Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 1 of 25

Kathleen L Wilde, OSB # 971053 kwilde@droregon.org Theodore E Wenk, OSB #001239 ted@droregon.org Thomas Stenson, OSB # 152894 tstenson@droregon.org DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Jonathan P. Strauhull, OSB #106094 jon.strauhull@lasoregon.org LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OREGON 520 SW 6th Ave., Suite #700 Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone: 503-224-4086 Facsimile: 503-295-9496
Attorneys for Individual Plaintiffs

Stephen L. Brischetto, OSB # 781564 slb@brischettolaw.com LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN L. BRISCHETTO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 621 SW Morrison St., Suite 1025 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-223-5814 Facsimile: 503-228-1317
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF OREGON

PORTLAND DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF OREGON CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, MARTHA MAE BRYSON, KIMBERLY MORRISEY, DAVE MAULE, JORDAN OHLDE, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, LAURIE SITTON, CARRIE TAYLOR, and LAURA POTTS,
Plaintiffs, vs.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; and MATTHEW GARRETT, in his official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation,

Case No.
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
Americans With Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 U.S.C. § 794 et. seq.

Defendants.
PAGE 1 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 2 of 25
INTRODUCTION This action is brought against Defendant Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and its Director, Matthew Garrett, in his official capacity as Director of ODOT, to remedy a systemic pattern and practice of discrimination against people with physical disabilities, particularly those with mobility impairments. Effective January 26, 1992, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act required that state and local governments ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the pedestrian routes in the public right of way. An important part of this requirement is the obligation whenever streets, roadways, or highways are newly constructed, paved, resurfaced or otherwise altered to provide compliant curb ramps where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs, and accessible pedestrian signals at curb ramps with traffic signals. Since at least November 1993, it has been clear that paving and resurfacing are “alterations” that require the installation of curb ramps where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs. Nevertheless, between 1993 and January 1, 2014, it has been ODOT’s unlawful pattern, policy and/or practice to newly construct, pave, resurface, or otherwise alter roadways throughout the state without installing curb ramps or bringing non-conforming curb ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act. This lawsuit is filed to remedy the Department’s systematic violation of the law with respect to the new construction, paving, resurfacing and other alterations of roadways.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (‘the ADA”), 42 USC § 12101 to 12213, specifically Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 USC § 794 et. seq. PAGE 2 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 3 of 25
2. This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 USC §1331 and 1343 for claims arising under the ADA and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act.
3. This court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 USC §§2201 and 2202.
4. Defendants have a place of business in this District and transact business in this District, and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to this action occurred in this District. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
5. As a substantial portion of the acts or omissions giving rise to this action occurred in Washington, Clackamas, or Multnomah Counties, divisional venue is proper in this Division pursuant to LR 3-2.
PARTIES Defendant Oregon Department of Transportation
6. The Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) is an Oregon state agency whose responsibility is to provide a safe, efficient transportation system that supports economic opportunity and livable communities in the State of Oregon. ODOT is a public entity under Title II of the ADA as defined in 28 USC § 12131(I) and 28 CFR §35.104. ODOT is a recipient of millions of dollars of federal financial assistance under 29 USC §794. ODOT uses said federal financial assistance in its program activities, including highway construction and maintenance. Under both statutes, Defendant ODOT is responsible for installing, repairing and upgrading curb ramps and pedestrian signals along the state highway system throughout the State of Oregon, where it has newly constructed paved, resurfaced or otherwise altered the roadway. //// ////
PAGE 3 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 4 of 25
Defendant Matthew Garrett 7. Matthew Garrett is the Director of ODOT. Mr. Garrett is sued in his official
capacity. Defendant Garrett is responsible for managing the day to day operations of Oregon’s state transportation system, and for the violations alleged herein.
Plaintiff Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living 8. The Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living (“AOCIL”) is an
Oregon statewide non-profit corporation representing seven accredited Centers for Independent Living (CILs). AOCILs mission is to lead the consumer driven Independent Living Movement by supporting the CILs, engaging in systems advocacy, community education, and development of collaborative partnerships. AOCIL values the basic human rights of dignity, equality, inclusion and independence for all people with disabilities.
