Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:28

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

Council for Disability Rights,

]

an Illinois not for profit corporation,

]

Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan,

]

Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris

]

Stewart, Margaret Holzer, on their own ]

behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly ]

situated persons,

]

]

Plaintiff,

]

]

v.

]

]

City of Chicago, a municipal

]

corporation,

]

]

Defendant

]

No: 05 C 5689 Judge: Wayne R. Andersen Magistrate Judge: Nan R. Nolan Jury Demanded

AMENDED COMPLAINT INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiffs Council for Disability Rights, Larry Quillinan, Venzelma Cotton, Bruce Moore, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons with mobility impairments who live, work and for travel in the City of Chicago, Illinois to put an end to the City of Chicago's systemic failure to properly install and maintain curb cuts and ramps necessary for the mobility of persons with disabilities.
2. Each of the individual named plaintiffs has a disability: all of them use a wheelchair or other assistive device, and one of the plaintiffs is legally blind.

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 2 of 18 PageID #:29
3. The plaintiffs bring this action under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder (the "ADA") and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability "under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. 794(a) ("Section 504"), to challenge the City of Chicago's pattern and practice of: (1) failing to properly install or maintain curb cuts and ramps when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; (2) failing to install all necessary curb cuts and ramps at a particular intersection when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; (3) failing to develop and implement a proper Transition Plan as required by the ADA; and (4) failing in the City's Transition Plan to develop and implement a prioritized schedule for installing proper curb ramps at existing crossings or as a part of walkways where ramps have not been installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and damages.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction regarding Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3)(4). 5. Plaintiffs' claims are authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, § 2202, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq. 6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois as all claims arise in
2

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 3 of 18 PageID #:30
District, the plaintiffs reside in the District, and the Defendant conducts business in the District.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 7. Plaintiff the Council for Disability Rights (hereinafter "CDR") is a Not for Profit Corporation in Chicago, providing direct services and advocacy for persons with disabilities. CDR's advocacy for persons with disabilities has extended to participation in legal proceedings. 8. Plaintiff Larry Quillinan resides in Chicago Illinois. He is retired from the City of Chicago's Department of Aging and travels within Chicago each day in order to conduct business as an advocate for persons with disabilities, and for other routine daily activities. Mr. Quillinan has a mobility impairment and is legally blind. Mr. Quillinan is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA. 9. Plaintiff Venzelma Cotton resides in Chicago Illinois, and often travels in the City of Chicago to conduct business as an advocate for persons with disabilities, to shop, and for other purposes. Ms. Cotton has a mobility impairment and uses two crutches to ambulate. Ms. Cotton is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA. 10. Plaintiff Bruce Moore resides in Chicago Illinois. He has retired from the State of Illinois' Department of Rehabilitation Services and travels in the City of Chicago to conduct business as an advocate for persons with disabilities, to shop, and for other
3

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 4 of 18 PageID #:31
purposes. Mr. Moore has a mobility impairment and uses a manual wheelchair to ambulate. Mr. Moore is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
11. Plaintiff Kent Smith resides in Elmhurst, Illinois, and has frequently traveled to the City of Chicago to conduct business as the former (now retired) Development Officer of the Ada S McKinley agency, a Not For Profit Corporation that advocates an independent living philosophy for people with disabilities. Mr. Smith has a mobility impairment. Mr. Smith is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
12. Plaintiff Doris Stewart resides in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Stewart works in Chicago, Illinois as an advocate for persons with disabilities. Ms. Stewart has a mobility impairment and uses a manual wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Stewart is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
13. Plaintiff Margaret Holzer resides in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Holzer works in Chicago, Illinois and is an advocate for persons with disabilities. Ms. Holzer has a mobility impairment and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Holzer is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
Defendant 14. Defendant City of Illinois is a municipal corporation authorized under the State of Illinois, and is a public entity as that term is defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 121310l; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
4

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 5 of 18 PageID #:32
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 15. The plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and a class of individuals consisting of persons with a wide range of disabilities, including but not limited to individuals who use ambulatory devices such as wheelchairs or scooters for mobility, and who wish to access the public programs, activities, and/or services within the City of Chicago. 16. The plaintiffs are being denied the full and equal participation in the goods, services, programs, activities and benefits offered to the general public within the City of Chicago and the plaintiffs are being denied the full and equal participation in the goods, services, programs, activities and benefits offered by the Defendant, as a result of the failure of the City of Chicago to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps when city streets are resurfaced or sidewalks are installed, and as a result of the failure of the City of Chicago to develop and implement as part of a properly developed Transition Plan, a prioritized schedule for installing curb ramps at existing pedestrian walkways which have not been installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA, all in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §. 12131 et seq. 17. The size of the class is so numerous that joinder of the individual members would be impracticable. The 2000 US Census lists the number of persons in Chicago between the ages of 21 and 64 with disabilities as 400,961. Adding those under 21 and more than 65 brings the number of persons in Chicago with disabilities to nearly 600,000. To this number need to be added those disabled persons who come into the city every day
5

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 6 of 18 PageID #:33
to work, shop or play. 18. The named plaintiffs are adequate class representatives as they are directly
impacted by the Defendant's failure to comply with the ADA as alleged in this Complaint. The interests of the named plaintiffs are not in conflict with the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in representing clients with claims involving alleged ADA and Section 504 violations.
19. The named plaintiffs are a small number of those affected by the grievances presented in this case -- people with mobility limitations who use the public ways of Chicago, whether residents or not. Residents of Chicago who have mobility limitations (or may have in the future) number in the hundreds of thousands; nonresidents include visitors as well as daily commuters, many thousands of whom have or will have mobility limitations. The number of curbs at a given intersection may range from three or four to eight to ten or more, depending on the number of intersecting streets and pedestrian islands, etc. And alleys occurring at mid-block present two more sites that require curb cuts or ramps.
20. The need to correct the pattern of failure presented in this case is compounded by the number of individuals affected; the need is further complicated by the number of possible sites with improper installations. Finally, it is a compelling need -- to avoid injury to individuals and to improve the daily quality of life for these individuals and everyone else traversing the public way in Chicago.
21. The impact of these conditions on the daily life of a person with a mobility
6

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 7 of 18 PageID #:34
limitation is difficult to imagine. 22. In order to travel to and from work, a mobility-limited person must know
the condition of each and every curb that s/he must safely traverse. Those conditions change with the season. In the winter, piles of snow or ice often make the curb cut impassable. In the summer, construction work often requires the person to find another, safer path to work.
23. In order to meet someone for lunch, not only must s/he know whether the restaurant is accessible, but also whether the path of travel from point A (the office) to point B (the restaurant) is also accessible.
24. In order for him/her to use public buildings or other public venues, the path of travel to (as well as into and throughout) the facility must be accessible. If a person with mobility limitations is going to a new location, a safe, accessible path of travel is unknowable; there is no one, no agency with the answer -- only another person with a mobility limitation who has been recently to that location.
25. Job-hunting becomes a real adventure into new territory, requiring a cell phone so that s/he can inform a potentially new employer when blocked by an inaccessible public way or when reaching an inaccessible site.
26. An accessible path of travel must become an integral part of the daily planning for a person with a mobility limitation in order for him/her to reach any given destination in a safe and timely manner. A flexible approach to daily events also becomes part of his/her mind set, even though there may be occasional breakthroughs of anger that
7

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 8 of 18 PageID #:35
result in rude outbursts or, perhaps, lawsuits. 27. Common questions of law and fact are involved, including questions posed
by the plaintiffs' allegations that Defendant has failed to properly install, repair or adequately maintain curb ramps when the Defendant resurfaces city streets or installs sidewalks, that the Defendant has failed to properly develop and implement a Transition Plan, and that the Defendant has failed to develop and implement a prioritized plan for installing curb ramps at existing pedestrian walkways which have not been installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA. These claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
28. Inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of the class will result in establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing class certification generally applicable to the class, making declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate to the class as a whole.
29. Notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is not required. Notice of any contemplated settlement or dismissal will be provided pursuant to R. 23(e) as the Court deems appropriate.
FACTS 30. The guidelines established by the ADA for ramps and curbs recognize the difficulty encountered by persons with disabilities as they walk or use walkers, wheelchairs and/or scooters in navigating curbs and ramps. The ADA realistically
8

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 9 of 18 PageID #:36
provides different solutions for different problems. 31. A 1/4 inch vertical rise requires no treatment while 1/4 to1/2 inch vertical
rise is beveled. A vertical rise more than ½ inch requires a ramp. 32. The overall rise of a curb cut or ramp is at least 12 inches in distance for
every 1 inch of height (i.e. a 4 inch curb would use a 4 foot long ramp and a 6 inch curb would use a 6 foot long ramp [a 1:12 slope]).
33. If space is limited the rise could be as short as 5 feet for a 6 inch curb (a 1:10 slope) or 2 feet for a 3 inch curb (a 1:8 slope).
34. No slope can be greater than 1:8 and those shorter than 1:12 are authorized for these very short distances only if space is limited.
35. Curb ramps require detectable warnings. A detectable warning is a standardized surface feature built in or applied to walking surfaces or other elements to warn visually impaired people of hazards. Detectable warnings are raised domes with a diameter of about 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of about 0.2 in (5 mm) and a center-to-center spacing of about 2.35 in (60 mm) which contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.
36. On information and belief, the plaintiffs have been made aware that the City of Chicago has made architectural and engineering drawings for curb cuts and ramps which met the criteria established by the ADA but through inadvertence, poor oversight or failed supervision the completed curb cut or ramp failed to meet ADA standards and/or criteria.
9

