearance required). Joint status report due 4/19/2021. The court will enter an order based on the report. (Double entry with PDF). Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 12/30/2020)
71 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 02/26/2021)
72 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 150, receipt number 0752-18065995. (Kelly, Timothy) (Entered: 03/29/2021)
73 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Motion to appear pro hac vice 72 is granted. Mailed notice (reg) (Entered: 04/07/2021)
74 MOTION by Movant United States of America to intervene (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A: Proposed Complaint in Intervention of the United States of America)(North, Sarah) (Entered: 04/08/2021)
75 UNOPPOSED NOTICE of Motion by Sarah J. North for presentment of motion to intervene 74 before Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo on 4/14/2021 at 09:45 AM. (North, Sarah) (Entered: 04/09/2021)
76 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 04/13/2021)
77 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: United States' motion to intervene as a plaintiff 74 is granted. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 04/14/2021)
78 INTERVENOR complaint filed by United States of America against City of Chicago(North, Sarah) (Entered: 04/14/2021)
79 ATTORNEY Appearance for Intervenor United States of America by Matthew J Faiella (Faiella, Matthew) (Entered: 04/14/2021)
80 DESIGNATION of Patrick Walter Johnson as U.S. Attorney for Intervenor United States of America (Johnson, Patrick) (Entered: 04/14/2021)
81 CERTIFICATE of Service of Amended Notice of Taking Deposition of Plaintiff Ann Brash, Plaintiff Ray Campbell and Taking Rule 30(B)(6) Deposition of Plaintiff American Counsel of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 04/15/2021)
ALIAS Summons Issued as to Defendant City of Chicago. (crl, ) (Entered: 04/16/2021)
82 STATUS Report JOINT by United States of America (North, Sarah) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

04/22/2021
04/28/2021 05/14/2021 05/24/2021

83 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo: Per the parties' joint status report and by agreement, Fact Discovery is extended and ordered closed by 9/30/2021. Plaintiff shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 10/12/2021. Defendant shall comply with FRCP 26(a)(2) by 12/13/2021. All expert discovery to be completed by 1/31/2022. Dispositive motions with supporting memoranda due by 2/28/2022. Status hearing is reset for 10/7/2021 at 9:45 a.m. (to track the case only, no appearance is required). The parties shall file a joint written status report by 9/30/2021. The court will enter a scheduling order in response to the status report. Mailed notice. (mgh, ) (Entered: 04/22/2021)
84 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 04/28/2021)
85 NOTICE of Service of Responses to Mandatory Initial Discovery (MIDP) , filed by Intervenor United States of America. (Faiella, Matthew) (Entered: 05/14/2021)
86 CERTIFICATE of Service by Matthew Scot Payne on behalf of City of Chicago (Payne, Matthew) (Entered: 05/24/2021)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:
Description:
Billable Pages:

06/01/2021 13:28:06

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0 Client Code:

Docket Report

Search Criteria:

1:19-cv06322

13

Cost:

1.30

 
 Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH, MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

-against-

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, LORI LIGHTFOOT, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Chicago, and THOMAS CARNEY, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-6322 COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION 1. This class action lawsuit challenges the City of Chicago’s (“Chicago” or the “City”) practice of systemically discriminating against blind1 residents and visitors by failing to equip signalized street intersections with accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”). 2. APSs convey traffic and warning information (i.e., “Walk” and “Don’t Walk”) by making sounds and vibrating a tactile button. By listening for the sounds generated by the APS, blind pedestrians receive the same information about traffic safety that sighted pedestrians can obtain by looking at the pedestrian signals.

1 Plaintiffs use the terms “blind” and “deaf-blind” to describe individuals who have low or no use of vision , as well
as low or no use of hearing alongside vision. For purposes of this complaint, the term “blind” should be understood to include people who are either legally or completely blind.

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2
3. Yet Chicago regularly installs and upgrades pedestrian traffic signals without including an APS device, thereby denying blind pedestrians access to information that is provided to sighted pedestrians to promote their safety.
4. Indeed, abysmally few of Chicago’s signalized intersections have pedestrian signals that are usable by blind pedestrians: Out of about 2,672 signalized traffic intersections in Chicago, only 11—less than half of one percent—offer signals that convey any information at all to people with vision-related disabilities. Such systemic failure dangerously diminishes blind pedestrians’ ability to navigate street crossings safely and independently.
5. To cope with the chronic lack of APS devices, which are missing even at noisy, busy, or complex street intersections, blind pedestrians are forced to resort to a number of workarounds that are demeaning and potentially unsafe. Some of these workarounds include seeking assistance from complete strangers and attempting to follow sighted pedestrians, who may cross against lights. At times, blind pedestrians must wait alone at an intersection for several cycles until another pedestrian appears to help them navigate the crossing. In a worstcase scenario, a blind pedestrian risks being hit by a car because they are forced to cross the street without knowing whether it is safe for them to do so.
6. If a blind pedestrian accidentally crosses against the light, sighted pedestrians, when present, will often grab or shout at them, an experience that is frightening and humiliating.
7. The difficulties of crossing noisy, busy, or complex streets without APSs are indeed so severe that some blind pedestirans attempt to avoid risky intersections altogether by using indirect, longer routes, or by taking paratransit, even though parantransit must be arranged for twenty-four hours in advance.
2

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3
8. These challenges are additionally compounded by Chicago’s high vehicle and population density. Chicago has approximately 11,000 inhabitants per square mile, making it one of the most population-dense cities in the entire country. High levels of background noise— such as construction, garbage collection, street music, or passing subways on elevated tracks— make safe and independent navigation of street crossings that much more challenging for blind pedestrians who, in the absence of accessible pedestrian signalling, often must rely on the ear alone to know when to cross streets.
9. Collectively, these obstacles severely compromise blind pedestrians’ ability to move about the City like their sighted counterparts do: Safely, independently, expeditiously, and without fear. The exclusion of APSs from Chicago’s pedestrian signal program is thus severly harmful to Plaintiffs and members of the class.
10. The City’s long-standing systemic failure to ensure that its pedestrian signals are accessible to blind pedestrians constitutes a violation of both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
11. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all people with vision-related disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in Chicago. Because Defendants have imposed on these individuals unnecessary risks to their safety and independence each time they navigate signalized intersections without APS devices, swift and comprehensive injunctive relief is warranted.
JURISDICTION 12. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794.
3

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4
13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for claims arising under the ADA and Section 504.
VENUE 14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in this District. The Defendants are located within this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District.
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Ann Brash is blind and has used a white cane to navigate since 1971. She has worked in Chicago since 1975 and travels on city streets each weekday. She is a member of the American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago (“ACBMC”). Accordingly, Ms. Brash is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 16. Plaintiff Maureen Heneghan is blind and uses a white cane to navigate the sidewalks. She has lived in Chicago her entire life and travels across city streets every day. She is a member of the ACBMC. Accordingly, Ms. Heneghan is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 17. Plaintiff Ray Campbell is blind and has used a white cane to navigate the sidewalks for over 40 years. He has worked in Chicago in his current job since 2015 and travels on city streets each weekday. He is the Second Vice President of the national American Council of the Blind. Accordingly, Mr. Campbell is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 18. Plaintiff ACBMC is a consumer-based, non-profit independent organization that advocates on behalf of, and seeks to the improve the quality of life for, all blind and visually impaired residents in Chicago, Illinois. It is an affiliate of the Illinois Council of the Blind,
4

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5
which is a state affiliate of the national American Council of the Blind. ACBMC’s officers and membership, around 38 people in total, overwhelmingly consist of people who are blind or lowvision.
19. Full access to basic services enabling safe and independent street navigation for people with vision-related disabilities is a core component of ACBMC’s mission. ACBMC has sent letters and feedback to the Mayor and various aldermen of Chicago, as well as attended meetings of the Department of Transportation and Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, to advocate for the rights of blind pedestrians.
20. In addition, ACBMC’s officers and board members navigate City streets on a daily basis. The problems they have faced due to the systemic lack APSs have included being forced to rely on strangers, following other pedestrians who are crossing against lights, being grabbed without their consent by other pedestrians, and near-misses by cars when unwittingly attempting to cross streets in the face of oncoming traffic. Defendants’ discriminatory actions and failures to act have thus created injuries, providing members with standing to bring a suit in their own right.
21. In sum, the pervasive lack of APS devices is an issue of significant concern for ACBMC and its members. Unless the issue is remediated, ACBMC will continue to be forced to divert its resources away from the programs that seek to alleviate its constituents’ numerous other needs into addressing this continued barrier to blind pedestrians’ ability to move about safely and independently.
22. Defendant City of Chicago is a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Moreover,
5

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6
this Defendant is also the recipient of federal funds, including funds from the federal Department of Transportation, and therefore subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.
23. Defendant Chicago Department of Transportation is likewise a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Moreover, this Defendant is also the recipient of federal funds, including funds from the federal Department of Transportation, and therefore subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.
24. Defendant Lori Lightfoot, sued in her official capacity, is the Mayor of the City of Chicago.
25. Defendant Thomas Carney, sued in his official capacity, is the Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS A. APS Technology is Indispensable for Securing the Safety and Independence of Blind
Pedestrians at Signalized Street Intersections. 26. A modern APS device contains a pedestrian pushbutton with a raised arrow that points at the pedestrian street crossing about which it provides signaling information. To signal its location to blind pedestrians, the device continuously emits a sound about once per second. Once a pedestrian presses the button to cross the street, this sound changes and the arrow vibrates to communicate that the button has been successfully activated. When traffic has stopped and the walk signal begins, the sound and vibration change again to signal to blind pedestrians that the “walk” light is on. 27. The first APS devices were marketed in the 1970s and consisted of just a chirping speaker. An example of such an older device still in use in Chicago can be found at Roosevelt Road and South Wood Street. This APS is located at the intersection immediately between the
6