9. The majority of the members of AOCIL’s Board of Directors are people with disabilities, and majority of the staff and boards of directors of the seven CIL’s are people with disabilities. This membership requirement ensures that AOCIL is and will always be consumerdriven and consumer controlled. AOCIL brings a unique peer perspective to the services and advocacy it offers for people with disabilities. As such, AOCIL represents people with disabilities and provides the means by which they can protect their collective interests.
10. People with mobility and visual impairments are constituents of AOCIL, and many have suffered, or are continuing to suffer, injury to their right to use the streets and roads maintained by ODOT, an injury that would allow them to bring suit in their own right.
11. The CILs are consumer controlled, community based, cross-disability non-profit agencies created and authorized by 29 USC 796a(1) to promote a philosophy of independent living, including self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with
PAGE 4 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 5 of 25
significant disabilities, and to promote and maximize the integration and full inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities into the mainstream of American society.
12. AOCIL’s Board of Directors is a membership organization, consisting of the Executive Directors of each of the CILs, and collectively represents all people with disabilities in the state, including those to whom the CILs provide services and supports.
13. The CILs represent clients who are facing impediments to their independence, including people with mobility impairments who cannot cross state roads or face unreasonable danger and obstacles when the try to do so, as a direct result of ODOT’s failure to build and maintain compliant curb ramps. The CILs, including but not limited to the Eastern Oregon Center for Independent Living (EOCIL), have been financially damaged because it is more difficult to fulfill their responsibilities to consumers whom they are charged to serve and they have expended funds to advocate for improved accessibility. Further, when consumers cannot reach the center because of the inaccessibility of state roads, the CILs have to expend funds to send staff to the homes of their constituents, or send staff to conduct meetings at accessible locations, diverting the center’s time and financial resources. This limitation on the CIL’s ability to serve its clients also frustrates the mission of the CILs and the statewide mission of AOCIL. Further the Portland area ILC, Independent Living Resources, has spent money advocating for compliant pedestrian signals in the TV Highway area (TV Highway is a state road).
14. AOCIL sues in its own name for injury to itself as a statewide organization for people with disabilities.
15. AOCIL also has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members because they (a) have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests AOCIL seeks to protect are germane to its organizational purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. What is at issue in this case is whether
PAGE 5 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 6 of 25
ODOT’s multi-year pattern, policy and/or practice of failing to install and upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals violates federal law, and the relief requested is statewide remediation. Neither requires participation by the individual members or constituents.
16. Defendants, by failing and/or refusing to construct or ensure construction of compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when constructing, paving, resurfacing or otherwise altering state roads, has injured AOCIL’s ability to support the CILs and their members, by impairing its ability to provide and obtain safe access to community services by its members with mobility and visual impairments. Defendants are further impairing AOCIL’s ability to promote and maximize the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society.
17. Further, AOCIL’s mission of advocating for inclusion and independence for all people with disabilities has been frustrated by Defendants’ actions, which force people with mobility and visual impairments in Oregon to have to choose between traveling within their towns and cities and their safety, thereby impairing their independence and ability to participate equally in mainstream community life.
18. There is a causal connection between AOCIL’s injury and Defendants’ inactions, and the injury will be redressed by requiring Defendants to remediate all non-compliant ramps and pedestrian signals, which is the relief sought in this case.
19. Further, the clients who are served by the CILs that comprise AOCIL are being injured by Defendants’ failure and/or refusal to make state highways safe and accessible to people with mobility and visual impairments. AOCIL brings this action on behalf of those clients. Plaintiff Martha Mae Bryson
20. Martha Mae Bryson is a resident of Roseburg, Oregon. She uses an electric
PAGE 6 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 7 of 25
wheelchair for mobility due to a variety of orthopedic conditions that make it difficult to walk. Ms. Bryson travels all over the central city area of Roseburg in her wheelchair. She is an activist and advocate for other people with disabilities and the homeless community in Roseburg. However, at numerous places in the Roseburg area, obstructed roads and crosswalks under ODOT’s control make it unreasonably dangerous for her and the people for whom she advocates to travel the streets of Roseburg, impeding their ability to move about town and to use certain intersections. These architectural barriers make it difficult and dangerous for her to use the streets and sidewalks of the city, as well as the services and programs available around the city.