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 10 of 18 PageID #:37
37. The plaintiffs are aware of locations where curb cuts and ramps are improperly installed or missing. These corners do not provide safe access to those who use wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters. Several of these intersections are in or near the downtown commercial district, government facilities, or other public commercial facilities. Many are in Chicago’s diverse neighborhoods. There are too many faulty curbs and inaccessible routes in Chicago to even attempt to list but some examples include:
a. There are no curb cuts or ramps at the center island on the south side of the intersection of Jackson and Wacker.
b. Northeast corner of Wabash and Madison. c. Southeast corner of Washington and Wabash. d. Northwest corner of LaSalle and W. Court Place. e. Water, ice and snow collect and pond at Northeast corner of Randolf
and N. Garland Court forcing the disabled onto Randolf. f. Water, ice and snow collect and pond at many locations throughout
Chicago in violation of the ADA. An example is the Northwest corner of Dearborn and Madison. g. On the North Side a wheel chair going on Belden to or from Halsted to Lincoln Park must use the street for much or the journey. h. On the near South side a wheel chair cannot use either sidewalk to complete a journey from Clark to Wells.
10

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 11 of 18 PageID #:38
i. On the West side and in neighborhoods throughout Chicago, curb ramps are overly steep like the Northwest corner of Peoria and Grand, Southwest corner Schiller & Hoyne and the Southwest corner Leavitt and Huron.
j. Alley on the east side of Milwaukee between Hubbard and Grand. k. Southeast corner LaSalle and Madison. l. Northwest corner LaSalle and Adams. m. Northwest corner Clark and Madison. n. Southwest corner LaSalle and Adams. o. Northwest corner Jefferson and Fulton. p. Southwest corner Damen and North. q. Southeast corner Grand and Dearborn. r. Many T intersections such as the west side of Chestnut and State or
the west side of Schiller and Leavitt have no curb cut. s. Northwest corner Orleans and Menomonee. t. Southeast corner Armitage and Orchard where curb joins sidewalk. u. Southeast and Southwest corners Wisconsin and Orleans. v. Few of the curb ramps have detectable warnings. 38. The plaintiffs are not aware of every location where curb cuts and ramps are improperly installed or missing. 39. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding individuals
11

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 12 of 18 PageID #:39
with disabilities from participating in, or being denied, the benefits of the goods, services, programs and activities of the entity, or otherwise being discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
40. The regulations implementing title II of the ADA require a public entity when altering any existing street, road, sidewalk or other facility in any manner that affects usability, to make the altered portions accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b).
41. The regulations specifically address the subject of curb ramps and provide that a public entity must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it alters streets, roads or highways after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e) (1). Similarly, it must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it alters sidewalks after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e)(2).
42. The resurfacing of streets within the City of Chicago by the Department of Transportation and the City of Chicago, is an alteration that affects accessibility and usability of those streets, and therefore is an alteration within the meaning of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b).
43. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d) requires a public entity to develop within six months of January 26, 1992, a Transition Plan setting forth the steps necessary to complete changes undertaken to achieve accessibility. The public entity must provide an opportunity to interested persons, including individuals with disabilities or organizations representing individuals with disabilities, to participate in the development of this
12

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 13 of 18 PageID #:40
Transition Plan. 44. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d)(2) also requires that the Transition Plan of a public
entity include "a schedule for providing curb ramps or other sloped areas where pedestrians walk across curbs, giving priority to walkways serving entities covered by the Act, including State and local government offices and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed by walkways serving other areas."
45. The City of Chicago operates a "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under the meaning of Section 504.
COUNT I 46. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 45, inclusive. 47. The Defendant's practices as set forth above, constitute unlawful and intentional discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b)(e), as follows:
a. The Defendant illegally failed to properly install or maintain curb cuts and ramps when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; b. The Defendant illegally failed to install all necessary curb cuts and ramps when resurfacing streets and altering or
13

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 14 of 18 PageID #:41
installing city sidewalks; c. The Defendant illegally failed to develop and implement a proper Transition Plan as required by the ADA and its implementing regulations, specifically 28 C.F.R. §5.150 (d); and d. The Defendant illegally failed to develop and implement as part of the City's Transition Plan, a prioritized schedule for installing curb cuts and ramps at existing pedestrian walkways, which have not been installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA, giving priority to walkways serving entities covered by the Act, including State and local government offices and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed by walkways serving other areas. 48. The Defendant's conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the ADA and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the Defendant will continue to violate the ADA. The Defendant's acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy and law.
14

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 15 of 18 PageID #:42
COUNT II VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ET SEQ., BY THE CITY OF CHICAGO 49. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 48, inclusive. 50. Each individual plaintiff is an "otherwise qualified individual with a disability" under the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504"). 51. The City of Chicago operates a "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under the meaning of Section 504. 52. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the City of Chicago has, by reason of plaintiffs' disabilities: excluded plaintiffs from participation in the City of Chicago's programs, services and activities; denied plaintiffs the benefits of the City of Chicago's programs, services, and activities; and subjected plaintiffs to discrimination. 53. The City of Chicago's acts and omissions set forth herein are in violation of the equal access and non-discrimination requirements set forth in Section 504, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs. 54. The City of Chicago's conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Section 504 and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the City of Chicago will continue to violate Section 504. The City of Chicago's acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no
15

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 16 of 18 PageID #:43
adequate remedy and law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that the Court:
1. Exercise jurisdiction over this action; 2. Certify the class herein, and order class-wide relief in the instant action; 3. Declare that Defendant's conduct violates the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 4. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to install curb ramps whenever it resurfaces, alters or repairs streets, or alters, repairs or installs sidewalks, as required by the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with oversight to assure correct installation; 5. Issue an injunction requiring Defendant to install or repair curb ramps at each corner where it has resurfaced streets, or repaired or installed sidewalks since the date of the effective enactment of the ADA, together with oversight to assure correct installation; 6. Issue an injunction requiring the Defendant to develop and implement a proper Transition Plan as required by the ADA and its implementing regulations, specifically 28 C.F.R. § 35.150(d); 7. Issue an injunction requiring the Defendant to develop and implement as
16

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 17 of 18 PageID #:44

part of the City's Transition Plan, a prioritized schedule for installing curb cuts and ramps at existing pedestrian walkways, which have not been installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA, giving priority to walkways serving entities covered by the Act, including State and local government offices and facilities, transportation, places of public accommodation, and employers, followed by walkways serving other areas. 8. Award plaintiffs and class members compensatory and punitive damages; and 9. Award attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 10. For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand jury trial in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).

Theodore A. Woerthwein John L. Miller Woerthwein & Miller 200 West Madison Street
Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 654-0001 Bar Registration 03055264

Respectfully submitted, s/ Theodore A. Woerthwein One of the Attorney for Plaintiffs
17

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 10 Filed: 10/25/05 Page 18 of 18 PageID #:45
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE To: Caroline K. Sheerin, Esq
Lisa E. Fike, Esq. City of Chicago, Corporation Counsel 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60602 This is to certify that on the 19th day of October, 2005, the undersigned attorney caused a copy of the preceding AMENDED COMPLAINT, to be delivered to the individuals listed above by electronic notification.
S/ Theodore A. Woerthwein Theodore A. Woerthwein Woerthwein & Miller 200 West Madison Street Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 654-0001 Bar Registration 03055264
18

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:69

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

Council for Disability Rights,

]

an Illinois not for profit corporation,

]

Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan,

]

Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris

]

Stewart, Margaret Holzer, on their own ]

behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly ]

situated persons,

]

]

Plaintiff,

]

]

v.

]

]

City of Chicago, a municipal

]

corporation,

]

]

Defendant

]

No: 05 C 5689 Judge: Wayne R. Andersen Magistrate Judge: Nan R. Nolan Jury Demanded

AGREED MOTION TO FILE 2ND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Council for Disability Rights, an Illinois not for profit corporation, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan, Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons, by their attorney Theodore A. Woerthwein, respectfully request leave to file their 2nd Amended Complaint, and in support thereof state as follows:
1. The original complaint, filed on October 3, 2005, alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
2. The amended complaint was filed on October 25, 2005 and added claims

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:70

under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. 3. This second amendment will streamline the amended complaint by: a. Clarifying that Plaintiffs are seeking only injunctive relief and are not asking for damages; b. Removing requests for relief directed to the Defendant’s Transition Plan; c. Listing certain locations which have been improperly installed or repaired within the past two (2) years; and d. Inserting the City of Chicago as the Defendant in Paragraph 14 rather than the City of Illinois. 4. Defendant does not object to Plaintiffs’ filing this 2nd Amended Complaint
and the filing of a 2nd Amended Complaint will not unduly delay this matter. 5. A copy of the proposed 2nd Amended Complaint is attached hereto. WHEREFORE the Plaintiffs respectfully request leave to file their 2nd Amended
Complaint.

John L. Miller Theodore A. Woerthwein Woerthwein & Miller 200 West Madison Street
Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 654-0001 Bar Registration 03055264

Respectfully submitted, s/ Theodore A. Woerthwein _________________________________ One of the Attorney for Plaintiffs
2

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:71
CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE Caroline K. Sheerin, Esq Lisa E. Fike, Esq. City of Chicago, Corporation Counsel 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60602
This is to certify that on the 23rd day of November, 2005, the undersigned attorney caused a copy of the preceding AGREED MOTION TO FILE 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT, to be delivered to the individuals listed above by electronic notification.
S/ Theodore A. Woerthwein _________________________________ Theodore A. Woerthwein Woerthwein & Miller 200 West Madison Street Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 654-0001 Bar Registration 03055264
3

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 1 of 22 PageID #:47

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

Council for Disability Rights,

]

an Illinois not for profit corporation,

]

Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan,

]

Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris

]

Stewart, Margaret Holzer, on their own ]

behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly ]

situated persons,

]

]

Plaintiff,

]

]

v.