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7
Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind and the Illinois State Center for Rehabilitation and Education. Unlike a modern APS device, it does not have a vibrating button indicating to Deaf-blind pedestrians when to cross the street, even though nearby street signs warn of “BLIND AND DEAF” pedestrians in the area.
28. Because of its importance to the safety and independence of blind pedestrians, installation of APS technology is recognized as a best practice in federal accessibility guidance. APS installation is indeed necessary to ensure that the City’s pedestrian signal program is readily accessible to blind pedestrians.
B. The City Has Expended Substantial Resources to Improve Pedestrian Safety Without Providing for APS Devices to Ensure that the Information Pedestrian Signals Convey is Accessible to Blind Pedestrians. 29. In recent years, the City has adopted several initiatives to improve pedestrian
safety generally. In its perhaps most ambitious effort, undertaken in 2012, the City committed to implementing over 250 recommendations aimed at eliminating pedestrian fatalities. Those recommendations included traffic-calming measures like pedestrian islands, chicanes, and midblock curb bumpouts; identification and remediation of no less than two high-collision corridors and four dangerous intersections annually; implementation of tougher safety mandates for taxi drivers; and a variety of street infrastructure treatments such as road diets, roundabouts, speed humps and pedestrian scrambles.
30. Further, under Defendant CDOT’s Chicago Pedestrian Plan, the City has ostensibly committed to investing in a variety of projects aimed at reducing serious pedestrian injuries by 50 percent every five years. Some of these projects include development of a Zero in Ten pedestrian crash program; implementation of the so-called Safety Zone, which aims to bring about citywide crosswalk policy and safety improvements for seniors; development of neighborhood streets for slow, local traffic; improvement of crash data collection and sharing;
7

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8
modification of driver education programs; and incentives to encourage taxi drivers to drive more safely.
31. Yet none of these ambitious commitments encompasses a serious effort to equip signalized intersections with signals accessible to blind pedestrians.
32. Instead, Defendants have suggested that they will install up to 100 APSs in the next two years and 15-25 APSs per year after that. At that rate, Chicago’s street crossings will not be accessible for another hundred years.
33. Further compounding the problem, it is at best unclear whether the City will actually follow through even on this modest promise since it has reneged on similar promises in the past. For instance, in 2015, Chicago applied for and received a grant from the Chicago Regional Transit Authority to install APSs at Clinton Street, Canal Street, Washington Street, and Madison Street in the Loop. These APSs have not yet been installed, and the timeline for their installation remains unclear.
34. Collectively, these investments demonstrate that the City of Chicago has the financial capacity to equip its signalized intersections with APS devices and simply chooses not to do so.
C. Making Matters Worse: Leading Pedestrian Intervals Further Aggravate Problems Caused by the Systemic Lack of APS Devices. 35. The City has attempted to increase traffic safety for sighted pedestrians by
introducting pedestrian “signal phases” which instruct pedestrians to enter an intersection at a different time than vehicular traffic. However, due to its failure to include APS devices at these intersections, the City’s efforts have paradoxically made the streets even less safe for blind pedestrians.
8

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9
36. One such signal phase is a “leading pedestrian interval” (“LPI”). In an LPI, the pedestrian traffic signal instructs pedestrians to enter the intersection three to ten seconds before the traffic signal that directs vehicular traffic heading in the same direction does the same. This permits pedestrians to have a head start getting across the intersection against turning vehicular traffic, and is a proven safety measure for sighted individuals.
37. However, if a traffic signal uses an LPI but has no APS, it does not inform blind pedestrians when they should start crossing. At best, blind pedestrians lose the benefit of the LPI because they are listening and waiting for the cue of vehicular traffic noises to know when to cross, and thus simply wait through the LPI without receiving the benefit of the extra time to cross the street. In fact, they may be left without adequate time to cross the street. At worst, an LPI without an APS causes blind pedestrians to start crossing just as vehicular traffic starts turning into their path, when drivers do not expect them.
38. Today, the City has approximately 231 intersections that use LPIs but only 2 of those intersections have APS devices. This scarcity appears to be the direct result of the fact that the City does not require even considering APS installation when incorporating LPIs even though both federal guidance and Chicago internal guidance recognize that such consideration is warranted whenever an intersection uses signal phasing. Indeed, the City’s most recent policy on the subject, issued in April 2019, explicitly provides that its engineers should not consider installing APSs when signal phases are being added, unless the pedestrian signal is being newly installed or completely replaced. The City is thus consistently ignoring the needs of blind pedestrians even while taking actions to improve the safety of sighted pedestrians generally.
9

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES A. Harm to Plaintiff Brash
39. Plaintiff Ann Brash is blind. She lives in La Grange, Illinois and commutes to Chicago every weekday to her job.
40. Ms. Brash uses Chicago street crossings virtually every weekday of her life. Among other things, she navigates them to commute to her job, to do errands in the area around her workplace, and to attend social appointments and organizational meetings.
41. In 2017, Ms. Brash’s office moved to a new location, and she sought six weeks of orientation and mobility training from Second Sense, a 70-year-old organization that provides services, including mobility training, to people with vision-related disabilities, in order to ensure that she could navigate safely and independently to the new location. Nonetheless, in November 2017, on her way home from one of her first few days on the job, she was nearly hit by a bus at the intersection of West Madison Street and North Jefferson Street. As she was stepping off the curb, a bus passed through the intersection in front of her. A fellow pedestrian grabbed her back to keep her from moving forward, and her cane was split apart by the bus. She still crosses at this intersection twice every work day, even though she does not feel safe navigating it, since its location makes it virtually impossible to avoid.
42. The intersection is exceptionally challenging because West Madison Street is a one-way street with parking lanes, a right-hand turn lane, and two traffic lanes, while North Jefferson Street is one-way with parking on one side and three lanes of traffic. The complexity of the configuration makes it difficult for Ms. Brash to know where she should expect traffic sounds to come from.
43. Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Ms. Brash must deal with such
10

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11
intersections throughout Chicago without the aid of APSs when going to various daily destinations.
44. In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex streets safely without APSs, Ms. Brash relies on a number of methods, all of which are time-consuming and inconvenient. Sometimes she waits for other pedestrians to appear so that she can cross with them. She also sometimes walks several blocks out of her way in order to avoid intersections that are confusing and unsafe. Ms. Brash even avoids leaving her office for lunch so that she does not have to deal with street crossings. The lack of APSs thus constrains Ms. Brash from moving about Chicago safely and independently in a number of ways that affect her every single day, denying her equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, City resources to the same extent as her sighted counterparts.
45. Taken together, these experiences attest to Ms. Brash’s longstanding struggle with access barriers resulting from the systemic lack of APS devices in the City. Because Ms. Brash will continue to require APSs at noisy, busy, or complex intersections in order to navigate the City safely and independently, the lack of them will keep affecting her in her daily life. B. Harm to Plaintiff Heneghan
46. Plaintiff Heneghan lives in the Edison Park neighborhood of Chicago and is legally blind.
47. As a City resident, Ms. Heneghan uses Chicago street crossings virtually every day of her life. Among other things, Ms. Heneghan navigates them to commute to her volunteer commitments, to do errands, to attend medical appointments, and to socialize with friends and family.
48. In the course of all these activities, Ms. Heneghan regularly struggles with the lack of APSs. In particular:
11

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12
a) Ms. Heneghan volunteers weekly at Second Sense. Second Sense has been located at 65 East Wacker Place, between North Wabash Avenue and North Michigan Avenue, for the past seven years. Despite the high volume of blind people who travel to Second Sense, and who receive mobility training there, and despite the huge intersections nearby, there are currently no APSs in the immediate vicinity of the organizaiton’s office. Ms. Heneghan is thus forced to navigate a number of highly busy intersections—including Clark/Lake, Lake/Dearborn, Lake/State, Wabash/Lake and Wabash/Wacker Place—after getting off the Blue Line without the benefit of the information that the pedestrian crossing signals convey to sighted pedestrians. While each of these intersections poses a significant challenge due to complex traffic patterns and noise, Ms. Heneghan is especially frustrated by the Clark/Lake intersection because the noise of the trains passing through the station directly above makes it difficult for her to hear oncoming vehicular traffic and figure out when it is safe to cross.
b) In 2004, Ms. Heneghan was hit by a car at the intersection of North Milwaukee Avenue and North Austin Avenue, near North Ardmore Avenue. Because North Ardmore Avenue is a side street from which cars pour onto busy Milwaukee Avenue, crossing it against the lights is exceptionally dangerous. In the absence of an APS, Ms. Heneghan inadvertently did just that, and was hit by a car. In the aftermath of the accident, Ms. Heneghan was forced to get eight staples in the back of her head and needed weeks to fully recover.
49. Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Ms. Heneghan must deal with such
12

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13
intersections throughout Chicago without the aid of APSs when navigating her way to various daily destinations.
50. In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex streets safely without APSs, Ms.Heneghan relies on a number of methods, none of which she is comfortable or happy with. These methods include crossing in packs of people, a strategy that can require waiting on other pedestrians to show up; getting off buses and subways one or two stops early or late in order to avoid unsafe intersections; taking paratransit, even though it must be arranged 24 hours in advance; and asking other pedestrians for help.
51. Requesting help from pedestrians in particular can be tricky and result in additional difficulties. On one occasion, two pedestrians offered to help Ms. Heneghan cross, and Ms. Heneghan asked them to tell her when the light changed. Instead, they physically pulled her into the street when she was not expecting it. Her cane got stuck in a gap in the street, and she lost her balance and fell. Ms. Heneghan was sore for days after the incident.
52. Taken together, these experiences attest to Ms.Heneghan’s longstanding struggle with access barriers resulting from the systemic lack of APS devices in the City. Because Ms. Heneghan will continue to require APSs in order to navigate the City safely and independently, this lack is bound to keep affecting her in her daily life. C. Harm to Plaintiff Campbell
53. Plaintiff Ray Campbell is blind. He has worked in Chicago’s Inner Loop since 2015.
54. Because he works in Chicago, Mr. Campbell uses its street crossings every weekday. Among other things, Mr. Campbell navigates them to commute to his job, to go to lunch in the area around his workplace, to socialize with friends, and to attend meetings and other events.
13

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14
55. In the course of all these activities, the lack of APSs causes difficulties for Mr. Campbell. These difficulties are particularly aggravated at specific intersections near his office, including:
a) Clark and Lake. The elevated train runs above this intersection, and because the station there is a major transfer point, it is difficult to hear oncoming traffic to figure out when it is safe to cross. Discerning oncoming traffic is additionally made challenging by the fact that the traffic pattern is complex; Clark Street has three lanes heading in one direction, including a turn lane, while Lake Street has parking on both sides, two active straight lanes, and a turn lane. The use of an LPI on both streets tops off these difficulties. Just recently, Mr. Campbell struggled to cross this intersection when an Orange Line train got held up at the station right above the intersection. Unable to hear the vehicular traffic thanks to the noise from the train, he was forced to wait through numerous light cycles until another pedestrian eventually approached and offered to help. Mr. Campbell found the experience equally frustrating and terrifying, especially given that he cannot feasibly avoid the intersection on his daily commute.
b) North Clark Street and West Washington Street. Clark Street has three lanes in one direction including a turn lane, while Washington has a bike lane, a bus lane, a car lane, and a turn lane. There is also an LPI on Clark Street. The many different-use lanes make it difficult for Mr. Campbell to know where to listen for vehicular traffic or to know when he has finished crossing the street; additionally, the LPI makes it difficult to know when he should start trying to cross the street.
14