21. Ms. Bryson’s wheelchair has one pair of larger, powered rear wheels, as well as a second pair of smaller, unpowered wheels in the front. When Ms. Bryson encounters a curb ramp with an excessive lip, slope, or other obstacle, she can only safely ascend the ramp by turning her wheelchair around and mounting the obstacle in reverse. Going up a noncompliant ramp in the forward direction can result in her chair either becoming stuck, overturning, or sliding down the slope. While proceeding in reverse can make an obstructed or noncompliant ramp surmountable to her, the elaborate process of turning her chair around in the crosswalk as traffic passes her and then moving her chair in reverse up the ramp exposes her to an unreasonable risk of being struck by a car. The added amount of time spent in the crosswalk to accommodate her turn and reverse of direction often means that she cannot cross a signaled intersection before the light changes. It also means that she cannot look at the oncoming traffic while reversing. Ms. Bryson has bone spurs in her cervical spine that make turning her head impossible. Finally, oncoming traffic does not anticipate pedestrians suddenly turning around and reversing in the middle of a crosswalk. All of these factors make transiting obstructed crosswalks unsafe for her.
22. For instance, the crosswalk on the entrance ramp to interstate highway 5 northbound from state highway 138 is highly dangerous because it is unmarked, badly maintained, and out of compliance with current ADA standards. The slope at the west curb ramp
PAGE 7 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 8 of 25
is excessive and the ramp has an excessive lip that requires Ms. Bryson to turn her wheelchair 180 degrees to ascend the ramp in reverse – all in the face of right- and left-turning traffic freely merging onto the exit ramp and accelerating to highway speeds. Although ODOT has placed a black and white text sign reminding west-bound drivers on highway 138 to yield to pedestrians, the sign would be difficult to read at traffic speeds, nor does it use any of the traditional, attention-getting colors and shapes of traffic signs. A second curb ramp on the east side of the entrance ramp has been constructed in the last three years, but the noncompliant west side ramp was not brought into compliance. Further, without a marked crosswalk, it is not clear to pedestrians or drivers (at least those that notice the unmarked pedestrian crossing at all) which of the two curb ramps on the east side of the entrance ramp should be used. Ms. Bryson faces discrimination in her access to the sidewalks daily, and is injured by Defendants’ failure to install and maintain its curb ramps.
23. While pedestrians using the newer curb ramp have a gentler grade to ascent and are more visible to turning traffic, the distance across the entrance ramp by using the newer curb ramp is longer, and thus the time a pedestrian is exposed to the risk of oncoming traffic is increased.
24. Because Interstate 5 bisects the city of Roseburg from north to south, with only a few pedestrian routes over or under it, the inaccessible curb ramps on the northbound entrance ramp make it challenging to access the west side of town. The entrance ramp is immediately adjacent to Roseburg High School. Although making government buildings and schools accessible to pedestrians is Defendants’ highest priority for crosswalk upgrades, the presence of the high school has not warranted adequate attention from Defendants to bring the crosswalk up to ADA requirements. // //
PAGE 8 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 9 of 25
Plaintiff Kimberly Morrisey 25. Kimberly Morrisey is a resident of Clatskanie, a smaller town in rural Columbia
County. Because of her disability, she uses a self-propelled wheelchair at all times for mobility in her home and to get around the city. Ms. Morrisey travels around Columbia and Clatsop Counties frequently, and around the state on occasion.
26. Due to the state highway resurfacing that occurred a few years ago in Clatskanie, Ms. Morrisey is no longer able to cross Highway 30, the main state highway through town that was constructed and is maintained by ODOT, because the slope is too great and she is not strong enough to do so alone. This forces her to stay on one side of town with limited access to places in the community, like the main grocery story and city hall. She only has access to a caregiver three times a week to take her in to the community and one of those days is to take her to church on Sunday. Because of the inaccessibility of the highway crossings, she is dependent on her parents, who live an hour away, to take her places.
27. Ms. Morrisey has “fallen forward” on more than one occasion and fortunately her she had her caregiver with her to assist her back to an upright position. She has also been stuck “high centered” before on the certain areas of the curb ramps, and required assistance to continue on her way. Neither would have happened if the curb ramps were compliant.