]

]

City of Chicago, a municipal

]

corporation,

]

]

Defendant

]

No: 05 C 5689 Judge: Wayne R. Andersen Magistrate Judge: Nan R. Nolan Jury Demanded

2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs Council for Disability Rights, Larry Quillinan, Venzelma Cotton, Bruce Moore, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of other similarly situated persons with mobility impairments who live, work and for travel in the City of Chicago, Illinois to put an end to the City of Chicago's systemic failure to properly install and maintain sidewalks, curb cuts and ramps necessary for the mobility of persons with disabilities. 2. Each of the individual named plaintiffs has a disability: all of them use a

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 2 of 22 PageID #:48
wheelchair or other assistive device, and one of the plaintiffs is legally blind. 3. The plaintiffs bring this action under Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder (the "ADA") and under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability "under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance." 29 U.S.C. 794(a) ("Section 504"), to challenge the City of Chicago's pattern and practice of: (1) failing to properly install or maintain curb cuts and ramps when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; (2) failing to install all necessary curb cuts and ramps at a particular intersection when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; and (3) failing to properly install, repair or maintain city sidewalks. Plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction regarding Plaintiffs claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (3)(4). 5. Plaintiffs' claims are authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201, § 2202, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et. seq. 6. Venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois as all claims arise in District, the plaintiffs reside in the District, and the Defendant conducts business in the District.
2

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 3 of 22 PageID #:49
PARTIES Plaintiffs 7. Plaintiff the Council for Disability Rights (hereinafter "CDR") is a Not for Profit Corporation in Chicago, providing direct services and advocacy for persons with disabilities. CDR's advocacy for persons with disabilities has extended to participation in legal proceedings. 8. Plaintiff Larry Quillinan resides in Chicago Illinois. He is retired from the City of Chicago's Department of Aging and travels within Chicago each day in order to conduct business as an advocate for persons with disabilities, and for other routine daily activities. Mr. Quillinan has a mobility impairment and is legally blind. Mr. Quillinan is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA. 9. Plaintiff Venzelma Cotton resides in Chicago Illinois, and often travels in the City of Chicago to conduct business as an advocate for persons with disabilities, to shop, and for other purposes. Ms. Cotton has a mobility impairment and uses two crutches to ambulate. Ms. Cotton is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA. 10. Plaintiff Bruce Moore resides in Chicago Illinois. He has retired from the State of Illinois' Department of Rehabilitation Services and travels in the City of Chicago to conduct business as an advocate for persons with disabilities, to shop, and for other purposes. Mr. Moore has a mobility impairment and uses a manual wheelchair to ambulate. Mr. Moore is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA. 11. Plaintiff Kent Smith resides in Elmhurst, Illinois, and has frequently
3

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 4 of 22 PageID #:50
traveled to the City of Chicago to conduct business as the former (now retired) Development Officer of the Ada S McKinley agency, a Not For Profit Corporation that advocates an independent living philosophy for people with disabilities. Mr. Smith has a mobility impairment. Mr. Smith is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
12. Plaintiff Doris Stewart resides in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Stewart works in Chicago, Illinois as an advocate for persons with disabilities. Ms. Stewart has a mobility impairment and uses a manual wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Stewart is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
13. Plaintiff Margaret Holzer resides in Chicago, Illinois. Ms. Holzer works in Chicago, Illinois and is an advocate for persons with disabilities. Ms. Holzer has a mobility impairment and uses a motorized wheelchair for mobility. Ms. Holzer is a person with a disability as that term is defined by the ADA.
Defendant 14. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation authorized under the State of Illinois, and is a public entity as that term is defined by the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 121310l; 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 15. The plaintiffs bring this action, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2), on behalf of themselves and a class of individuals consisting of persons with a wide range of
4

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 5 of 22 PageID #:51
disabilities, including but not limited to individuals who use ambulatory devices such as wheelchairs or scooters for mobility, and who wish to access the public programs, activities, and/or services within the City of Chicago.
16. The plaintiffs are being denied the full and equal participation in the goods, services, programs, activities and benefits offered to the general public within the City of Chicago and the plaintiffs are being denied the full and equal participation in the goods, services, programs, activities and benefits offered by the Defendant, as a result of the failure of the City of Chicago to properly install, repair or adequately maintain:
a. curb ramps when city streets are resurfaced or sidewalks are installed, b. city sidewalks at all times, and c. curb ramps at those existing pedestrian walkways which have not been
installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA. all in violation of Title II of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §. 12131 et seq.
17. The size of the class is so numerous that joinder of the individual members would be impracticable. The 2000 US Census lists the number of persons in Chicago between the ages of 21 and 64 with disabilities as 400,961. Adding those under 21 and more than 65 brings the number of persons in Chicago with disabilities to nearly 600,000. To this number need to be added those disabled persons who come into the city every day to work, shop or play.
18. The named plaintiffs are adequate class representatives as they are directly impacted by the Defendant's failure to comply with the ADA as alleged in this Complaint.
5

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 6 of 22 PageID #:52
The interests of the named plaintiffs are not in conflict with the interests of the class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are experienced in representing clients in class action claims and with claims involving alleged ADA and Section 504 violations.
19. The named plaintiffs are a small number of those affected by the grievances presented in this case -- people with mobility limitations who use the public ways of Chicago, whether residents or not. Residents of Chicago who have mobility limitations (or may have in the future) number in the hundreds of thousands; nonresidents include visitors as well as daily commuters, many thousands of whom have or will have mobility limitations. The number of curbs at a given intersection may range from three or four to eight to ten or more, depending on the number of intersecting streets and pedestrian islands, etc. Alleys occurring at mid-block present two more sites that require curb cuts or ramps. Sidewalks that are not level are impassible barriers forcing people with mobility limitations into the street to find an accessible path. Sidewalks with steep cross-slopes are difficult or impossible for people with mobility limitations to navigate. Sidewalks without a level path across driveways can shoot people using wheelchairs or scooters straight into street traffic and are difficult or impossible for people with mobility limitations to navigate.
20. The need to correct the pattern of failure presented in this case is compounded by the number of individuals affected; the need is further complicated by the number of possible sites with improper installations. Finally, it is a compelling need -- to avoid injury to individuals and to improve the daily quality of life for these individuals
6

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 7 of 22 PageID #:53
and everyone else traversing the public way in Chicago. 21. The impact of these conditions on the daily life of a person with a mobility
limitation is difficult to imagine. 22. In order to travel to and from work, a mobility-limited person must know
the condition of each and every curb that s/he must safely traverse. Those conditions change with the season. In the winter, piles of snow or ice often make the curb cut impassable. In the summer, construction work often requires the person to find another, safer path to work.
23. In order to meet someone for lunch, not only must s/he know whether the restaurant is accessible, but also whether the path of travel from point A (the office) to point B (the restaurant) is also accessible.
24. In order for him/her to use public buildings or other public venues, the path of travel to (as well as into and throughout) the facility must be accessible. If a person with mobility limitations is going to a new location, a safe, accessible path of travel is unknowable; there is no one, no agency with the answer -- only another person with a mobility limitation who has been recently to that location.
25. Job-hunting becomes a real adventure into new territory, requiring a cell phone so that s/he can inform a potentially new employer when blocked by an inaccessible public way or when reaching an inaccessible site.
26. An accessible path of travel must become an integral part of the daily planning for a person with a mobility limitation in order for him/her to reach any given
7

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 8 of 22 PageID #:54
destination in a safe and timely manner. A flexible approach to daily events also becomes part of his/her mind set, even though there may be occasional breakthroughs of anger that result in rude outbursts or, perhaps, lawsuits.
27. Common questions of law and fact are involved, including questions posed by the plaintiffs' allegations that Defendant has failed to properly install, repair or adequately maintain:
a. curb ramps when city streets are resurfaced or sidewalks are installed, b. city sidewalks at all times, and c. curb ramps at those existing pedestrian walkways which have not been
installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA. These claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class.
Inconsistent or varying adjudication with respect to individual members of the class will result in establishing incompatible standards of conduct for the party opposing class certification generally applicable to the class, making declaratory or injunctive relief appropriate to the class as a whole.
28. Notice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2) is not required. Notice of any contemplated settlement or dismissal will be provided pursuant to R. 23(e) as the Court deems appropriate.
FACTS 29. The guidelines established by the ADA for sidewalks and ramps and curbs
8

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 9 of 22 PageID #:55
recognize the difficulty encountered by persons with disabilities as they walk or use walkers, wheelchairs and/or scooters in navigating sidewalks, curbs and ramps. The ADA realistically requires different solutions for different problems so as to ensure accessibility by persons with disabilities.
30. An accessible route shall be smooth and have a slope no greater than 1:20. The least possible slope shall be used for any ramp. Ramp slopes between 1:16 and 1:20 are preferred.
31. The ability to manage an incline is related to both its slope and its length. 32. Wheelchair users with disabilities affecting their arms or with low stamina have serious difficulty using inclines. 33. The overall rise of a curb cut or ramp shall be no greater than 8.33%. 34. The cross slope of a curb cut or ramp shall be no greater than 2%. 35. The transition from each curb cut or ramp to the sidewalk shall be level, flush and free of abrupt changes. 36. The transition from each curb cut or ramp to the street shall be level, flush and free of abrupt changes. 37. Level landings are essential toward maintaining an aggregate slope that complies with these guidelines. A ramp landing that is not level causes individuals using wheelchairs to tip backward or bottom out when the ramp is approached. 38. Curb ramps require detectable warnings. A detectable warning is a standardized surface feature built in or applied to walking surfaces or other elements to
9

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 10 of 22 PageID #:56

warn visually impaired people of hazards. Detectable warnings are raised domes with a

diameter of about 0.9 in (23 mm), a height of about 0.2 in (5 mm) and a center-to-center

spacing of about 2.35 in (60 mm) which contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either

light-on-dark, or dark-on-light.