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15
Because of all these difficulties, Mr. Campbell finds the intersection confusing and dangerous, and avoids it whenever possible. c) Madison and Wells. Like the intersection at North Clark and East Lake, this crossing is challenging due to the El trains running directly overhead, making it difficult for Mr. Campbell to figure out when the traffic is coming. Indeed, just recently Mr. Campbell nearly got hit by a bus at this intersection because he was unable to hear the traffic due to the high volume of street noise. At the last minute, a sighted pedestrian told Mr. Campbell he should wait. 56. Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Mr. Campbell must deal with such intersections throughout downtown Chicago without the aid of APSs. Since Mr. Campbell is an extremely savvy and safe white cane user, the fact that he has difficulty at many Chicago intersections is not indicative of any lack of travel ability, but rather illustrates the negative impact of the systemic lack of APSs on blind pedestrians. 57. In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex intersections safely and independently without APSs, Mr. Campbell generally relies on a number of methods, none of which he is comfortable or happy with. These methods include listening for traffic, a strategy made difficult by the background noise, especially the trains; waiting for other pedestrians, an approach that can require waiting on other pedestrians to show up for as long as ten minutes at a time; and avoiding certain streets and intersections altogether, a method that can require him to take circuitous routes in order to arrive at his destination. 58. Taken together, the systemic lack of APS devices in the City presents a daily challenge for Mr. Campbell. Because Mr. Campbell will continue to require APSs at noisy,
15

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16
busy, or complex intersections in order to navigate the City safely and independently, this lack will keep affecting him in his daily life.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 59. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action, for injunctive and declaratory relief purposes only, on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all persons with vision-related disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in the City of Chicago. The claims asserted herein are solely for injunctive and declaratory relief for the class; Plaintiffs seek no money damages. 60. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is impracticable. In particular, over 60,000 Chicago residents have visual disabilities, and many more people with visual disabilities visit or commute into the City annually. The disposition of their claims in a class action is accordingly a benefit to the parties and to the Court. 61. Proposed class members share a well-defined community of interest with respect to both questions of law and fact involved because they are all being denied, or will be denied, access to the City’s pedestrian signals and thereby their right to navigate Chicago’s street crossings safely and independently, on equivalent terms with their sighted counterparts. 62. One of the key common questions of law and fact involves Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide access to their pedestrian signals to persons with vision-related disabilities. Common questions also include whether failure to include APS devices during replacement and upgrade activities violates those laws, as well as which remedial scheme is appropriate to rectify the current lack of access. Each of these questions is capable of class-wide resolution.
16

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17
63. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole because all Plaintiffs are similarly affected by Defendants’ failure to safeguard access to their pedestrian signals program for pedestrians with vision-related disabilities.
64. Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they, or the persons they serve, are directly impacted by Defendants’ failure to provide access to their pedestrian signals. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole because Plaintiffs are similarly affected by the systemic lack of APSs.
65. Plaintiffs’ interests are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are highly trained, duly qualified, and very experienced in civil rights class actions for injunctive relief, including actions challenging barriers to access involving pedestrian rights-of-way.
66. By failing to secure accessibility of its pedestrian signals consistent with federal disability access laws, Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole. Accordingly, an award of appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole is warranted in this case.
67. References to Plaintiffs shall include each Plaintiff and each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.
CAUSES OF ACTION Count I
Discrimination in Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
68. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
69. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits a public entity from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or otherwise
17

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:18
benefitting from, a program of the public entity, or otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of disability: “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.”
70. The term “disability” includes physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Further, a “ ‘qualified individual with a disability’ means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
71. Because they have impairments which substantially limit the major life activity of seeing, each individual Plaintiff and members of the organizational Plaintiff are qualified individuals within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 and 12131; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Additionally, they are qualified in that they are located, or work, in Chicago and therefore continuously navigate its street crossings, an activity that requires access to pedestrian signals to ensure safety and independence.
72. A “public entity” includes state and local governments, their agencies, and their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Because they constitute units of local government, Defendants are public entities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
73. As part of their non-discrimination duties, public entities like the City and Department must operate each of their programs, services or activities “so that, when viewed in its entirety, [that program, service or activity] is readily accessible to and useable by individuals
18

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:19
with disabilities.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149 & 35.151. There is no doubt that Defendants’ management of their pedestrian street crossing signals constitutes a program, service or activity under Title II. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 (requiring that a “service, program, or activity” of a public entity must be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (requiring that any newly constructed or altered “facility or part of a facility” be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (defining “facility” to include “all or any portion of [...] structures, […] equipment, rolling stock, or other conveyances, roads, walks, passageways, […] including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is located.”) Defendants therefore have an obligation under the ADA to ensure that their pedestrian signals are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
74. The pervasiveness of the inaccessible pedestrian signals, as demonstrated by the shockingly low percentage of corners equipped with APS devices, shows that Defendants have failed in their duty to operate this program in a non-discriminatory manner, consistent with the above-cited provisions. In particular, they have failed to ensure that the pedestrian signals program is readily accessible and usable by pedestrians with vision-related disabilities when viewed in its entirety.
75. Defendants additionally violate a number of provisions of the implementing regulations of Title II, which were promulgated by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to implement Title II’s prohibition against discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 et seq.
76. First, Defendants violate their duty to design and construct all new facilities (dating from 1992 onward) in such a way as to ensure that “[e]ach [such] facility or part of a
19

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:20
facility . . . is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a)(1). Pedestrian signals constitute facilities. See Scharff v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 10 CV 4208, 2014 WL 2454639 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2014). Defendants thus have a duty to ensure that all newly installed pedestrian signals are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. The inaccessibility of any signals installed after 1992 runs afoul of Defendants’ duties under 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a)(1).
77. Second, Defendants violate their obligations with respect to alterations of any existing facilities that are conducted in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of that facility. In particular, by failing to install APS devices each time they replace or rehabilitate existing pedestrian signals, Defendants fail to ensure that such alterations are accomplished “to the maximum extent feasible . . . in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b)(1).
78. Third, Defendants’ actions deny qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from pedestrian signals; deprives those individuals of an opportunity to participate in the benefits offered by the signals on the same terms as sighted pedestrians; and/or provides individuals with disabilities with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result or to gain the same benefit from the information pedestrian signals convey as that provided to others. All these omissions and failures to act violate 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)–(iii).
79. Fourth, Defendants, directly and/or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria and/or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disability and defeat or
20

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:21
substantially impair the accomplishment of the objectives of their pedestrian signals program with respect to individuals with disabilities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)–(ii).
80. Fifth, Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
81. Finally, Defendants have failed to make their communications via their pedestrian signals as effective for people with sensory disabilities as they have for others, and have failed to provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to enable blind pedestrians an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, their pedestrian signals program. In doing so, Defendants have violated 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
82. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have been and continue to be injured.
83. Defendants’ conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Title II of the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Count II
Discrimination in Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 84. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previously alleged paragraphs. 85. Section 504 mandates that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 86. An “individual with a disability” is defined, in pertinent part, as an “individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
21

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:22
activities of such individual.” 29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102). In addition, a “qualified” person with a disability is a person who meets the essential eligibility requirements for participation in, or receipt of benefits from, that program or activity. 28 C.F.R. § 39.103.
87. The individual Plaintiffs, the board members and constituents of the organizational Plaintiff, and the class are all qualified individuals with disabilities under the above-described definition in that they have disabilities which substantially limit one or more major life activities, such as seeing. They are also qualified in that they have sought, and will continue to seek, to navigate pedestrian crossings and therefore require access to pedestrian street crossing signals to do so safely and independently at noisy, busy, or complex intersections. See 29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102); see also 28 C.F.R. § 39.103.
88. Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the coverage of Section 504. Moreover, Defendants have received such federal financial assistance at all times relevant to the claims asserted in this Complaint.
89. Defendants and their agents and employees have violated, and continue to violate, Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs the benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs based solely by reason of their disabilities, to discrimination in access to the pedestrian signals that they otherwise make available for sighted residents of the City.
90. Defendants’ acts and omissions described herein violate the equal access and nondiscrimination provisions of Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to Plaintiffs.
22

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:23
91. This conduct, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
92. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 794(a).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: 93. Declare that the actions and inactions described herein violate the rights of Plaintiffs under the ADA and Section 504. 94. Issue an order requiring that Defendants take the necessary steps to remedy the City’s pedestrian signals so that street crossings are equipped with APS devices to ensure systemic accessibility for people who are blind consistent with the ADA and Section 504; 95. Issue an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful conduct of installing and/or altering pedestrian signals without providing for APS technology; 96. Issue an order requiring that Defendants maintain any existing APS devices at the signalized intersections where they were previously installed; 97. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 98. Grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
23

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:24

Dated: September 23, 2019 Chicago, Illinois

Respectfully submitted,
JELENA KOLIC DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 10 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60613 Phone: (312) 559-4600 Fax: (212) 644-8636 jkolic@dralegal.org
Nigel F. Telman Edward C. Young Holly R. Morris PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 70 West Madison Suite 3800 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Phone: (312) 962-3550 Fax: (312) 962-3551 ntelman@proskauer.com eyoung@proskauer.com hmorris@proskauer.com
Christina Brandt-Young (pro hac vice pending) Michelle Caiola (pro hac vice pending) DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 655 Third Ave., 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 cbrandt-young@dralegal.org mcaiola@dralegal.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24

 
 Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 1 of 8 PageID #:166

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND )

OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO et al., )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

)

v.

) No. 19 C 6322

)

)

THE CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO

)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTAION,

)

LORI LIGHTFOOT, in her official )

capacity as mayor of the City )

of Chicago, and THOMAS CARNEY, )

in his official capacity as

)

Acting Commissioner of the

)

Chicago Department of

)

Transportation.

)

Defendants.