28. There are crosswalks in Ms. Morrisey’s town on the state highway that drop off the sidewalk and provide no wheelchair accessibility to people with disabilities. The issues with the curb ramps are that they are either not present, are partial curb ramps that do not allow for wheelchair access, or the location is not correct and the ramps are difficult to navigate. In addition, the curb ramps in her area have large lips that cannot be navigated or are difficult to navigate for self-propelled wheelchair users, and there are many aggregate or bumpy surfaces that make access more difficult. The curb ramps are not useable by Ms. Morrisey and other people with mobility impairments, resulting in ongoing injury.
PAGE 9 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 10 of 25
29. The overall result is that Ms. Morrisey is not able to access services in her community because of missing or substandard curb ramps. Her quality of life suffers as a result, and that has contributed to a feeling of isolation in her community that is already fairly remote in location. The city has recently made repairs to city maintained sidewalks which has helped, but she is waiting for the day when, among her other concerns, Defendants will finally make the state highway crossable again for persons with disabilities.
Plaintiff Dave Maule 30. Mr. Maule is 68-year-old veteran who resides in Lincoln City, Oregon and has lived in his residence since 1983. He has had one leg removed due to his disability, and relies on his electric wheelchair to get him around his home and to his numerous medical appointments around town. He is unable to travel down Highway 101 because of the missing or substandard curb ramps near his home. For example, at the nearest crossing of Highway 101 at Devil’s Lake Road that is very close to his home, all curb ramps are non-compliant or missing at this major intersection. He laments that he is unable to cross the street to the public library, located in the same building as city hall. 31. A six mile portion of highway 101 was recently repaved, and yet none of the curb ramps were brought into compliance or even repaired. Based on information and belief, Defendants did not make the curb ramps compliant because the project design did not provide for paving the final foot of the road shoulder on either side. A well-publicized report performed by an access consultant at the request of Lincoln City demonstrated the widespread noncompliant curb ramps on Highway 101. 32. The lack of curb ramps along Highway 101 at this intersection and along Highway 101 has led Mr. Maule to avoid crossing Highway 101 without assistance. He feels that he is isolated in his home, and often avoids going out at all together because it requires him
PAGE 10 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 11 of 25
to operate his electric wheelchair on the roadway which is unsafe, and deprives him of the benefit of the sidewalks that is afforded to other citizens. Plaintiff Jordan Ohlde
33. Mr. Ohlde is a long-time resident of Bend, Oregon. He uses a wheelchair to get around. Due to the poorly maintained sidewalks and curb ramps, Mr. Ohlde is often unable to use pedestrian facilities in Bend. He must instead travel along busy roads using the bicycle lane. This forces him closer to traffic and endangers his safety. These poor road conditions have contributed to the breaking of five different axles on Mr. Ohlde’s wheelchair.
34. In Bend, state highway 20 goes through the center of town. Highway 20 is called Northeast Greenwood Avenue as it travels east-west from the eastern outskirts of Bend west to Northeast Third Avenue, where Highway 20 turns north. Highway 20 goes in a north-south direction on Northeast Third Avenue from Northeast Greenwood Avenue. Mr. Ohlde lives close to Northeast Greenwood Avenue/Highway 20. He travels on the highway to get to the pool, to his doctor’s office, and to his church. From Northeast Eleventh Street towards the center of town, Northeast Greenwood Avenue has very old, poorly maintained curb ramps. For instance, the ramps near Northeast Tenth Street and Northeast Greenwood Avenue are impassible for a wheelchair user. It would be impossible for a wheelchair user to turn north at the northeast corner of Northeast Greenwood Avenue because the curb ramp leads directly into a utility pole. Similarly, no wheelchair user could travel eastbound or southbound from the southeast corner of Northeast Greenwood Avenue at Northeast Sixth Street, because the whole ramp landing is impeded in both directions by a sign and a traffic post. In other places on Northeast Greenwood Avenue, no north-south curb ramps are provided that would allow a wheelchair user to cross Northeast Greenwood Avenue without wheeling into oncoming east-west traffic. Many of the curb ramps adjoining Northeast Greenwood Avenue between Northeast Third and Northeast Eleventh are badly cracked and damaged.