39. The plaintiffs are aware of locations where curb cuts and ramps are

improperly installed or missing. These corners do not provide safe access to those who

use wheelchairs, walkers, and scooters. Several of these intersections are in or near the

downtown commercial district, government facilities, or other public commercial

facilities. Many are in Chicago’s diverse neighborhoods. Many are on streets which have

been resurfaced within the past two (2) years. There are too many faulty curbs and

inaccessible routes in Chicago to even attempt to list but some examples include:

a. All corners of Addison and Broadway. Addison was resurfaced

within the last 2 years. There are four diagonal ramps at this

intersection. Two of the ramps are new and two were not replaced at

the time of the resurfacing.

1. The southwest corner has a new diagonal ramp with two

detectable warnings facing north and east.

•

The running slope is greater than allowed.

•

The cross slopes are greater than allowed.

•

There is no level landing at the top of the ramp.

•

The detectable warnings are not oriented to the cross

10

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 11 of 22 PageID #:57

walks.

2. The southeast corner has a new diagonal ramp with two

detectable warnings facing north and west.

•

There is no level landing at the top of the ramp.

•

The detectable warnings are not oriented to the cross

walks.

3. The northeast corner has an old diagonal ramp.

•

There is a steep rolled curb at the bottom of the ramp.

•

The running slope is greater than allowed.

•

There is no level landing at the top of the ramp.

•

There are no detectable warnings.

4. The northwest corner has an old diagonal ramp.

•

The cross slope is greater than allowed.

•

There is no level landing at the top of the ramp.

•

There are no detectable warnings.

b. A new sidewalk was installed on the south side of Addison between

Broadway and Grove. Driveways crossing the sidewalk create cross

slopes of over 8%. The driveways also have steep flared sides with

slopes over 10% cutting through the path of travel along the

sidewalk..

c. Addison and Magnolia: This is a T- intersection with six new ramps:

11

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 12 of 22 PageID #:58
1. The southwest ramp facing north has a running slope that is greater than allowed.
2. The northwest corner ramp facing south has a running slope that is greater than allowed.
3. The northwest corner ramp facing east has a running slope that is greater than allowed and a reverse lip.
4. The northeast corner ramp facing west has a huge rolled curb at the bottom of the ramp with a running slope that is greater than allowed for about 9 inches of run.
5. The northeast corner ramp facing south has a running slope that is greater than allowed.
6. The southeast ramp facing north has a large rolled curb at the bottom of the ramp and a running slope that is greater than allowed.
d. A wheelchair going on Belden to or from Halsted to Lincoln Park must use the street for much or the journey.
e. Belden and Cleveland: Belden was resurfaced in 2005. There are two new ramps and six old ramps that were not replaced during resurfacing. None of the old ramps have detectable warnings. 1. The southeast corner ramp facing west is a new ramp with a running slope that is greater than allowed.
12

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 13 of 22 PageID #:59
2. The southeast corner ramp facing north is a new ramp with a running slope that is greater than allowed.
3. The northeast corner ramp facing west is a old ramp with a huge lip at the bottom of the ramp.
4. The northeast corner ramp facing south is an old ramp with a large rolled curb rising about 3 inches over an 8 inch run.
5. The northwest corner ramp facing east is an old ramp with a significant reverse lip.
6. The northwest corner ramp facing south is an old ramp with a large lip and a reverse lip.
7. The southwest corner ramp facing east is an old ramp with a steep rolled curb.
8. The southwest corner ramp facing north is an old ramp with a lip that is almost a curb.
f. Clark was resurfaced in 2005 from Diversey to West Roslyn. This resurfacing project involves at least 9 intersections with four to eight ramps per intersection. Sidewalks were replaced at these as well. Most of the ramps have one or more of the following defects: cross slopes exceeding 2% and running slopes exceeding 8.3%. Driveways crossing the sidewalk create cross slopes that are greater than allowed.
13

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 14 of 22 PageID #:60
g. Clark was resurfaced in 2005 from Montrose to Addison. This resurfacing project involves at least 12 intersections with four to eight ramps per intersection. Not a single ramp was replaced at these intersections. None of the old ramps have detectable warnings and most have one or more of the following defects: rolled curbs or lips at the bottom of the ramps, cross slopes exceeding 2%, running slopes exceeding 8.3%, and no level landings at the top of the ramps.
h. The Waveland underpass is under construction. The pedestrian walkway on the west side of Lakeshore Drive has two ramps, one on the north and one on the south leading down to the underpass. Both have running slopes of 10%. Both ramps lack the required level landings between the top and the bottom of the ramps.
i. There are no curb cuts or ramps at the center island on the south side of the intersection of Jackson and Wacker.
j. Northeast corner of Wabash and Madison. k. Southeast corner of Washington and Wabash. l. Northwest corner of LaSalle and W. Court Place. m. Water, ice and snow collect and pond at Northeast corner of Randolf
and N. Garland Court forcing the disabled onto Randolf. n. Water, ice and snow collect and pond at many locations throughout
Chicago in violation of the ADA. An example is the Northwest
14

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 15 of 22 PageID #:61
corner of Dearborn and Madison. o. On the near South side a wheelchair cannot use either sidewalk to
complete a journey from Clark to Wells on Polk Street. p. On the West side and in neighborhoods throughout Chicago, curb
ramps are overly steep like the Northwest corner of Peoria and Grand, Southwest corner Schiller & Hoyne and the Southwest corner Leavitt and Huron. q. Alley on the east side of Milwaukee between Hubbard and Grand. r. Southeast corner LaSalle and Madison. s. Northwest corner LaSalle and Adams. t. Southwest corner LaSalle and Adams. u. Southwest corner Adams and Dearborn. v. Northwest corner Clark and Madison. w. Northwest corner Jefferson and Fulton. x. Southwest corner Damen and North. y. Southeast corner Grand and Dearborn. z. Many T intersections such as the west side of Chestnut and State or the west side of Schiller and Leavitt have no curb cut.. aa. Northwest corner Orleans and Menomonee. ab. Southeast and Southwest corners Wisconsin and Orleans. ac. Southeast corner Armitage and Orchard where curb joins sidewalk.
15

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 16 of 22 PageID #:62
ad. Few of the curb ramps have detectable warnings. 40. The plaintiffs are not aware of every location where sidewalks, curb cuts and ramps are improperly installed or missing. 41. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding individuals with disabilities from participating in, or being denied, the benefits of the goods, services, programs and activities of the entity, or otherwise being discriminated against on the basis of their disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 42. The regulations implementing title II of the ADA require a public entity when designing or constructing any street, road, sidewalk or other facility to make the designed or constructed street, road, sidewalk or other facility accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a). 43. The regulations implementing title II of the ADA require a public entity when altering any existing street, road, sidewalk or other facility in any manner that affects usability, to make the altered portions accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b). 44. The regulations specifically address the subject of curb ramps and provide that a public entity must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it alters streets, roads or highways after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e) (1). Similarly, it must install curb ramps at intersections whenever it alters sidewalks after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(e)(2). 45. The resurfacing of streets within the City of Chicago by the Department of
16

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 17 of 22 PageID #:63
Transportation and the City of Chicago, is an alteration that affects accessibility and usability of those streets, and therefore is an alteration within the meaning of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b).
46. The installing, modifying or repairing of sidewalks within the City of Chicago by the Department of Transportation and the City of Chicago, is an alteration that affects accessibility and usability of those streets, and therefore is an alteration within the meaning of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b).
47. The City of Chicago operates a "program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance" under the meaning of Section 504.
COUNT I 48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 47, inclusive. 49. The Defendant's practices as set forth above, constitute unlawful and intentional discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation of Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq., and 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b)(e), as follows:
a. The Defendant illegally failed to properly install or maintain curb cuts and ramps when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; b. The Defendant illegally failed to install all necessary curb
17

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 18 of 22 PageID #:64
cuts and ramps when resurfacing streets and altering or installing city sidewalks; c. The Defendant illegally failed to install curb ramps at those existing pedestrian walkways which have not been installed or altered since the effective date of the ADA and d. The Defendant illegally failed to properly install, repair or maintain city sidewalks. 50. The Defendant's conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of the ADA and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the Defendant will continue to violate the ADA. The Defendant's acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy and law.
COUNT II VIOLATION OF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ET SEQ., BY THE CITY OF CHICAGO 51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation set forth in paragraphs 1 through 50, inclusive. 52. Each individual plaintiff is an "otherwise qualified individual with a disability" under the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 ("Section 504"). 53. The City of Chicago operates a "program or activity receiving Federal
18

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 19 of 22 PageID #:65
financial assistance" under the meaning of Section 504. 54. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, the City of Chicago has, by
reason of plaintiffs' disabilities: excluded plaintiffs from participation in the City of Chicago's programs, services and activities; denied plaintiffs the benefits of the City of Chicago's programs, services, and activities; and subjected plaintiffs to discrimination.
55. The City of Chicago's acts and omissions set forth herein are in violation of the equal access and non-discrimination requirements set forth in Section 504, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and have resulted in injury to plaintiffs.
56. The City of Chicago's conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Section 504 and, unless restrained and enjoined from doing so, the City of Chicago will continue to violate Section 504. The City of Chicago's acts and omissions, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict irreparable injuries for which plaintiffs have no adequate remedy and law.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF, WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs request that the Court:
1. Exercise jurisdiction over this action; 2. Certify the class herein, and order class-wide relief in the instant action; 3. Declare that Defendant's conduct violates the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 4. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to install
19

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 20 of 22 PageID #:66
curb ramps whenever it resurfaces, alters or repairs streets, or alters, repairs or installs sidewalks, as required by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with oversight to assure correct installation; 5. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to install or repair curb ramps at each corner where it has resurfaced streets, or repaired or installed sidewalks since the date of the effective enactment of the ADA, together with oversight to assure correct installation; 6. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to install, or repair curb ramps as required by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with oversight to assure correct installation, maintenance and/or repair; 7. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to install, maintain or repair sidewalks, as required by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, together with oversight to assure correct installation, maintenance and/or repair; 8. Issue a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Defendant to install, maintain or repair sidewalks, as required by the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, at each location where it has installed sidewalks since the date of the effective enactment of the ADA, together with oversight to assure correct installation, maintenance and/or repair; 9. Award attorneys fees and such other relief as the Court deems appropriate;
20

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 21 of 22 PageID #:67

and 10. For such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand jury trial in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b).