Memorandum Opinion and Order The American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago (the “Council”) and three of its individual members or officers filed this lawsuit claiming that efforts the City of Chicago has undertaken to make its intersections safely accessible to blind and deaf-blind pedestrians are insufficient to satisfy the requirements of federal law. In particular, plaintiffs claim that the City’s failure to install accessible pedestrian signals (“APS”) that convey warning information such as “walk” and “don’t walk” through audible and tactile means, even as it made

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:167
substantial investments to improve pedestrian safety generally, amounts to discrimination under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of themselves and a class of similarly situated individuals. They name four defendants: the City; its mayor, Lori Lightfoot, in her official capacity; the City’s Department of Transportation (“DOT”); and DOT’s acting commissioner, Thomas Carney, in his official capacity. Defendants have filed a partial motion to dismiss the complaint, which I grant in part for the reasons below.
At the outset, I agree that Mayor Lightfoot, Acting Commissioner Carney,1 and DOT should be dismissed from this action. Plaintiffs’ claims against the individuals, named only in their official capacities, are duplicative of their claims against the City and DOT because “[a]n official capacity suit is the same as a suit against the entity of which the officer is an agent.” DeGenova v. Sheriff of DuPage Cty., 209 F.3d 973, 975 at n. 1 (7th Cir. 2000) (citing McMillian v. Monroe County, Alabama, 520 U.S. 781, 785 n.2 (1997)); see also Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 (1985). Moreover, neither DOT nor its commissioner is amenable to suit. Plaintiffs acknowledge that under Illinois law, to which
1 Since this lawsuit was filed, Gia Biagi was appointed as the Commissioner of DOT, but since neither DOT nor its commissioner will remain a defendant, there is no need to substitute parties.
2

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 3 of 8 PageID #:168
federal courts look to resolve the issue, only entities with a “legal existence, either natural or artificial” are amenable to suit. DeGenova 209 F.3d at 977 n. 2. Plaintiffs resist DOT’s dismissal, but they offer nothing to suggest that DOT is anything other than an operating department of the City with no independent legal existence. Accordingly, both the entity and its agent are dismissed. See, e.g., Castillo v. Cook Cty. Mail Room Dep’t, 990 F.2d 304, 307 (7th Cir. 1993) (Cook County Department of Corrections not a suable entity); Johnson v. City of Chicago (Fleet Mgmt.), No. 13-CV-04098, 2014 WL 1202960, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 18, 2014) (dismissing City of Chicago Department of Fleet Management with prejudice as a non-suable entity); High v. Chicago Water Dep’t, No. 05 C 3547, 2005 WL 3527256, at *2 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2005) (dismissing Chicago Water Department and substituting City of Chicago as proper defendant).
Having clarified that the City is the only appropriate defendant, I turn to defendants’ arguments that: 1) the Council may not proceed as a plaintiff because it has not alleged and cannot show that it suffered an injury-in-fact as required for Article III subject matter jurisdiction; 2) none of the plaintiffs has standing to pursue relief on behalf of deaf individuals; and 3) plaintiffs’ claims are time-barred to the extent they are based on conduct prior to September 23, 2017. The first of these
3

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 4 of 8 PageID #:169
arguments is unpersuasive because there is no dispute that the individual plaintiffs—all of whom are blind and claim injuries caused by the City’s failure to provide APS adapted for blindness— have standing to sue on behalf of themselves and individuals similarly situated. Accordingly, the Constitution’s “case or controversy” requirement is satisfied, and Article III jurisdiction is secure, regardless of whether the Council suffered any organizational injury. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Acad. & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 53 n. 2 (2006) (“the presence of one party with standing is sufficient to satisfy Article III’s case-or-controversy requirement.”). Moreover, defendants do not meaningfully dispute that the Council has associational standing to sue on behalf of its members. See Keep Chicago Livable v. City of Chicago, 913 F.3d 618, 625 (7th Cir. 2019) (an entity has associational standing if “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in their lawsuit”) (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). Defendants insist that the Council “has not pled representational standing,” Reply at 6, by which they appear to mean that the complaint does
4

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 5 of 8 PageID #:170
not state explicitly that the Council brings claims on its members’ behalf. But whether a plaintiff has standing is a legal issue that must be pled only in the sense that the factual matter contained in the complaint must be adequate to establish a basis for concluding that standing exists. And while it is true that the complaint asserts an organizational injury to the Council, the fact that the Council seeks no damages for that injury but pursues only injunctive relief for the primary and direct benefit of its members (and similarly situated indiduals) supports an inference that the Council intends to pursue these claims at least in part in a representational capacity. At all events, defendants do not dispute that the complaint’s factual allegations support the first two elements required for representational standing, nor do they explain why the third element is relevant, since individual members are in fact participating in the suit. Under the circumstances, I am not persuaded that the Council must be dismissed for any reason compelled by Article III.
Where defendants’ standing argument gains traction is on the question of plaintiffs’ ability to pursue relief on behalf of deaf individuals. As defendants note, Article III’s redressability requirement means that plaintiffs must be among those injured by the City’s alleged failure to provide APS. Here, none of the individual plaintiffs claims to be deaf, and nothing in the
5

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 6 of 8 PageID #:171
complaint suggests that the Council has members who are deaf or that the organization advocates on behalf of deaf individuals. The complaint describes the Council as:
a consumer-based, non-profit independent organization that advocates on behalf of, and seeks to the improve the quality of life for, all blind and visually impaired residents in Chicago, Illinois. It is an affiliate of the Illinois Council of the Blind, which is a state affiliate of the national American Council of the Blind. ACBMC’s officers and membership, around 38 people in total, overwhelmingly consist of people who are blind or low-vision. Compl. at ¶ 18. The word “deaf” appears only three times in the complaint: once where it defines the term “deaf-blind,” see Compl. at n. 1, and twice in allegations describing an outdated APS that “does not have a vibrating button indicating to Deafblind pedestrians when to cross the street, even though nearby street signs warn of ‘BLIND AND DEAF’ pedestrians in the area,” id. at ¶ 27. But nothing in the complaint suggests that either the individual plaintiffs or the Council’s other members were injured by the absence of a vibrating button on Chicago’s APS. Accordingly, none of them is “among the injured” with respect to this violation or similar ones affecting only deaf individuals. See Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889, 893 (8th Cir. 2000) (blind plaintiff lacked standing to pursue claims for ADA violations unrelated to his own disability). See also Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 949 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (Article III
6

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 7 of 8 PageID #:172
requires plaintiffs to show that injunctive relief “will vindicate the rights of the particular plaintiff[s] rather than the rights of third parties.”). Nor does the fact that some members of the blind community may also be deaf elevate these particular plaintiffs’ status above the level of “concerned bystanders.” Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church & State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 473 (1982) (judicial process not intended to vindicate the “value interests of concerned bystanders”). In the context of ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims, courts have held that plaintiffs have standing only with respect violations affecting the specific disabilities they claim. See Smith v. Bradley Pizza, Inc., 2019 WL 2448575, *3 (D. Minn. June 12, 2019) (standing requires “a connection between the nature of a plaintiff’s disability and the alleged violations”); Riggle v. Valero, 2016 WL 3149671, *2 (D. Neb. June 3, 2016) (plaintiff lacked standing to assert violations unrelated to his claimed disability); Strong v. Walgreen Co., 2011 WL 5374125, *7-8 (S.D.Cal. Nov. 8, 2011) (plaintiff lacked standing to challenge barriers not relating to his own disability). The reasoning of these decisions is persuasive.
I am not persuaded, however, that any aspect of plaintiffs’ claims should be dismissed as time-barred. Defendants appear to object to the complaint’s account of dangerous experiences the
7

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 43 Filed: 03/09/20 Page 8 of 8 PageID #:173

individual plaintiffs had at Chicago intersections not equipped with APS to the extent those incidents occurred more than two years before this suit was filed. As noted above, however, plaintiffs are not seeking damages for those (or any other) events, but instead seek to remedy dangerous conditions they claim are ongoing. Events that occurred more than two years prior to suit may provide background information relevant to plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief, and I see no reason at this stage for cabining their allegations in the manner defendants suggest.
For the foregoing reasons, defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part. The individual defendants and DOT are dismissed, as are plaintiffs’ claims based on violations affecting only deaf or blind-deaf individuals.
ENTER ORDER:

Dated: March 9, 2020

________________________ Elaine E. Bucklo United States District Judge

8

 
 Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:45

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH, MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

-against-

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, LORI LIGHTFOOT, in her official capacity as Mayor of the City of Chicago, and THOMAS CARNEY, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-06322 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo

INTRODUCTION 1. This class action lawsuit challenges the City of Chicago’s (“Chicago” or the “City”) practice of systemically discriminating against blind1 residents and visitors by failing to equip signalized street intersections with accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”). 2. APSs convey traffic and warning information (i.e., “Walk” and “Don’t Walk”) by making sounds and vibrating a tactile button. By listening for the sounds generated by the APS, blind pedestrians receive the same information about traffic safety that sighted pedestrians can obtain by looking at the pedestrian signals.

1 Plaintiffs use the terms “blind” and “deaf-blind” to describe individuals who have low or no use of vision , as well
as low or no use of hearing alongside vision. For purposes of this complaint, the term “blind” should be understood to include people who are either legally or completely blind.