PAGE 11 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 12 of 25
35. On Northeast Third Avenue, noncompliant ramps make use of the sidewalks challenging or impossible for people with disabilities. One curb ramp at Northeast Third Avenue and Northeast Norton Avenue directs walker and wheelchair users into a sewer grate. Even relatively new looking curb ramps have no detectable warnings. Mr. Ohlde states that some of the pedestrian walk signals are not easily accessible because the posts on which they are placed have secondary curbs and other obstructions that place them out of reach of wheelchair users, such as at Northeast Third Avenue and Northeast Revere Avenue and at Northeast Greenwood Avenue and Northeast Third Avenue. Mr. Ohlde has attempted to use those signals and gotten his wheelchair stuck by these barriers. The signal buttons are not located on a level pad for wheelchair users.
36. Mr. Ohlde has made requests to see these problems fixed, but has experienced only mutual blame between the city of Bend and ODOT. His access to the streets of the city where he lives is impeded by Defendants’ failure to install, to upgrade, and to maintain curb ramps in compliance with the law. Instead of being permitted to use the sidewalks of the main roads of Bend, he is forced into the bicycle lane and into traffic, where oncoming vehicles are not likely to expect a wide, slow-moving wheelchair that fills most of the width of the lane. Mr. Ohlde’s property (in the form of his wheelchair), his life, and his liberty to move around his own town are jeopardized by ODOT’s failure to provide equal access for people with disabilities. Plaintiff William Phillips
37. Mr. Phillips has lived in his apartment in Portland, Oregon for 24 years. His apartment is part of a large public housing complex with 120 units located in North Portland. He has very poor eyesight and severe nerve damage in his legs that requires him to use a selfpropelled wheelchair for mobility at all times. He relies exclusively on public transportation to get him to doctor appointments and out into the community for his weekly activities.
38. While Mr. Phillips uses a wheelchair to get around, he has very limited used of
PAGE 12 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 13 of 25
his legs and can stand up with difficulty. However, he is unsteady on his feet, and it is unsafe for him to stand without support.
39. All the bus lines near his home travel along Lombard Avenue, Highway 30 bypass, a state highway constructed and is maintained by ODOT. Even though Lombard Avenue has been repaved many times in the last decade, very few of the curb ramps have been made compliant. For example, at a nearby crossing of Highway 30 at North Chautauqua Boulevard near a large public park and community center, all four curb ramps are noncompliant and too narrow for a wheelchair to descend safely. The way that Mr. Phillips copes with this noncompliance when he needs to cross at this corner is get out of his wheelchair and push his chair down onto the chair and edge his way down into the roadway, risking catastrophic injury from a fall.
40. There is also no accessible path along Lombard Avenue because of the noncompliant curb ramps. He has tried to operate his wheelchair in the roadway, but because there is no shoulder or bike lane, it simply is not possible without impeding traffic and risking his life, a risk he is not willing to take. Instead, he often has to wait for and take a bus a few blocks rather that travelling those blocks in his wheelchair, to get to where he is going. He feels this is not fair since other people get to use the sidewalk. It further contributes to his sense of incapacity, which is particular hard given that he greatly values his own independence.
41. Mr. Phillips has also recently encountered many noncompliant curb ramps along Highway 99E that was constructed and is maintained by ODOT. This includes the portion of 99E in North Portland where it is known as Martin Luther King Boulevard, and in the central Eastside District where is it also known as Grand Avenue. Mr. Phillips does not understand why Defendants would want to avoid fixing the curb ramps when they have repaved these roads that are used heavily by both cars and pedestrians.
PAGE 13 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 14 of 25
42. Mr. Phillips has also encountered non-compliant traffic signals on Lombard Avenue, where he cannot reach the button because of the absence of a level pad or the button is out of his reach range.