Theodore A. Woerthwein John L. Miller Woerthwein & Miller 200 West Madison Street
Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 654-0001 Bar Registration 03055264

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Theodore A. Woerthwein _________________________________ One of the Attorney for Plaintiffs

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
Caroline K. Sheerin, Esq Lisa E. Fike, Esq. City of Chicago, Corporation Counsel 30 N. LaSalle, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60602
This is to certify that on the 23rd day of November, 2005, the undersigned attorney caused a copy of the preceding 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT, to be delivered to the

21

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 Document #: 12-2 Filed: 11/23/05 Page 22 of 22 PageID #:68 individuals listed above by electronic notification.
S/ Theodore A. Woerthwein Theodore A. Woerthwein Woerthwein & Miller 200 West Madison Street Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 654-0001 Bar Registration 03055264
22

 
 Case 1:05-cv-05689 Document 67 Filed 11/01/2007 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 3.0
Eastern Division

Council for Disability Rights, et al. v. City Of Chicago

Plaintiff,

Case No.: 1:05−cv−05689 Honorable Wayne R. Andersen

Defendant.

NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY

This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Thursday, November 1, 2007:
MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Status hearing held on 11/1/2007. The terms of the settlement agreement are to be incorporated in a final order. The Court retains jurisdiction to enfore the settlement.Advised in open court notice(tsa, )

ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.

 
 Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 1 of 7
CASREF, NOLAN, TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 4.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:05−cv−05689

Council for Disability Rights et al v. City Of Chicago Assigned to: Honorable Wayne R. Andersen Cause: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/03/2005 Date Terminated: 05/03/2007 Jury Demand: Both Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Council for Disability Rights an Illinois not for profit corporation

represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein Woerthwein &Miller 200 West Madison Street Suite 710 Chicago, IL 60606 (312)654−0001 Email: ted@wamlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Mark Finnegan Heberle &Finnegan, PLLC 2580 Craig Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103 (734) 761−7023 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Miller P.O. Box A3612 Chicago, IL 60690−3612 (312)654−0001 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Bruce Moore

represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Larry Quillinan

represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 2 of 7

Plaintiff Venzelma Cotton
Plaintiff Kent Smith
Plaintiff Doris Stewart
Plaintiff Margaret Holzer on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of similarly situated persons

represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John Mark Finnegan (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John L. Miller (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
City Of Chicago a municipal corporation

represented by Andrew S. Mine City of Chicago, Law Department

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 3 of 7
30 North LaSalle Street Suite 900 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744−7220 Email: amine@cityofchicago.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Caroline K. Sheerin City of Chicago 30 North LaSalle Street 1040 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744−6437 Email: csheerin@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
David Alan Grossman City of Chicago (30 N LS) 30 North LaSalle Street Chicago, IL 60602 (312)744−0897 Email: david_grossman@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Lisa Eiserman Fike City of Chicago Department of Law 30 North LaSalle Street 900 Chicago, IL 60602 (312) 744−2742 Fax: 312−744−6912 Email: lfike@cityofchicago.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/03/2005
10/03/2005 10/03/2005
10/03/2005 10/06/2005 10/20/2005 10/20/2005
10/20/2005 10/25/2005

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan; Jury Demand.(gcy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet. (gcy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan by John L. Miller, Theodore Arthur Woerthwein. (gcy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
5 SUMMONS Issued as to Defendant City Of Chicago. (gcy, ) (Entered: 10/04/2005)
6 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Caroline K. Sheerin (Sheerin, Caroline) (Entered: 10/06/2005)
7 MOTION by Defendant City Of Chicago for extension of time to file answer (Fike, Lisa) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
8 NOTICE of Motion by Lisa Eiserman Fike for presentment of motion for extension of time to file answer 7 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 10/27/2005 at 09:00 AM. (Fike, Lisa) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
9 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Lisa Eiserman Fike (Fike, Lisa) (Entered: 10/20/2005)
10 AMENDED complaint by Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan against City

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 4 of 7

10/27/2005 11/23/2005 11/23/2005 11/29/2005 12/01/2005 01/25/2006 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006 01/26/2006
01/30/2006 02/15/2006 02/21/2006 03/09/2006 03/21/2006

Of Chicago (Woerthwein, Theodore) (Entered: 10/25/2005)
11 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Agreed motion to extend time to answer or othwerwise plead to plaintiffs' complaint 7 is granted to 11/23/2005. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 10/27/2005)
12 MOTION by Plaintiffs Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan for leave to file Agreed Motion to File 2nd Amended Complaint (Attachments: # 1 2nd Amended Complaint)(Woerthwein, Theodore) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
13 NOTICE of Motion by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein for presentment of motion for leave to file, 12 before Honorable Wayne R. Andersen on 12/1/2005 at 09:00 AM. (Woerthwein, Theodore) (Entered: 11/23/2005)
14 NOTICE by Theodore Arthur Woerthwein of Change of Address (Woerthwein, Theodore) (Entered: 11/29/2005)
15 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's motion for leave to file second amended complaint 12 is grante. Defendant to answer or otherwise plead by 2/3/06. Status hearing set for 1/26/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 12/05/2005)
16 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by Andrew S. Mine (Mine, Andrew) (Entered: 01/25/2006)
18 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ORDER: Case referred to Magistrate Judge Nan R. Nolan. Signed by Judge Charles P. Kocoras on 1/25/06. (gcy, ) (Entered: 01/27/2006)
17 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Initial status hearing set for 2/16/2006 at 09:00 AM. before Magistrate Judge Nolan in courtroom 1858. Parties shall deliver a copy of an initial status report to chambers, room 1870, at least three business days before the initial status hearing. If the parties have recently prepared and filed an initial status report, the submission of the previously filed initial status report is sufficient. For further details see enclosed standing order or visit the Court's website at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/26/2006)
19 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 1/26/2006 and continued to 3/9/2006 at 09:00 AM. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
21 APPLICATION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan by John Mark Finnegan; Order entered granting leave by Wayne R. Andersen. Filing fee $ 100 paid, receipt number 10715335. (gcy, ) (Entered: 01/31/2006)
20 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : At the request of plaintiffs' counsel and defendant's counsel not objecting, initial status hearing set for 02/16/06 is stricken and reset to 2/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/30/2006)
22 STATUS Report INITIAL STATUS REPORT− REFERRAL MATTER ASSIGNED FOR PURPOSES OF DISCOVERY by Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan (Woerthwein, Theodore) (Entered: 02/15/2006)
23 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 3/21/2006 at 09:00 a.m. Mailed notices (gcy, ) (Entered: 02/23/2006)
24 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 3/9/2006 and continued to 3/23/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/09/2006)
25 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Settlement conference held on 3/21/2006. Status hearing set for 3/23/2006 is stricken and reset to 5/4/2006 at 09:00 AM. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 5 of 7

03/21/2006 04/12/2006 04/26/2006 05/05/2006
05/10/2006 05/25/2006 06/09/2006 06/09/2006 06/16/2006 06/21/2006 07/20/2006 08/10/2006 08/11/2006 08/31/2006 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 09/05/2006 09/05/2006 09/06/2006 09/13/2006

26 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 04/12/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/21/2006)
27 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 05/25/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 04/12/2006)
28 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 5/4/2006 is stricken and reset to 5/5/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 04/26/2006)
29 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held and continued to 6/9/2006 at 09:00 AM. David Grossman is given leave to file an appearance on behalf of the defendant, City of Chicago. Mailed notice (mb, ) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
30 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendant City Of Chicago by David Alan Grossman (Grossman, David) (Entered: 05/10/2006)
31 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 06/14/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 05/25/2006)
32 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : At the request of plaintiff's counsel and defendant's counsel not objecting, status hearing set for 06/14/06 is stricken and reset to 6/21/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/09/2006)
33 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing stricken for 6/9/2006 and reset to 6/16/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/12/2006)
34 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 6/16/2006 and 7/20/2006 at 09:00 AM. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 06/16/2006)
35 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued 8/10/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 06/22/2006)
36 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 7/20/2006 and continued to 9/14/2006 at 09:00 AM. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/21/2006)
38 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held and continued to 08/31/06 at 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
37 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 9/14/2006 is stricken and reset to 9/13/2006 @ 9:00 a.m. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/11/2006)
39 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing held on 8/31/2006 and continued to 9/19/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 08/31/2006)
40 STATUS Report by City Of Chicago (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Grossman, David) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
41 NOTICE by City Of Chicago re status report 40 (Grossman, David) (Entered: 09/01/2006)
42 SUPPLEMENT by City Of Chicago to status report 40 (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Supplement to Exhibit F to City's Status Report)(Grossman, David) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
43 NOTICE by City Of Chicago re supplement 42 (Grossman, David) (Entered: 09/05/2006)
44 STATUS Report Plaintiffs' Status Report by Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, Margaret Holzer, Council for Disability Rights, Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan (Woerthwein, Theodore) (Entered: 09/06/2006)
45 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held on 9/13/2006 and continued to 9/20/2006 at 01:30 PM. Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/14/2006)