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:46
3. Yet Chicago regularly installs and upgrades pedestrian traffic signals without including an APS device, thereby denying blind pedestrians access to information that is provided to sighted pedestrians to promote their safety.
4. Indeed, abysmally few of Chicago’s signalized intersections have pedestrian signals that are usable by blind pedestrians: Out of about 2,672 signalized traffic intersections in Chicago, only 11—less than half of one percent—offer signals that convey any information at all to people with vision-related disabilities. Such systemic failure dangerously diminishes blind pedestrians’ ability to navigate street crossings safely and independently.
5. To cope with the chronic lack of APS devices, which are missing even at noisy, busy, or complex street intersections, blind pedestrians are forced to resort to a number of workarounds that are demeaning and potentially unsafe. Some of these workarounds include seeking assistance from complete strangers and attempting to follow sighted pedestrians, who may cross against lights. At times, blind pedestrians must wait alone at an intersection for several cycles until another pedestrian appears to help them navigate the crossing. In a worstcase scenario, a blind pedestrian risks being hit by a car because they are forced to cross the street without knowing whether it is safe for them to do so.
6. If a blind pedestrian accidentally crosses against the light, sighted pedestrians, when present, will often grab or shout at them, an experience that is frightening and humiliating.
7. The difficulties of crossing noisy, busy, or complex streets without APSs are indeed so severe that some blind pedestirans attempt to avoid risky intersections altogether by using indirect, longer routes, or by taking paratransit, even though parantransit must be arranged for twenty-four hours in advance.
2

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:47
8. These challenges are additionally compounded by Chicago’s high vehicle and population density. Chicago has approximately 11,000 inhabitants per square mile, making it one of the most population-dense cities in the entire country. High levels of background noise— such as construction, garbage collection, street music, or passing subways on elevated tracks— make safe and independent navigation of street crossings that much more challenging for blind pedestrians who, in the absence of accessible pedestrian signalling, often must rely on the ear alone to know when to cross streets.
9. Collectively, these obstacles severely compromise blind pedestrians’ ability to move about the City like their sighted counterparts do: Safely, independently, expeditiously, and without fear. The exclusion of APSs from Chicago’s pedestrian signal program is thus severly harmful to Plaintiffs and members of the class.
10. The City’s long-standing systemic failure to ensure that its pedestrian signals are accessible to blind pedestrians constitutes a violation of both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
11. Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all people with vision-related disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in Chicago. Because Defendants have imposed on these individuals unnecessary risks to their safety and independence each time they navigate signalized intersections without APS devices, swift and comprehensive injunctive relief is warranted.
JURISDICTION 12. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794.
3

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:48
13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 for claims arising under the ADA and Section 504.
VENUE 14. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in this District. The Defendants are located within this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims alleged herein occurred in this District.
PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Ann Brash is blind and has used a white cane to navigate since 1971. She has worked in Chicago since 1975 and travels on city streets each weekday. She is a member of the American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago (“ACBMC”). Accordingly, Ms. Brash is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 16. Plaintiff Maureen Heneghan is blind and uses a white cane to navigate the sidewalks. She has lived in Chicago her entire life and travels across city streets every day. She is a member of the ACBMC. Accordingly, Ms. Heneghan is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 17. Plaintiff Ray Campbell is blind and has used a white cane to navigate the sidewalks for over 40 years. He has worked in Chicago in his current job since 2015 and travels on city streets each weekday. He is the Second Vice President of the national American Council of the Blind. Accordingly, Mr. Campbell is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes. 18. Plaintiff ACBMC is a consumer-based, non-profit independent organization that advocates on behalf of, and seeks to the improve the quality of life for, all blind and visually impaired residents in Chicago, Illinois. It is an affiliate of the Illinois Council of the Blind,
4

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:49
which is a state affiliate of the national American Council of the Blind. ACBMC’s officers and membership, around 38 people in total, overwhelmingly consist of people who are blind or lowvision.
19. Full access to basic services enabling safe and independent street navigation for people with vision-related disabilities is a core component of ACBMC’s mission. ACBMC has sent letters and feedback to the Mayor and various aldermen of Chicago, as well as attended meetings of the Department of Transportation and Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, to advocate for the rights of blind pedestrians.
20. In addition, ACBMC’s officers and board members navigate City streets on a daily basis. The problems they have faced due to the systemic lack APSs have included being forced to rely on strangers, following other pedestrians who are crossing against lights, being grabbed without their consent by other pedestrians, and near-misses by cars when unwittingly attempting to cross streets in the face of oncoming traffic. Defendants’ discriminatory actions and failures to act have thus created injuries, providing members with standing to bring a suit in their own right.
21. In sum, the pervasive lack of APS devices is an issue of significant concern for ACBMC and its members. Unless the issue is remediated, ACBMC will continue to be forced to divert its resources away from the programs that seek to alleviate its constituents’ numerous other needs into addressing this continued barrier to blind pedestrians’ ability to move about safely and independently.
22. Defendant City of Chicago is a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Moreover,
5

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:50
this Defendant is also the recipient of federal funds, including funds from the federal Department of Transportation, and therefore subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.
23. Defendant Chicago Department of Transportation is likewise a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Moreover, this Defendant is also the recipient of federal funds, including funds from the federal Department of Transportation, and therefore subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.
24. Defendant Lori Lightfoot, sued in her official capacity, is the Mayor of the City of Chicago.
25. Defendant Thomas Carney, sued in his official capacity, is the Acting Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS A. APS Technology is Indispensable for Securing the Safety and Independence of Blind
Pedestrians at Signalized Street Intersections. 26. A modern APS device contains a pedestrian pushbutton with a raised arrow that points at the pedestrian street crossing about which it provides signaling information. To signal its location to blind pedestrians, the device continuously emits a sound about once per second. Once a pedestrian presses the button to cross the street, this sound changes and the arrow vibrates to communicate that the button has been successfully activated. When traffic has stopped and the walk signal begins, the sound and vibration change again to signal to blind pedestrians that the “walk” light is on. 27. The first APS devices were marketed in the 1970s and consisted of just a chirping speaker. An example of such an older device still in use in Chicago can be found at Roosevelt Road and South Wood Street. This APS is located at the intersection immediately between the
6

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:51
Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind and the Illinois State Center for Rehabilitation and Education. Unlike a modern APS device, it does not have a vibrating button indicating to Deaf-blind pedestrians when to cross the street, even though nearby street signs warn of “BLIND AND DEAF” pedestrians in the area.
28. Because of its importance to the safety and independence of blind pedestrians, installation of APS technology is recognized as a best practice in federal accessibility guidance. APS installation is indeed necessary to ensure that the City’s pedestrian signal program is readily accessible to blind pedestrians.
B. The City Has Expended Substantial Resources to Improve Pedestrian Safety Without Providing for APS Devices to Ensure that the Information Pedestrian Signals Convey is Accessible to Blind Pedestrians.
29. In recent years, the City has adopted several initiatives to improve pedestrian safety generally. In its perhaps most ambitious effort, undertaken in 2012, the City committed to implementing over 250 recommendations aimed at eliminating pedestrian fatalities. Those recommendations included traffic-calming measures like pedestrian islands, chicanes, and midblock curb bumpouts; identification and remediation of no less than two high-collision corridors and four dangerous intersections annually; implementation of tougher safety mandates for taxi drivers; and a variety of street infrastructure treatments such as road diets, roundabouts, speed humps and pedestrian scrambles.
30. Further, under Defendant CDOT’s Chicago Pedestrian Plan, the City has ostensibly committed to investing in a variety of projects aimed at reducing serious pedestrian injuries by 50 percent every five years. Some of these projects include development of a Zero in Ten pedestrian crash program; implementation of the so-called Safety Zone, which aims to bring about citywide crosswalk policy and safety improvements for seniors; development of neighborhood streets for slow, local traffic; improvement of crash data collection and sharing;
7

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:52
modification of driver education programs; and incentives to encourage taxi drivers to drive more safely.
31. Yet none of these ambitious commitments encompasses a serious effort to equip signalized intersections with signals accessible to blind pedestrians.
32. Instead, Defendants have suggested that they will install up to 100 APSs in the next two years and 15-25 APSs per year after that. At that rate, Chicago’s street crossings will not be accessible for another hundred years.
33. Further compounding the problem, it is at best unclear whether the City will actually follow through even on this modest promise since it has reneged on similar promises in the past. For instance, in 2015, Chicago applied for and received a grant from the Chicago Regional Transit Authority to install APSs at Clinton Street, Canal Street, Washington Street, and Madison Street in the Loop. These APSs have not yet been installed, and the timeline for their installation remains unclear.
34. Collectively, these investments demonstrate that the City of Chicago has the financial capacity to equip its signalized intersections with APS devices and simply chooses not to do so.
C. Making Matters Worse: Leading Pedestrian Intervals Further Aggravate Problems Caused by the Systemic Lack of APS Devices.
35. The City has attempted to increase traffic safety for sighted pedestrians by introducting pedestrian “signal phases” which instruct pedestrians to enter an intersection at a different time than vehicular traffic. However, due to its failure to include APS devices at these intersections, the City’s efforts have paradoxically made the streets even less safe for blind pedestrians.
8

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:53
36. One such signal phase is a “leading pedestrian interval” (“LPI”). In an LPI, the pedestrian traffic signal instructs pedestrians to enter the intersection three to ten seconds before the traffic signal that directs vehicular traffic heading in the same direction does the same. This permits pedestrians to have a head start getting across the intersection against turning vehicular traffic, and is a proven safety measure for sighted individuals.
37. However, if a traffic signal uses an LPI but has no APS, it does not inform blind pedestrians when they should start crossing. At best, blind pedestrians lose the benefit of the LPI because they are listening and waiting for the cue of vehicular traffic noises to know when to cross, and thus simply wait through the LPI without receiving the benefit of the extra time to cross the street. In fact, they may be left without adequate time to cross the street. At worst, an LPI without an APS causes blind pedestrians to start crossing just as vehicular traffic starts turning into their path, when drivers do not expect them.
38. Today, the City has approximately 231 intersections that use LPIs but only 2 of those intersections have APS devices. This scarcity appears to be the direct result of the fact that the City does not require even considering APS installation when incorporating LPIs even though both federal guidance and Chicago internal guidance recognize that such consideration is warranted whenever an intersection uses signal phasing. Indeed, the City’s most recent policy on the subject, issued in April 2019, explicitly provides that its engineers should not consider installing APSs when signal phases are being added, unless the pedestrian signal is being newly installed or completely replaced. The City is thus consistently ignoring the needs of blind pedestrians even while taking actions to improve the safety of sighted pedestrians generally.
9

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:54
INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES A. Harm to Plaintiff Brash
39. Plaintiff Ann Brash is blind. She lives in La Grange, Illinois and commutes to Chicago every weekday to her job.
40. Ms. Brash uses Chicago street crossings virtually every weekday of her life. Among other things, she navigates them to commute to her job, to do errands in the area around her workplace, and to attend social appointments and organizational meetings.
41. In 2017, Ms. Brash’s office moved to a new location, and she sought six weeks of orientation and mobility training from Second Sense, a 70-year-old organization that provides services, including mobility training, to people with vision-related disabilities, in order to ensure that she could navigate safely and independently to the new location. Nonetheless, in November 2017, on her way home from one of her first few days on the job, she was nearly hit by a bus at the intersection of West Madison Street and North Jefferson Street. As she was stepping off the curb, a bus passed through the intersection in front of her. A fellow pedestrian grabbed her back to keep her from moving forward, and her cane was split apart by the bus. She still crosses at this intersection twice every work day, even though she does not feel safe navigating it, since its location makes it virtually impossible to avoid.
42. The intersection is exceptionally challenging because West Madison Street is a one-way street with parking lanes, a right-hand turn lane, and two traffic lanes, while North Jefferson Street is one-way with parking on one side and three lanes of traffic. The complexity of the configuration makes it difficult for Ms. Brash to know where she should expect traffic sounds to come from.
43. Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Ms. Brash must deal with such
10