Plaintiff Laurie Sitton 43. Ms. Sitton is a longtime resident of East Portland. She lives in a house on Powell Boulevard/US 26 near 119th. She has limited motion in her right arm. She deftly controls her power wheelchair with a toggle switch. She primarily travels independently using Tri-Met fixed route public buses on the regular bus lines. She is thereby able to independently complete basic errands and medical visits, as well as visit friends and engage in social and community activities. 44. Unfortunately, at numerous intersections along Powell Boulevard, the pedestrian buttons are inaccessible and do not meet federal design standards. At these intersections, she is left to wait for someone else to come along to push the button, to travel down the bike path alongside the street traffic, or to endanger herself with an unsafe approach to the button. 45. Among the intersections posing this problem are the southwest corner of Powell and 122nd Avenue, where a Safeway is located. She is unable to reach the pedestrian button to cross 122nd because the approach has an inaccessible slope, which makes her chair -balance unstable. There is no level platform landing. Further, the pole on which the button is fastened has a raised cement base which hinders approach. That, together with the height of the button, make the reach excessive and the button unreachable. 46. Similarly, at the northwest corner of 136th and Powell, she cannot reach the button to cross either 136th or Powell. She likes to patronize the Plaid Pantry and a restaurant at this intersection, but her access is significantly impaired. There is a 4” curb abutting the pole on which the button is fastened, making it impossible to use a parallel or other approach to the button; there is also no level landing area and the reach range is excessive. This is true despite
PAGE 14 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 15 of 25
the fact that the actual ramps at this intersection appear to have been constructed within the past few years.
47. Several major transit stops and/or transfers also have non-compliant pedestrian signals. At the northeast corner of 112th and Powell, where Ms. Sitton makes bus transfers along 112th to Division, the curb slope prevents safe access to the buttons . At the east side of the I205 on-ramp crossing, pole pedestals prevent accessible approach at all four (4) corners, and there are no landings or accessible approaches at any of the corners. Ms. Sitton uses this site enroute to MAX lines.
48. Ms. Sitton also has problems with curb ramps on Powell Boulevard, which she uses to access TriMet buses, particularly at 122nd Street ,where bus lines 17 and 71 travel to downtown Portland, and at 92nd and Powell where the green line MAX runs.
49. There is also a problem with the curb ramp crossing the on ramp/ off ramp to I205 which intersects Powell Boulevard between 92nd and 98th Avenues that makes access very dangerous. This makes it particularly difficult to get off the MAX line at 92nd Avenue and go down to Powell and head east toward home.
Plaintiff Carrie Taylor 50. Ms. Taylor is a woman who has a visual impairment and is ambulatory but is unable to utilize the pedestrian signals without audible and visual components. There are several intersections that she regularly travels in Hillsboro along TV Highway, which is a state road, which have pedestrian buttons that are unusable by her. She must therefore wait until she perceives that traffic has stopped because of the crosswalk signal being activated, and only then crosses the intersection. She has no way of knowing whether traffic has, in fact, stopped, putting her at risk of serious injury or death.
PAGE 15 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 16 of 25
51. When Ms. Taylor encounters accessible signals in Portland or Beaverton, which have audible and visual pedestrian buttons, she is able to navigate the intersections freely and without the risk she faces along TV Highway.
Plaintiff Laura Potts 52. Ms. Potts has a mobility impairment and uses a wheelchair. She has encountered multiple locations on TV Highway, a state road, where there are pedestrian signals; however, she cannot reach them to activate the signals because there is either no clear, level landing pad or the button is not within compliant reach ranges. She therefore cannot cross those intersections until traffic stops for some reason other than her activating the signal, denying her equal access to ODOT’s pedestrian walkways. 53. Prior to 1999, Ms. Potts used a manual wheelchair. Because of steep curb ramps and/or curb ramps with lips at the bottom on TV Highway, she was flipped out of her chair on several occasions and suffered bruises and other injuries. This occurred even when she had an assistant traveling with her to assist her up and down these curb ramps. 54. In 1999, she switched from a manual chair to a power chair to provide her with more power to get up and down the curb ramps. However, she still had difficulty, and at some intersections chose to ignore the non-compliant curb ramp, and instead use driveways to access the sidewalk, forcing her to travel down the shoulder of the road and risk serious injury.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 55. Defendants provide for public use an extensive network of physical facilities around the state of Oregon, including many public sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian crossings, pedestrian signals and other walkways throughout the state of Oregon at streets, roadways and highways. These ODOT facilities are a key program, service and activity within ODOT’s jurisdiction. ODOT provides this public program, service and activity for the benefit of residents of and visitors to the state of Oregon. By failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA
PAGE 16 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 17 of 25
and 29 USC §794 for the installation and correction of non-compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when newly constructing, payving, resurfacing, or otherwise altering streets, roadways or highways, Defendants discriminate against persons with disabilities in violation of federal law.