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 6 of 7

09/15/2006 09/21/2006 10/04/2006 11/09/2006 11/13/2006 12/12/2006 12/13/2006 12/19/2006 12/20/2006 12/20/2006 12/21/2006 01/22/2007 01/22/2007 02/08/2007 02/13/2007 03/20/2007
05/03/2007
05/03/2007 07/06/2007

46 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : At the request of Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendant's Counsel not objecting, Status hearing set for 09/19/06 is stricken and reset to 10/4/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 09/15/2006)
47 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 11/13/2006 at 12:00 PM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 09/21/2006)
48 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 10/4/2006 and continued to 11/14/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 10/04/2006)
49 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 11/30/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/09/2006)
50 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : At the request of Defendant's counsel and Plaintiffs' counsel not objecting, Status hearing set for 11/14/06 is stricken and reset to 11/30/2006 at 09:00 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 11/13/2006)
51 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing set for 12/20/2006 at 09:00 AM. in courtroom 1403. Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/12/2006)
52 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan : Status hearing set for 12/20/2006 at 09:15 AM. Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/13/2006)
54 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following dates: 9/13/2006, 9/20/2006; Before the Honorable Wayne R. Andersen. (54−1 through 54−2) (rp, ) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
53 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Set reset hearingsStatus hearing set for 1/22/2007 at 11:00 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 12/20/2006)
55 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Case called for status. Parties not present.Status hearing reset for 1/22/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
56 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Status hearing set for 01/22/07 is stricken and reset to 1/23/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 12/21/2006)
57 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Set reset hearingsStatus hearing set for 2/8/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 01/22/2007)
58 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :At counsels' request, status hearing set for 01/23/07 is stricken and reset to 2/8/2007 at 09:00 AM. Counsel are to appear after the district court's 02/08/07 status.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 01/23/2007)
59 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Status hearing held on 2/8/2007, Set/reset hearingsStatus hearing set for 3/15/2007 at 01:30 PM.Mailed notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 02/09/2007)
60 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Status hearing set for 3/20/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 02/13/2007)
61 MINUTE entry before Judge Nan R. Nolan :Magistrate Judge Status hearing held on 3/20/2007. Agreement reached. All matters relating to the referral of this action having been concluded, the referral is closed and the case is returned to the assigned judge. Judge Nan R. Nolan no longer referred to the case.Mailed notice (lxs, ) (Entered: 03/20/2007)
62 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Status hearing held. Pursuant to stipulation, this case is hereby dismissed. Plaintiff's oral motion to reinstate within sixty (60) days is set for 7/9/2007 at 09:00 AM. Civil case terminated. Mailed notice (rp, ) (Entered: 05/04/2007)
63 STIPULATION by parties to Dismiss case. (rp, ) (Entered: 05/07/2007)
64 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Plaintiff's oral motion to reinstate is set for 7/9/2007 at 01:00 PM. (TIME CHANGE).Telephoned notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 07/06/2007)

Case: 1:05-cv-05689 As of: 06/12/2011 10:02 PM CDT 7 of 7

07/09/2007 09/06/2007 11/01/2007

65 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen : Oral motion to reconsider is held and continued to 9/6/2007 at 09:00 AM.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 08/06/2007)
66 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Oral Motion to reconsider is entered and continued to 11/1/2007 at 09:00 AM.Mailed notice (rp, ) (Entered: 09/11/2007)
67 MINUTE entry before Judge Wayne R. Andersen :Status hearing held on 11/1/2007. The terms of the settlement agreement are to be incorporated in a final order. The Court retains jurisdiction to enfore the settlement.Advised in open court notice (tsa, ) (Entered: 11/05/2007)

 
 News Articles Chicago agrees to Pay Largest ADA Curb Ramp Settlement Ever -- $50,000,000 in New
Money
SETTLEMENT SUMMARY
The Chicago City Council agreed to a settlement agreement in September 2007. The short synopsis follows:
• From now on the City of Chicago will only install curb ramps and sidewalks that meet or exceed the specifications of the Federal ADA guidelines (the “ADAAG”).
• For the next 5 years the City will spend $50,000,000 ($10,000,000 per year) in new money to repair and replace curb ramps and sidewalks in high traffic areas which are not on the City’s schedule for repair or replacement. This is the largest ADA settlement ever. The City will also continue to spend approximately eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000) each year installing curb ramps and sidewalks as a part of the City's annual resurfacing work.
• The City shall install curb ramps into intersections of each cross street at its intersection with the alteration or resurfacing, so that the altered or resurfaced intersections are fully accessible to mobility-impaired persons with disabilities. For example: if the City paves Dearborn Street from Adams to Monroe, the curb ramps to cross Monroe at Dearborn Street and the curb ramps to cross the alley between Adams and Monroe will be ADA compliant even though the City did not pave Monroe or the alley.
• If anyone is aware of a problem curb ramp (OF ANY KIND*NEW, OLD or NOT DONE RIGHT), they should call 311 and the City will take corrective action.
• If anyone fails to get a satisfactory result or if the City doesn’t do it correctly, send an email to ted@wamlaw.com or cdr@disabilityrights.org
SETTLEMENT
The Council for Disability Rights, a local nonprofit, announces the settlement of its lawsuit demanding the City of Chicago comply with the law when it resurfaces streets. Chicago will spend over $140,000,000 in the next 5 years installing curb ramps that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). This includes $50,000,000 in new money to repair and replace curb ramps and sidewalks in high traffic areas which are not on the City’s schedule for repair or replacement, which is annually funded at about $18,000,000. This is the largest ADA settlement ever. If there is a bad curb ramp, any Chicagoan can call 311 to complain and have it fixed. This case was filed in Federal Court in the Northern District of Illinois as 2005 cv 05689, Council for Disability Rights, et.al, v. The City of Chicago.

The Council for Disability Rights filed its October 2005 lawsuit claiming Chicago had continuously failed to provide and maintain curb-ramps that complied with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990. In April 2007 the City of Chicago threw in the towel and conceded it was not building sidewalks and curb ramps that complied the Americans with Disabilities Act.
As soon as the lawsuit was filed, the City ran to Federal Judge Wayne Andersen and proclaimed that there was no need for Federal intervention. The City said from November 2005 forward Chicago would build perfect sidewalks and curb ramps that would all be in compliance with the ADA.
Maybe Mayor Daley had been wrong and the City hadn’t followed the Disability Law up until then. Maybe Chicago really wasn’t disability friendly. BUT Chicago would never build a bad curb ramp or sidewalk again. The head of the Department of Transportation said to Judge Andersen: “we will be perfect from now on.” The attorneys from the Corporation Counsel’s office told the Judge that Chicago needs no oversight. Mayor Daley’s Chief of Staff, Ron Huberman, went to Judge Andersen and said all the pieces were in place for the City to be perfect from then on. Mr. Huberman is now the President of the Chicago Transportation Authority.
Judge Andersen listened and gave Chicago a chance to prove it. He let the City show what it could do in the 2006 construction season. Many streets were resurfaced, which meant new curb ramps and, sometimes, new sidewalks. The City rebuilt a large portion of Chicago Avenue from the Kennedy Expressway west to Damen and Fullerton from Sacramento west. It was a fiasco. The City wasted millions of taxpayer dollars building ramps and sidewalks that did not comply with the ADA.
On July 17, 2006, Judge Andersen went to look at the Chicago Avenue project. The City sent along executives from the Department of Transportation, and engineers, lawyers, architects, ADA consultants, etc. They walked and inspected the newly installed ramps and sidewalks on Chicago Ave. from Elizabeth to Ada. Nothing was right. None (that’s right*not one) of the new curb ramps or sidewalks complied with the law. Driving west to Damen, none of the curb ramps appeared to comply. The City made excuses, their engineers made excuses, their lawyers were quiet, and the architects said “oh, oh.”
The City changed its standards and said “everything will be perfect from now on.” No cement will be poured for a sidewalk or a curb ramp unless the sidewalk or curb ramp complies with the law.
In August 2006, Ms. Holzer, the director of the CDR saw cement trucks pouring cement on the Fullerton project. She called Mr. Woerthwein, the attorney. They measured the sidewalks---the extreme slope broke the law. They measured the curb ramps. These broke the law as well. They notified the City. The City said: “you are wrong, our measurements show these comply with the law.” Everyone went out and measured the new sidewalk on the north side of Fullerton on August 31, 2006. The level used by Chicago engineers showed the City was in compliance with the law, no matter how far off level it looked. The CDR’s level showed parts of the sidewalk

were twice as steep as the law allowed. There was a big difference. The City’s architect was along. The architect’s level was used. His readings agreed with those taken by the CDR. The “magic level” used by the City was set aside. The City ripped up and replaced the new Fullerton project (at taxpayers’ expense). The City was in the process of ripping up and repairing some but not all of the Chicago Avenue project previously looked at by Judge Andersen on July 17, 2006 (also at taxpayers’ expense). The City is installing ADA compliant curb ramps wherever it resurfaced a street in 2006. The City’s experts finally admitted that some corners were so unique that new designs were required and they have created several new designs that are compliant. In December, 2006, Chicago started drafting an agreement whereby it would comply with the Americans With Disabilities Act when it resurfaced streets. If Chicago does not, the Council for Disability Rights will go back to Judge Andersen and have the law enforced. Both sides agreed to final language.
Copies of the Settlement are available.
"The City's noncompliance creates inconvenient, often dangerous, barriers to the general public as they travel through the City as pedestrians," said CDR's Executive Director Jo Holzer. "These sidewalk barriers often force pedestrians in wheelchairs to use the street, further endangering their own physical well-being as well as creating hazards for drivers. Chicago is responsible for removing barriers and for creating and maintaining accessible public pathways."
The named plaintiffs are a small number of those affected by the grievances presented in this case -- people with mobility limitations who use the public ways of Chicago, whether residents or not. Residents of Chicago who have mobility limitations (or may have in the future) number in the tens of thousands. The 2000 US Census says there were 600,000 people with disabilities living in Chicago. Non-residents include visitors as well as daily commuters, many thousands of whom have or will have mobility limitations.
The number of curbs at a given intersection may range from eight to ten or more, depending on the number of intersecting streets, pedestrian islands, etc. And, alleys at mid-block present two more sites on each side of the street that require compliant curb cuts or ramps.
The need to correct the pattern of failure presented in this case is compounded by the number of individuals affected; the need is further complicated by the number of possible sites with improper installations. Finally, it is a compelling need -- to avoid injury to individuals in the general public and to improve the daily quality of life for the individuals with disabilities and everyone else traversing the public way in Chicago. And it is a compelling need to avoid or prevent further individual lawsuits against the City of Chicago.
The impact of these conditions on the daily life of a person with a mobility limitation is unimaginable and brings a real sense of urgency to the discussion. In order to travel to and from work, a person must know the condition of each and every curb that s/he must safely traverse. And, those conditions change with the season -- in the winter, piles of snow or ice often make the curb cut impassable; in the summer, construction work and summer lunch tables on the sidewalks often requires the person to find another, safer path to work. In order to meet someone for lunch, not only must s/he know whether the restaurant is accessible, but also whether the path