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:55
intersections throughout Chicago without the aid of APSs when going to various daily destinations.
44. In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex streets safely without APSs, Ms. Brash relies on a number of methods, all of which are time-consuming and inconvenient. Sometimes she waits for other pedestrians to appear so that she can cross with them. She also sometimes walks several blocks out of her way in order to avoid intersections that are confusing and unsafe. Ms. Brash even avoids leaving her office for lunch so that she does not have to deal with street crossings. The lack of APSs thus constrains Ms. Brash from moving about Chicago safely and independently in a number of ways that affect her every single day, denying her equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, City resources to the same extent as her sighted counterparts.
45. Taken together, these experiences attest to Ms. Brash’s longstanding struggle with access barriers resulting from the systemic lack of APS devices in the City. Because Ms. Brash will continue to require APSs at noisy, busy, or complex intersections in order to navigate the City safely and independently, the lack of them will keep affecting her in her daily life.
B. Harm to Plaintiff Heneghan 46. Plaintiff Heneghan lives in the Edison Park neighborhood of Chicago and is legally blind. 47. As a City resident, Ms. Heneghan uses Chicago street crossings virtually every day of her life. Among other things, Ms. Heneghan navigates them to commute to her volunteer commitments, to do errands, to attend medical appointments, and to socialize with friends and family. 48. In the course of all these activities, Ms. Heneghan regularly struggles with the lack of APSs. In particular:
11

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:56
a) Ms. Heneghan volunteers weekly at Second Sense. Second Sense has been located at 65 East Wacker Place, between North Wabash Avenue and North Michigan Avenue, for the past seven years. Despite the high volume of blind people who travel to Second Sense, and who receive mobility training there, and despite the huge intersections nearby, there are currently no APSs in the immediate vicinity of the organizaiton’s office. Ms. Heneghan is thus forced to navigate a number of highly busy intersections—including Clark/Lake, Lake/Dearborn, Lake/State, Wabash/Lake and Wabash/Wacker Place—after getting off the Blue Line without the benefit of the information that the pedestrian crossing signals convey to sighted pedestrians. While each of these intersections poses a significant challenge due to complex traffic patterns and noise, Ms. Heneghan is especially frustrated by the Clark/Lake intersection because the noise of the trains passing through the station directly above makes it difficult for her to hear oncoming vehicular traffic and figure out when it is safe to cross.
b) In 2004, Ms. Heneghan was hit by a car at the intersection of North Milwaukee Avenue and North Austin Avenue, near North Ardmore Avenue. Because North Ardmore Avenue is a side street from which cars pour onto busy Milwaukee Avenue, crossing it against the lights is exceptionally dangerous. In the absence of an APS, Ms. Heneghan inadvertently did just that, and was hit by a car. In the aftermath of the accident, Ms. Heneghan was forced to get eight staples in the back of her head and needed weeks to fully recover.
49. Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Ms. Heneghan must deal with such
12

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:57
intersections throughout Chicago without the aid of APSs when navigating her way to various daily destinations.
50. In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex streets safely without APSs, Ms.Heneghan relies on a number of methods, none of which she is comfortable or happy with. These methods include crossing in packs of people, a strategy that can require waiting on other pedestrians to show up; getting off buses and subways one or two stops early or late in order to avoid unsafe intersections; taking paratransit, even though it must be arranged 24 hours in advance; and asking other pedestrians for help.
51. Taken together, these experiences attest to Ms.Heneghan’s longstanding struggle with access barriers resulting from the systemic lack of APS devices in the City. Because Ms. Heneghan will continue to require APSs in order to navigate the City safely and independently, this lack is bound to keep affecting her in her daily life.
C. Harm to Plaintiff Campbell 52. Plaintiff Ray Campbell is blind. He has worked in Chicago’s Inner Loop since 2015. 53. Because he works in Chicago, Mr. Campbell uses its street crossings every weekday. Among other things, Mr. Campbell navigates them to commute to his job, to go to lunch in the area around his workplace, to socialize with friends, and to attend meetings and other events. 54. In the course of all these activities, the lack of APSs causes difficulties for Mr. Campbell. These difficulties are particularly aggravated at specific intersections near his office, including:
a) Clark and Lake. The elevated train runs above this intersection, and because the station there is a major transfer point, it is difficult to hear oncoming traffic to 13

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:58
figure out when it is safe to cross. Discerning oncoming traffic is additionally made challenging by the fact that the traffic pattern is complex; Clark Street has three lanes heading in one direction, including a turn lane, while Lake Street has parking on both sides, two active straight lanes, and a turn lane. The use of an LPI on both streets tops off these difficulties. Just recently, Mr. Campbell struggled to cross this intersection when an Orange Line train got held up at the station right above the intersection. Unable to hear the vehicular traffic thanks to the noise from the train, he was forced to wait through numerous light cycles until another pedestrian eventually approached and offered to help. Mr. Campbell found the experience equally frustrating and terrifying, especially given that he cannot feasibly avoid the intersection on his daily commute. b) North Clark Street and West Washington Street. Clark Street has three lanes in one direction including a turn lane, while Washington has a bike lane, a bus lane, a car lane, and a turn lane. There is also an LPI on Clark Street. The many different-use lanes make it difficult for Mr. Campbell to know where to listen for vehicular traffic or to know when he has finished crossing the street; additionally, the LPI makes it difficult to know when he should start trying to cross the street. Because of all these difficulties, Mr. Campbell finds the intersection confusing and dangerous, and avoids it whenever possible. c) Madison and Wells. Like the intersection at North Clark and East Lake, this crossing is challenging due to the El trains running directly overhead, making it difficult for Mr. Campbell to figure out when the traffic is coming. Indeed, just recently Mr. Campbell nearly got hit by a bus at this intersection because he was
14

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:59
unable to hear the traffic due to the high volume of street noise. At the last minute, a sighted pedestrian told Mr. Campbell he should wait. 55. Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Mr. Campbell must deal with such intersections throughout downtown Chicago without the aid of APSs. Since Mr. Campbell is an extremely savvy and safe white cane user, the fact that he has difficulty at many Chicago intersections is not indicative of any lack of travel ability, but rather illustrates the negative impact of the systemic lack of APSs on blind pedestrians. 56. In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex intersections safely and independently without APSs, Mr. Campbell generally relies on a number of methods, none of which he is comfortable or happy with. These methods include listening for traffic, a strategy made difficult by the background noise, especially the trains; waiting for other pedestrians, an approach that can require waiting on other pedestrians to show up for as long as ten minutes at a time; and avoiding certain streets and intersections altogether, a method that can require him to take circuitous routes in order to arrive at his destination. 57. Taken together, the systemic lack of APS devices in the City presents a daily challenge for Mr. Campbell. Because Mr. Campbell will continue to require APSs at noisy, busy, or complex intersections in order to navigate the City safely and independently, this lack will keep affecting him in his daily life.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 58. Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring this action, for injunctive and declaratory relief purposes only, on their own behalf and on behalf of all persons similarly situated. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all persons with vision-related disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in the City of Chicago.
15

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:60
The claims asserted herein are solely for injunctive and declaratory relief for the class; Plaintiffs seek no money damages.
59. The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is impracticable. In particular, over 60,000 Chicago residents have visual disabilities, and many more people with visual disabilities visit or commute into the City annually. The disposition of their claims in a class action is accordingly a benefit to the parties and to the Court.
60. Proposed class members share a well-defined community of interest with respect to both questions of law and fact involved because they are all being denied, or will be denied, access to the City’s pedestrian signals and thereby their right to navigate Chicago’s street crossings safely and independently, on equivalent terms with their sighted counterparts.
61. One of the key common questions of law and fact involves Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants have violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide access to their pedestrian signals to persons with vision-related disabilities. Common questions also include whether failure to include APS devices during replacement and upgrade activities violates those laws, as well as which remedial scheme is appropriate to rectify the current lack of access. Each of these questions is capable of class-wide resolution.
62. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole because all Plaintiffs are similarly affected by Defendants’ failure to safeguard access to their pedestrian signals program for pedestrians with vision-related disabilities.
63. Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they, or the persons they serve, are directly impacted by Defendants’ failure to provide access to their pedestrian signals. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole because Plaintiffs are similarly affected by the systemic lack of APSs.
16

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:61
64. Plaintiffs’ interests are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are highly trained, duly qualified, and very experienced in civil rights class actions for injunctive relief, including actions challenging barriers to access involving pedestrian rights-of-way.
65. By failing to secure accessibility of its pedestrian signals consistent with federal disability access laws, Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable to the class as a whole. Accordingly, an award of appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the class as a whole is warranted in this case.
66. References to Plaintiffs shall include each Plaintiff and each member of the class, unless otherwise indicated.
CAUSES OF ACTION Count I
Discrimination in Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
67. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the Complaint.
68. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits a public entity from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or otherwise benefitting from, a program of the public entity, or otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of disability: “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.”
69. The term “disability” includes physical and mental impairments that substantially limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Further, a “ ‘qualified individual with a disability’ means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable
17

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 18 of 24 PageID #:62
modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
70. Because they have impairments which substantially limit the major life activity of seeing, each individual Plaintiff and members of the organizational Plaintiff are qualified individuals within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 and 12131; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Additionally, they are qualified in that they are located, or work, in Chicago and therefore continuously navigate its street crossings, an activity that requires access to pedestrian signals to ensure safety and independence.
71. A “public entity” includes state and local governments, their agencies, and their instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Because they constitute units of local government, Defendants are public entities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
72. As part of their non-discrimination duties, public entities like the City and Department must operate each of their programs, services or activities “so that, when viewed in its entirety, [that program, service or activity] is readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149 & 35.151. There is no doubt that Defendants’ management of their pedestrian street crossing signals constitutes a program, service or activity under Title II. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.149 (requiring that a “service, program, or activity” of a public entity must be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (requiring that any newly constructed or altered “facility or part of a facility” be “readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (defining “facility” to include “all or any
18