of travel from point A (the office) to point B (the restaurant) is also accessible. In order for him/her to use public buildings or other public venues, the path of travel to (as well as into and throughout) the facility must be accessible. And, if a person with mobility limitations is going to a new location, a safe, accessible path of travel is unknowable. There is no one, no agency with the answer -- only another person with a mobility limitation who has been recently to that location can know the conditions. Job-hunting becomes a real adventure into new territory, requiring a cell phone so that s/he can inform a potentially new employer when blocked by an inaccessible public way or when reaching an inaccessible site.
An accessible path of travel becomes an integral part of the daily planning for a person with a mobility limitation in order for him/her to reach any given destination in a safe and timely manner. A flexible approach to daily events also becomes part of his/her mind set. Even then, there may be occasional breakthroughs of anger that result in rude outbursts or, perhaps, lawsuits.
With this settlement, the Council for Disability Rights (CDR) and the City have crafted a solution that, if followed, will enable people with disabilities in the future to move through this world class city in the conduct of their daily lives with total confidence that all public venues are accessible to them, including the public way. Under the conditions of the settlement, all contractors and City staff who work on streets and sidewalks will be trained on ADA requirements; contractors who fail to meet ADA standards must bring the ramps up to ADA standards at their own expense; the City will spend $50,000,000 over the next five years on correcting bad curb-cuts and ramps.
Incorporated in 1981, CDR was founded by adults with disabilities, parents of children with disabilities and their advocates; since 1983 CDR has been qualified to receive federally deductible gifts. Governed, managed and staffed by a super-majority of people with disabilities and their families, its mission is to seek and provide information and resources for people with disabilities and their families as they pursue independence and self-reliance, and to advocate for improved public policies that will enhance and protect that independent lifestyle.
The five Plaintiffs are all people who have traversed Chicago's streets on a regular basis and who have mobility limitations -- some use wheelchairs, some white canes, some walking canes or crutches.
The lawsuit could not have succeeded without the hard work of each of the Plaintiffs: Bruce Moore, Larry Quillinan, Venzelma Cotton, Kent Smith, Doris Stewart, and Margaret Holzer, all of whom were passionate about getting the City to “do it right.” Sadly for all of us, Larry Quillinan died while the lawsuit was still being fought. The Council for Disability Rights and Jo Holzer were supportive each step of the way. Bruce Moore and Jo Holzer put in a lot of time and effort and were present at each of the meetings on the “street” where we pointed out failures to the City and Judge Andersen.
This wasn’t just a Chicago legal effort by Woerthwein & Miller. We had the wonderful help of attorneys who had sued many, many, many cities for failing to obey the law: Denise Heberly and Mark Finnegan of Ann Arbor, Michigan and Megan Buffington of Bowling Green, Ohio. They read and revised pleadings and other court filings and made a lot of trips to Chicago to measure

curb ramps, attend court proceedings, meet with Judge Andersen and help prepare all the things that go into a large lawsuit. And they were always there on the telephone with a helpful answer to our questions.
For further information on the lawsuit or the ADA, contact CDR at 312-444-9484 (cdr@disabilityrights.org) or Ted Woerthwein at 312-654-0001 (ted@wamlaw.com).

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

COUNCIL FOR DISABILITY RIGHTS, et
al.,
Plaintiffs,
V.
CITY OF CHICAGO,

)

) )

)

No. 05 C 5689

)

Judge Wayne Andersen

)

Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan

Defendant.

)

RELEASE AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Plaintiffs, Council for Disability Rights, et al., by their attorneys, Woerthwein & Miller

and Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC, and Defendant, the City of Chicago (the "City"), by its attorney

Mara S. Georges, Corporation Counsel of the City of Chicago, herein stipulate and agree to the

following:

1. This action has been brought by plaintiffs against defendant, and makes certain

allegations regarding the City's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 12101 et seq., and the regulations promulgated thereunder (the "ADA'), and with Section 504

of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794(a), in connection with the City's installation

and maintenance of curb cuts and sidewalks, which allegations are contained in plaintiffs Second

Amended Complaint.

2. Defendant denies each and every allegation of wrongdoing or violation of law as

stated in plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, and further, denies liability.

3. The parties and their respective attorneys acknowledge that settlement of this case

is not an admission of liability or of unlawful conduct by or on the part of defendant, and shall

not serve as evidence or notice of any wrongdoing by or on the part of defendant. The parties and their respective attorneys further acknowledge that settlement is made to avoid the uncertain outcome of litigation and the expense in time and money of further litigation and for the purpose of judicial economy. Plaintiffs and their attorneys agree that they, or any entity with which either or both of them is affiliated or with which either or both of them may later become affiliated, shall not use this settlement as notice of wrongdoing or violation of any law on the part of defendant, and/or any of its current or former officials, agents, or employees, or for any other purpose in any other litigation, and that any such use is inconsistent with the terms of this Release and Settlement Agreement.
4. For the purpose of settlement of this action and in consideration of plaintiffs' agreement to dismiss their claims, defendant agrees to the following:
a. The City will continue, for at least the next five years, to take the lead in convening the Curb-Cut Advisory Committee ("the Committee"), and will consult with and provide information to the Committee as set forth below.
b. Wholly apart from and in addition to moneys spent on its annual street resurfacing and on its streetscape projects,' in each of the years 2007-20011 (inclusive), the

'

During 2006, the City spent approximately eighteen million dollars ($18,000,000)

installing curb ramps and sidewalks as a part of the City's annual resurfacing work. Based upon

past experiences, the City anticipates spending a comparable amount on installing curb ramps

and sidewalks as part of the City's annual resurfacing work during each of the next five years.

The exact amount that the City spends on installing curb ramps and sidewalks each year depends

upon the scope of the City's annual capital project budget for street resurfacing, which in turn is

dependent upon many factors, including, without limitation, funding from other levels of

government.

At the conclusion of the second calendar year of the operation of this Release and

Settlement Agreement, and at the conclusion of every subsequent calendar year of the operation

of this Release and Settlement Agreement, if the City's average annual expenditures (on a

2

City shall allocate and expend at least an additional ten million dollars ($10,000,000) for installing retrofitted curb ramps and sidewalks that meet all the standards and requirements set forth in this Settlement Agreement pertaining to curb ramps and sidewalks ("Additional Ramps"). These Additional Ramps shall be installed/retrofitted in the p riority areas that the Committee has identified, which are shown in the maps attached as Exhibit 1. The Committee shall decide upon the allocation of the $10 million among the p riority areas. Expenditures shall, to the maximum extent feasible, take place in the year of allocation; provided, that in the event of contractor default or other occurrences not in the City's control, the expenditures may be made in the following year, in which case the events requiring the delay shall be documented and disclosed to the Committee. The expenditures of these monies for retrofitting shall remain independent of the City's normal expenditures in each of the five years for resurfacing and sidewalk work. c. The City shall ensure that from the year 2007 and thereafter, whenever it alters or resurfaces 2 any streets, intersections, sidewalks, or curb ramps, each portion of

calendar-year basis) for installing curb ramps and sidewalks as a part of the City's annual resurfacing work for the years in which this Release and Settlement Agreement has been operational is significantly less that $18 million, plaintiffs may bring such reduction in expenditures to the Court's attention and request that the City provide an explanation for the reduction in such expenditures.

2

As used throughout this Release and Settlement Agreement, the term "alter" shall

have the meaning set forth in the ADAAG section 3.5 and the term "resurface" shall have the

definition given by the United States Department of Justice Title II Technical Assistance Manual

§ II-6.6000: "Resurfacing beyond normal mainten ance is an alteration. Merely filling potholes is

considered to be normal maintenance."

^3

such project, to the maximum extent feasible, 3 shall be altered in such a manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. 4 Each such alteration shall comply with all ADA requirements, including 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.151(b),(c),(e)(1) and (e)(2), 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A, and the ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities ("ADAAG"). The City shall install curb ramps into intersections of each cross street at its intersection with the alteration or resurfacing, so that the altered or resurfaced intersections are fully accessible to mobility-impaired persons with disabilities. The City shall ensure that all plans and specifications under its jurisdiction for such work shall include the specific requirements set forth above. The City shall ensure, to the maximum extent feasible, that all ADAcompliant curb ramps and sidewalks are installed during the same construction season as the street resurfacing or other alteration, and in any event all curb ramps and sidewalks shall be installed within twelve (12) months of the triggering alterations. The date of street resurfacing and other triggering alterations shall be set forth in the Annual Report described in paragraph 4.i., infra.

3

As used throughout this Release and Settlement Agreement, the term "to the

maximum extent feasible" shall have the meaning set forth at 28 C.F.R. § 36.402(c).

4

As used throughout this Release and Settlement Agreement, the term "readily

accessible to and usable by persons with disabilities" shall have the meaning set forth at Section

1106.1000 of the United States Department of Justice ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual,

and set forth at 28 C.F.R. Appendix B § 36.401.

El

With respect to curb ramps installed in the 2006 construction season, 5 any curb ramps installed prior to July 17, 2006 that do not comply with the preceding specifications shall be treated like other existing, non-compliant curb ramps, and may, as appropriate, be subject to remedy as part of the Committee's allocation of the annual $10 million for Additional Ramps in priority areas. All curb ramps installed as part of the 2006 construction season after July 17, 2006 ("post July 17, 2006 curb ramps") were installed pursuant to the standards set forth in paragraph 4.c. using the procedures set forth in paragraphs 4.d., 4.e., and 4.g. If plaintiffs locate any post July 17, 2006 curb ramps that, in their view, do not comply with the standards set forth in this paragraph 4.c., the City, upon being informed of the location of those ramps, shall replace any such ramps that do not so comply so that they do comply with the standards set forth in this paragraph 4.c. or shall provide an explanation as to why, in its view, those ramps cannot be constructed in full compliance with the standards set forth in this paragraph 4.c. For streets altered or resurfaced as part of the 2006 Aldermanic Menu, also known as the "CDOT 2006 In-House Construction Resurfacing Program," which streets are set forth in Exhibit 3, if appurtenant curb ramps have not yet been installed, ramps shall be installed during the 2007 construction season. d. The City will continue, for at least three (3) years, its retention of independent advisors LCM Architects or another similar entity to serve as ADA compliance
All curb ramps installed during the 2006 calendar year are set forth in Exhibit 2, which includes date of completed installation.
5

specialists and consultants with regard to the City's activities. At the end of three years the City will evaluate, in consultation with the Committee, whether LCM's or the successor entity's continued retention is appropriate. e. The City will continue, for at least three (3) years, its retention of independent consultants HNTB Corporation or another similar entity(s) to perform construction quality assurance. At the end of three years the City will evaluate whether HNTB Corp.'s or the successor quality assurance firm's continued retention is appropriate. f. The City will continue to prepare, implement, and regularly update as necessary, ADA-compliant design standards, and will make such design standards available on-line and to the Committee. g. For at least the next three (3) years, the City will adhere to a multi-step process for installing ADA-compliant curb ramps and sidewalks, including consultation with ADA compliance specialists and separate Quality Control and Quality Assurance processes. h. For the next five years, the City will ensure that all relevant City supervisors, employees, and contractors attend mandatory training sessions to explain design specifications (including updates thereto) required by this Settlement Agreement, as well as explaining inspection and record-keeping and reporting requirements under this Settlement Agreement. These training sessions will occur on at least an annual basis. The City will provide to the Committee information concerning the scheduling, content, and progress of the training sessions, including without

limitation information concerning who conducted the training, the agenda, training materials, and sign-in sheets. i. For the next five (5) years, at the end of each construction season, and no later than February 28 of the year following the construction season in question, the City shall prepare and submit to the Committee, plaintiffs, plaintiffs' counsel, and the Court a report listing each intersection, street or section thereof or sidewalk or section thereof altered or resurfaced' during the construction season, as well as each curb ramp installed or expected to be installed, along with dates the work was done, and shall set forth the total amount that the City spent that year installing curb ramps and sidewalks as part of the City's annual resurfacing work. In a separate section of this Annual Report, the City will list all Additional Ramps, and shall set forth the total amount that the City spent that year as part of that work in the priority areas. In a separate section of the Annual Report, the City will list the locations of each curb ramp requested that year on the 311 telephone system, as well as the location of each ramp installed that year pursuant to a 311 telephone system request. A representative from the entity described in paragraph 4.e., or another appropriate person if such entity is no longer engaged by the City, shall certify that all curb ramps and sidewalk sections installed during the preceding year and listed in the annual report comply with the specifications set forth in paragraph 4.c., with the exception of any specifically identified curb

6

For the purposes of the contents of the Annual Report, "alter[ed]" and

"resurface[d]" shall have the meanings set forth in the applicable law as described in footnote 2,

infra.

7

ramps and sidewalks where absolute compliance was not possible. If plaintiffs or

plaintiffs' counsel do not receive the Annual Report on or prior to February 28 of

each year, or if they believe that the report does not contain the required

components set forth above, they shall approach the City to request the report

and/or discuss the contents of the report, and allow the City to respond, prior to

approaching the Court. If, upon review of this Annual Report, plaintiffs or

plaintiffs' counsel have any questions or concerns with respect to the City's

compliance with this Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs shall promptly notify the

City of their questions or concerns prior to approaching the Court.

j.

For the next five (5) years, the City will make a record of all 311 telephone system

requests for installation or alteration of curb ramps, and will make available on

request information concerning the locations that are the subjects of 311 requests

and the City's responses thereto. With respect to 311 requests, the City will make

a good faith effort to investigate and take appropriate corrective action as

required, as promptly as possible, recognizing that specific site considerations and

ongoing projects might preclude an immediate response.

k. In the event that the City, in consultation with LCM or other similar entity,

believes that a curb ramp or sidewalk section cannot be constructed in full

compliance with this Settlement Agreement's requirements, the City shall identify

such deviating ramps, document the reasons for such deviation, and provide the

deviating measurements thereof in the annual report referenced in paragraph 4.i.,

supra. Such identifications may be provided as an attachment to the annual

report. If the City builds any deviating or non-ADA compliant ramp(s) or sidewalk ("noncomplying project") at any location(s), the noncomplying project may be challenged by Plaintiffs before this Court. 5. For the purpose of settlement of this action and in consideration of defendant's successful completion of each of the agreements as set forth in this Release and Settlement Agreement, and upon advice of counsel, plaintiffs agree to promptly dismiss their claims against the City, with leave to reinstate solely in the event that the Chicago City Council rejects this Release and Settlement Agreement. Plaintiffs agree that they will be required to execute this Release and Settlement Agreement and effect said dismissal of this action prior to the City's presentation of this Release and Settlement Agreement to the Chicago City Council and that plaintiffs' offer to settle on the terms set forth in this Release and Settlement Agreement shall not be revoked or otherwise repudiated unless the Chicago City Council rejects this Release and Settlement Agreement. 6. The City shall pay plaintiffs' counsel $130,000 in full consideration and satisfaction of their time claimed to have been expended on this matter through the signing of this Release and Settlement Agreement. Such payment shall be made as expeditiously as possible. Nothing in this Release and Settlement Agreement authorizes plaintiffs' counsel to receive, or requires the City to pay, additional payments for plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs pertaining to future work. Nothing in this Release and Settlement Agreement prevents plaintiffs' counsel from seeking additional payments for plaintiffs' attorneys fees and costs pertaining to future work or for noncomplying project(s). 7. The City's obligations pursuant to this Release and Settlement Agreement are

n
conditioned on approval of this Release and Settlement Agreement by the Chicago City Council. The City will not be obligated to perform its obligations pursuant to this Release and Settlement Agreement until the following events occur: (a) the City receives a copy of this Release and Settlement Agreement executed by plaintiffs and their attorney(s); (b) the Chicago City Council enacts an ordinance authorizing settlement and payment of the funds agreed upon in this Release and Settlement Agreement; and (c) the City receives a Final Agreed Order of Dismissal from the United States District Court dismissing all of plaintiffs' claims against the City.
8. This Release and Settlement Agreement and any documents that may be executed under paragraph 11 herein contain the entire agreement between the parties with regard to the settlement of this action, and shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, jointly and severally, and the heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors, assigns, employees, officials, and agents of each.
9. This Release and Settlement Agreement is entered into in the State of Illinois and shall be construed and interpreted in accordance with its laws. Terms contained herein shall not be construed against a party solely because that party is or was the principal drafter.
10. In entering into this Release and Settlement Agreement, plaintiffs represent that they have relied upon the advice of their attorneys, who are the attorneys of their own choice, that they have read and understand the terms of this Release and Settlement Agreement, that their attorneys have explained those terms to them, and that they voluntarily accept those terms. Plaintiffs also represent and warrant that no other person or entity has or has had any interest in the claims or causes of action referred to herein, that they and their attorneys have the sole right and exclusive authority to execute this Release and Settlement Agreement and to accept the
10

a
terms specified herein, and that they have not sold, assigned, transferred, conveyed, or otherwise
disposed of any of the claims or causes of action referred to herein. 11. All parties agree to cooperate fully and to execute a Stipulation of Dismissal and
any and all supplemental documents and to take all additional actions which are consistent with and which may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the basic terms and intent of this Release and Settlement Agreement.
12. The parties and the Court agree that the Court, per Judge Wayne Andersen, shall retain jurisdiction to hear and to resolve matters arising under enforcement of this Release and Settlement Agreement. DATED: April , 2007
Att¢rney for the Defendant Mara Georges Corporation Counsel for the City of Chicago Michael A. Forti Deputy Corporation Counsel Andrew S. Mine Senior Counsel David A. Grossman Assistant Corporation Counsel City of Chicago Law Department 30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1230 Chicago, Illinois 60602
MM Attorney for the Plaintiffs Theodore A. Woerthwein Woerthwein & Miller
11

4
Apr 17 07 10:34a

J. Mark Finnegan

734302-3234

p.1

200 West Madison Street, Suite 710.-, Chicago, Illinois 60606 (312) 654-0401

B', J\

ftorney for the Plaintiffs

J. Mark Finnegan

•

Heberle & Finnegan, PLLC

2580 Craig Road

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48103

(734) 302-3233

JPX •!

12