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 19 of 24 PageID #:63
portion of [...] structures, […] equipment, rolling stock, or other conveyances, roads, walks, passageways, […] including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is located.”) Defendants therefore have an obligation under the ADA to ensure that their pedestrian signals are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
73. The pervasiveness of the inaccessible pedestrian signals, as demonstrated by the shockingly low percentage of corners equipped with APS devices, shows that Defendants have failed in their duty to operate this program in a non-discriminatory manner, consistent with the above-cited provisions. In particular, they have failed to ensure that the pedestrian signals program is readily accessible and usable by pedestrians with vision-related disabilities when viewed in its entirety.
74. Defendants additionally violate a number of provisions of the implementing regulations of Title II, which were promulgated by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to implement Title II’s prohibition against discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.101 et seq.
75. First, Defendants violate their duty to design and construct all new facilities (dating from 1992 onward) in such a way as to ensure that “[e]ach [such] facility or part of a facility . . . is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a)(1). Pedestrian signals constitute facilities. See Scharff v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 10 CV 4208, 2014 WL 2454639 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2014). Defendants thus have a duty to ensure that all newly installed pedestrian signals are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. The inaccessibility of any signals installed after 1992 runs afoul of Defendants’ duties under 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a)(1).
19

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 20 of 24 PageID #:64
76. Second, Defendants violate their obligations with respect to alterations of any existing facilities that are conducted in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of that facility. In particular, by failing to install APS devices each time they replace or rehabilitate existing pedestrian signals, Defendants fail to ensure that such alterations are accomplished “to the maximum extent feasible . . . in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b)(1).
77. Third, Defendants’ actions deny qualified individuals with disabilities the opportunity to participate in or benefit from pedestrian signals; deprives those individuals of an opportunity to participate in the benefits offered by the signals on the same terms as sighted pedestrians; and/or provides individuals with disabilities with an aid, benefit, or service that is not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result or to gain the same benefit from the information pedestrian signals convey as that provided to others. All these omissions and failures to act violate 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)–(iii).
78. Fourth, Defendants, directly and/or through contractual or other arrangements, utilize criteria and/or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disability and defeat or substantially impair the accomplishment of the objectives of their pedestrian signals program with respect to individuals with disabilities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)–(ii).
79. Fifth, Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in their policies, practices, or procedures necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
80. Finally, Defendants have failed to make their communications via their pedestrian signals as effective for people with sensory disabilities as they have for others, and have failed to
20

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 21 of 24 PageID #:65
provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to enable blind pedestrians an equal opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, their pedestrian signals program. In doing so, Defendants have violated 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
81. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have been and continue to be injured.
82. Defendants’ conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Title II of the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Count II Discrimination in Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act 83. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previously alleged paragraphs. 84. Section 504 mandates that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability . . . shall solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 85. An “individual with a disability” is defined, in pertinent part, as an “individual who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities of such individual.” 29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102). In addition, a “qualified” person with a disability is a person who meets the essential eligibility requirements for participation in, or receipt of benefits from, that program or activity. 28 C.F.R. § 39.103. 86. The individual Plaintiffs, the board members and constituents of the organizational Plaintiff, and the class are all qualified individuals with disabilities under the above-described definition in that they have disabilities which substantially limit one or more
21

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 22 of 24 PageID #:66
major life activities, such as seeing. They are also qualified in that they have sought, and will continue to seek, to navigate pedestrian crossings and therefore require access to pedestrian street crossing signals to do so safely and independently at noisy, busy, or complex intersections. See 29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102); see also 28 C.F.R. § 39.103.
87. Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the coverage of Section 504. Moreover, Defendants have received such federal financial assistance at all times relevant to the claims asserted in this Complaint.
88. Defendants and their agents and employees have violated, and continue to violate, Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder by excluding Plaintiffs from participation in, denying Plaintiffs the benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs based solely by reason of their disabilities, to discrimination in access to the pedestrian signals that they otherwise make available for sighted residents of the City.
89. Defendants’ acts and omissions described herein violate the equal access and nondiscrimination provisions of Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to Plaintiffs.
90. This conduct, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
91. Plaintiffs are thus entitled to injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 794(a).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court: 92. Declare that the actions and inactions described herein violate the rights of Plaintiffs under the ADA and Section 504.
22

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 23 of 24 PageID #:67

93. Issue an order requiring that Defendants take the necessary steps to remedy the City’s pedestrian signals so that street crossings are equipped with APS devices to ensure systemic accessibility for people who are blind consistent with the ADA and Section 504;
94. Issue an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful conduct of installing and/or altering pedestrian signals without providing for APS technology;
95. Issue an order requiring that Defendants maintain any existing APS devices at the signalized intersections where they were previously installed;
96. Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and 97. Grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

Dated: October 3, 2019 Chicago, Illinois

Respectfully submitted,
JELENA KOLIC DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES 10 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor Chicago, IL 60613 Phone: (312) 559-4600 Fax: (212) 644-8636 jkolic@dralegal.org
Nigel F. Telman Edward C. Young Holly R. Morris PROSKAUER ROSE LLP 70 West Madison, Suite 3800 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Phone: (312) 962-3550 Fax: (312) 962-3551 ntelman@proskauer.com eyoung@proskauer.com hmorris@proskauer.com
Christina Brandt-Young (pro hac vice pending) Michelle Caiola DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
23

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 15 Filed: 10/03/19 Page 24 of 24 PageID #:68 655 Third Avenue, 14th Floor New York, NY 10017 Phone: (212) 644-8644 Fax: (212) 644-8636 cbrandt-young@dralegal.org mcaiola@dralegal.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
24

 
 Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 1 of 13 PageID #:376

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH, MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant. ______________________________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Intervenor,
v.
CITY OF CHICAGO,
Defendant.

No. 19 C 6322 Judge Bucklo

COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

The United States of America, having moved to intervene in this action and that motion having been granted, alleges as follows:
Introduction 1. This is a disability rights enforcement action by the United States of America against the City of Chicago, seeking to remedy the city’s failure to provide people who are blind, including those who are deaf-blind or have low vision, equal access to pedestrian safety information at intersection crossings, which the city provides almost exclusively through visualonly pedestrian signals. The United States seeks declaratory, injunctive, and compensatory relief

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 2 of 13 PageID #:377
for this violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (the “ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12165, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulations for recipients of federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 C.F.R. Part 27.
2. This complaint uses the term “blind” to encompass individuals who are entirely without sight, those who are legally blind or have low vision, and those who are “deaf-blind,” meaning that they have both little to no vision and little to no hearing.
3. Chicago has installed visual-only pedestrian signals that provide safe-crossing information at approximately 2,689 city intersections. Chicago has equipped only 15 of those intersections with signals that are accessible to people who are blind. Thus, over 99 percent of the street intersections where Chicago deems it necessary to provide pedestrians with safe-crossing information are inaccessible to people who are blind.
4. Accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”) convey safety information at intersections to people who are blind through sounds, audible speech, and vibrating tactile buttons, in much the same way that a visual signal reading “walk” or “don’t walk” conveys safety information to sighted pedestrians.
5. Chicago’s failure to install APSs at signalized intersections in the city endangers people who are blind by depriving them equal access to the same safe-crossing information that Chicago provides to sighted pedestrians. This is unlawful discrimination under the ADA and Section 504.
2

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 3 of 13 PageID #:378
Jurisdiction and Venue 6. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this ADA and Section 504 action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. 7. 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. 8. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), because the defendant resides in this district, and the acts or omissions set out herein occurred in this district.
Parties 9. Plaintiff-intervenor is the United States of America. The United States, through the Department of Justice, is authorized to enforce the ADA and Section 504. 10. Defendant City of Chicago is the largest municipality in the state of Illinois and the third largest city, by population, in the United States. It is a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, and a recipient of federal funds, including funds from the United States Department of Transportation, making it subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.
Facts I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
A. The Americans with Disabilities Act 11. Congress enacted the ADA in 1990 to provide a clear and comprehensive national mandate for the elimination of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1). In enacting the ADA, Congress found that “discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in such critical areas as … transportation, communication, recreation … and access to public services[,]” and that the forms of discrimination encountered by individuals with disabilities include “the discriminatory effects of architectural … and communication barriers,”
3

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 4 of 13 PageID #:379
“failure to make modifications to existing facilities and practices,” and “relegation to lesser services, programs, activities, benefits, jobs, or other opportunities[.]” Id. § 12101(a)(3), (5).
12. Title II of the ADA requires 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; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).
13. Chicago’s installation and maintenance of pedestrian signals that provide safecrossing information at street intersections throughout the city constitute a service, program, or activity under the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12132; 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(a).
14. People who are blind and who travel or seek to travel through Chicago’s signalized street intersections are qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA. See 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2); 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.104, 35.108.
B. Section 504 and Chicago’s Receipt of Federal Funds 15. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits a “qualified individual with a disability,” solely by reason of her or his disability, from being “denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). 16. Chicago’s Department of Transportation (“CDOT”) is the agency within the City of Chicago that oversees installation, alteration, and maintenance of signalized intersections within Chicago, including pedestrian signals at those intersections. It is a recipient of federal funds from the U.S. Department of Transportation.
4

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 5 of 13 PageID #:380
II. Chicago’s Widespread Lack of APSs Unlawfully Discriminates Against People Who Are Blind. 17. More than 2.7 million people reside in the City of Chicago. According to a U.S.
Census 2018 Community Survey cited by the Chicago Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, more than 111,000 Cook County, Illinois residents have a visual disability. Beyond residents, many millions of commuters and visitors come to Chicago every year, including individuals who have visual disabilities.
A. Chicago Provides Safe Crossing Information at 2,689 Intersections Through Visual Signals.
18. Chicago has determined that it is necessary to provide safe-crossing information by installing pedestrian signal devices at 2,689 street intersections (hereinafter referred to as “signalized intersections,” i.e., intersections with electronic equipment to direct the flow of traffic and to signal safe-crossing information to pedestrians).
19. All of those 2,689 intersections are equipped with visual pedestrian signals that employ textual or pictorial walk/don’t walk and/or countdown signals to communicate safecrossing information to sighted pedestrians.
B. Chicago Fails to Provide Accessible Safe-Crossing Information to People Who Are Blind at Over 99 Percent of the Intersections Where It Has Installed Pedestrian Signals.
20. People who are blind cannot read the walk/don’t walk and/or countdown signals on visual-only pedestrian signals.
21. Accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”) are devices that provide people who are blind with safe-crossing information by communicating information about pedestrian signal timing in a non-visual format, such as audible tones, speech messages, and vibrotactile surfaces. An APS device is commonly attached to the pole and includes a tactile pushbutton with a three-dimensional arrow directing pedestrians to the adjacent crosswalk. The APS device emits a soft “locator tone”
5

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 6 of 13 PageID #:381
every second, which allows blind pedestrians to locate it as they approach the intersection. When pressed, the APS button responds with an audible message telling the pedestrian to “walk” or “wait,” which corresponds to the visual signals provided to sighted pedestrians. The push button itself also vibrates to alert pedestrians who are deaf-blind that it is safe to walk.
22. Although Chicago protects sighted pedestrians by providing visual signals for crossing 2,689 intersections, it has installed APSs at only 15 of those intersections.
23. At over 99 percent of Chicago’s signalized intersections, people who are blind do not have access to safe-street-crossing information that Chicago provides to sighted pedestrians, and they must use less safe and less reliable methods than sighted pedestrians to cross intersections.
24. Such methods include listening for the sound of vehicular traffic moving parallel to their direction of travel to indicate that it may be safe to cross the street. This method can be unreliable for many reasons, including inconsistent traffic patterns and the many competing noises in an urban setting.
25. In addition, Chicago’s elevated or ‘L’ train travels above many of the city’s street intersections, producing a loud, even thunderous, sound that can drown out the sound of vehicular traffic.
26. While ‘L’ trains are in transit above a non-APS signalized intersection, people who are blind must wait until the ‘L’ train has passed before crossing, often through multiple traffic cycles, as these pedestrians lack the same safe-crossing information that their sighted peers receive from Chicago’s visual-only signals.
27. Chicago also has many complex, six-way intersections, at which it is difficult for pedestrians who are blind to discern the sound of parallel traffic and to orient themselves in the direction of an adjacent crosswalk.
6

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 7 of 13 PageID #:382
28. Additionally, an increase in the presence of electric vehicles, which are much quieter than traditional vehicles, has made using the sound of vehicular traffic as a cue for safecrossing a riskier practice.
29. In addition, Chicago has installed leading pedestrian intervals (“LPIs”) at many intersections with visual-only signals, making crossing those intersections even more dangerous than before for people who are blind.
30. The LPI signal notifies pedestrians to begin crossing the street before parallel vehicular traffic receives a green light, giving those pedestrians a “head start” or extra time to enter the crosswalk before parallel vehicular traffic begins to move and turn right into the crosswalk. For those who can use an LPI, it improves safety because drivers can readily see pedestrians in the crosswalk before turning and thus more easily avoid hitting them.
31. For people who are blind, however, installing LPIs without APSs makes crossing even less safe because blind individuals will not know about the LPI and will only begin to cross when they hear the parallel vehicular traffic begin. Consequently, people who are blind are deprived of extra seconds of crossing time provided to sighted pedestrians, and drivers may get a false sense that no more pedestrians will cross when the traffic light turns green because sighted pedestrians will have already stepped into the crosswalk.
32. Similar to LPIs, Chicago has installed exclusive pedestrian phases (“EPPs”) but no APSs at various intersections. In an EPP intersection, vehicular traffic is stopped in all of the intersection’s directions while pedestrians in all directions are given safe-crossing signals. As with an LPI, if the pedestrian signals provide visual-only safe crossing information at an EPP intersection, people who are blind are denied the benefit of the EPP and will only know when it is safe to cross by relying on the sound of parallel vehicular traffic.
7

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 8 of 13 PageID #:383
33. As a result of Chicago’s failure to provide APSs at signalized intersections, people who are blind are denied benefits and services provided to sighted pedestrians and face risks and burdens not experienced by sighted pedestrians, including:
a. Fear of injury or death, including fear of just leaving home to get to work or social or community engagements. Once out of the house and traversing Chicago, the lack of APSs increases risk of harm or death when crossing the street: one aggrieved individual, plaintiff Maureen Heneghan, was hit by a car while crossing at a Chicago intersection not equipped with APS, and another aggrieved individual, plaintiff Ann Brash, was nearly hit by a bus at a signalized crossing without APS but was pulled to safety by a stranger.
b. Having to use alternate and more circuitous routes than sighted pedestrians to avoid crossing at certain signalized intersections because of safety concerns.
c. Added delays and expenses not experienced by sighted pedestrians, because individuals who are blind may forgo travel by foot to avoid the danger of crossing signalized intersections without APSs, and use a hired ride service for even short distances.
d. Increased anxiety, frustration, and embarrassment, and decreased independence, when attempting to navigate the city’s signalized intersections.
8

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 9 of 13 PageID #:384
C. Chicago Has Attempted to Increase APS Installation Since at Least 2006, but Repeatedly Failed to Meet Its Own APS Goals and to Provide Equal Access to People Who Are Blind.
34. Since at least 2006, Chicago officials have communicated internally regarding the need for APSs as a means to provide accessibility for and protect the safety of people who are blind.
35. A December 13, 2007 memorandum from the then-Commissioners of the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities (“MOPD”) and CDOT to Chicago’s then-Mayor, with the subject “Accessible Pedestrian Signal Initiative Update,” states:
In 2006, MOPD formed an APS Advisory Committee . . . In 2008, we intend to launch a pilot project that will begin the installation of APS at approximately 40 street corners throughout the City . . . [to be] installed around blind service organizations, corners specifically requested by blind individuals, and at intersections that [] are difficult and dangerous to cross. . . . The APS initiative is a tremendous step forward for improving pedestrian safety and accessibility for our blind and visually impaired residents and visitors. (Emphasis in original). 36. As of 2012, however, Chicago had installed APSs at only seven of its intersections. 37. In 2012, Chicago published a Pedestrian Plan, describing an APS as “a traffic signal that provides auditory and/or vibrotactile information to people who are blind or have low vision,” that “should be installed where there is a need to provide additional crossing information,” and “should be considered at locations with LPIs to provide information to people who are blind or have low vision.” The plan included a goal statement to improve “pedestrian safety at signalized intersections.” That safety goal included milestones to implement “accessible pedestrian signals at ten intersections by 2014” and include “accessible pedestrian signals with all new traffic signals by 2016.”
9

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 10 of 13 PageID #:385
38. Chicago did not meet either of the 2012 plan’s APS milestones. Chicago installed only one APS in 2013 and then none were installed for five more years, until the next APS was installed in 2018.
39. Between 2012 and 2018, Chicago installed dozens of visual-only pedestrian signals at intersections throughout the city.
40. In 2018, the city informed community members that it intended to install APSs at approximately 50 intersections, with potentially additional locations to follow, and would consider community input in selecting locations for APS installation.
41. On May 14, 2019, CDOT published a memorandum requiring APS installation at new signals and “full” but not “partial” modernizations, while requiring that other technological enhancements be installed or considered for installation at all partial modernizations.
42. Chicago newly installed at least nine signalized intersections without APS since publication of the 2019 CDOT memorandum.
43. In July 2019, the city held a press conference and issued a press release announcing its APS plans, including that “[u]p to 100 intersections will get new traffic signals that aid persons with blindness or low-vision in the next two years through efforts of CDOT and Mayor’s Office of People with Disabilities.”
44. Despite the promise of APSs at 100 intersections within two years, as of one year later, July 2020, Chicago had installed an APS at only one additional intersection.
45. As of October 8, 2020, Chicago asserts that it has installed APSs at 15 intersections. 46. In February 2020, Chicago produced a table of “Planned APS Locations,” listing 113 intersections where it plans to install APS, the last four of which have an “Anticipated Project End” date of “2024 Q4.”
10

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 11 of 13 PageID #:386
47. Even if the city’s February 2020 plan were to come to fruition, Chicago would have APSs at fewer than four percent of its signalized intersections by the end of 2024.
First Claim for Relief Violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 48. The United States respectfully incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth herein. 49. Chicago’s provision of visual pedestrian signals at thousands of intersections, while providing APS at less than one percent of those intersections, denies qualified people who are blind with equal access to safe-crossing information. 50. As a result, the City of Chicago is in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34, and its implementing regulation, 28 C.F.R. Part 35.
Second Claim for Relief Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. 794 51. The United States respectfully incorporates the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 47 as if fully set forth herein. 52. The City of Chicago’s traffic signal program is administered by the Chicago Department of Transportation (“CDOT”). CDOT receives federal grant funds for that program from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Chicago’s provision of visual pedestrian signals at thousands of intersections, while providing APS at less than one percent of those intersections, denies qualified people who are blind solely on the basis of disability, with equal access to safecrossing information. 53. As a result, the City of Chicago is in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its implementing regulation for recipients of federal funding from the U.S. Department of Transportation, 49 C.F.R. Part 27.
11

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 12 of 13 PageID #:387
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, the United States of America prays that the Court grant the following relief: A. Grant judgment in favor of the United States on its complaint and declare that the
City of Chicago has violated Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-34, and its implementing regulations, 28 C.F.R. Part 35, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and its relevant implementing regulations, 49 C.F.R. Part 27, by denying individuals who are blind equal access to pedestrian signal safety information; B. Enter an injunction requiring the defendant to provide individuals who are blind equal access to pedestrian signal safety information; C. Award compensatory damages in an appropriate amount for injuries suffered as a result of Chicago’s failure to comply with Title II and Section 504; and D. Award such other additional relief as justice may require.
12

Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 78 Filed: 04/14/21 Page 13 of 13 PageID #:388

Dated: April 8, 2021 Respectfully submitted,

JOHN R. LAUSCH, JR. United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois

PAMELA S. KARLAN Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division

GREGORY B. FRIEL Deputy Assistant Attorney General

REBECCA B. BOND Chief

KATHLEEN P. WOLFE Special Litigation Counsel

AMANDA MAISELS Deputy Chief

By: s/Sarah J. North

By: s/Matthew Faiella

PATRICK JOHNSON

MATTHEW FAIELLA

SARAH J. NORTH

Trial Attorney

Assistant United States Attorneys

U.S. Department of Justice

219 South Dearborn Street, 9th Floor

Civil Rights Division –

Chicago, Illinois 60604

Disability Rights Section

Phone: (312) 353-5327

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. –

Email: patrick.johnson2@usdoj.gov

4CON 9.114

sarah.north@usdoj.gov

Washington, D.C. 20530

Phone: (202) 305-6829

Email: matthew.faiella@usdoj.gov

13