56. Both the ADA (since January 26, 1992) and Section 504 (since June 3, 1977) have mandated that whenever a public entity itself newly constructs or alters streets, roads or highways, it must install curb ramps at any intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway, to ensure that newly constructed or altered pedestrian right of way programs and facilities are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
57. Both the ADA and Section 504 also require compliance with applicable standards for accessible design (i.e., the Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards [“UFAS”] or the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design. These standards contain detailed design specifications addressing such issues as, for example, the slope of curb ramps and their locations. The ADA also required public entities to remediate new construction or alterations that were not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. ODOT has failed to remediate new construction, resurfacing or other alterations not constructed in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction.
58. Defendants have had an ongoing obligation to make curb ramps and pedestrian crossings and signals compliant with the ADA, and has systematically ignored that obligation.
59. During the period 1992 through the present, Defendants have maintained an unlawful policy, pattern and/or practice that the resurfacing or paving of streets, roadways or highways does not constitute an “alteration” for purposes of the ADA and Section 504 of The Rehabilitation Act. Pursuant to this policy and practice, Defendants have failed to install curb ramps and failed to correct non-compliant curb ramps where street level pedestrian walkways
PAGE 17 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 18 of 25
cross curbs in new construction, resurfacing, paving, resurfacing or other projects altering roadways throughout the period 1992 through December 31, 2014.
60. By no later than 2003, Defendants reduced their unlawful policy and practice to writing in the form of a Highway Design Manual. In ODOT’s Highway Design Manual, ODOT informed employees and contractors working on improvement projects involving streets, roadways or highways that resurfacing projects “will not require ADA ramp addition or modification.” This written policy was in violation of ADA and Section 504 requirements.
61. The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, which include requirements for curb ramps, require that that there be a clear and level landing pad at pedestrian signals, and that the operable buttons be at specified reach ranges and heights. Further, the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAGS) require the installation of accessible pedestrian signals, that provide audible warnings to those with vision impairments, directing them as to whether and when it is safe to cross the road. Defendants have failed to comply with either of these legal obligations.
62. On December 19, 2013, Defendants issued a Technical Services Advisory with an effective date of January 1, 2014. Under the Technical Services Advisory issued in January 2014, ODOT declared that resurfacing projects (except for those involving chip seals) were alterations under the ADA triggering a requirement to upgrade or provide curb ramps where sidewalks or prepared surfaces exist. The Technical Services Advisory changed ODOT’s unlawful written policy that resurfacing projects were not alterations under the ADA.
63. Plaintiffs do not know whether ODOT has changed its unlawful practice with respect to the failure to install and/or upgrade curb ramps in road resurfacing projects since January 2014. However, there are thousands of projects where road paving, resurfacing, or other alterations have taken place between 1993 and December 31, 2013 where curb ramps and pedestrian signals have not been installed or upgraded to meet ADA standards.
PAGE 18 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 19 of 25
64. In its 2011 Transition Plan, ODOT estimated that the total number of curb ramps needed in the State was 16,938. Of that total inventory, 15,270 were either missing or noncompliant. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no inventory has been done of the pedestrian signals on state roads throughout the state to determine how many are out of compliance with federal law.
65. Each of the individual plaintiffs are excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, the goods, services, programs and activities of the Oregon Department of Transportation on the basis of their disability through defendant’s failure to install, repair and upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals in compliance with the ADA and 29 USC §794. Further, plaintiffs are being denied meaningful access to public buildings, transportation, places of employment and public accommodation, through either a complete denials of access, noncompliance with the ADAAGs, or the maintenance of unsafe conditions.
66. AOCIL and its members and clients have been harmed as a result of ODOT’s non-compliance with federal and state law, and the inaccessibility of curb ramps and pedestrian signals on state roads and highways, which, inter alia, frustrates autonomy and full and equal integration into community life.
67. Plaintiffs made demand that Defendants identify all new construction, resurfacing, paving or other alteration projects that have been completed during the period 1992 through December 31, 2013, and install or upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs, as required by the ADA and 29 USC §794. Defendants have failed to identify and correct the non-compliant new construction, resurfacing, paving and other alteration projects to bring curb ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance. The individual plaintiffs, AOCIL and its members and constituents will suffer irreparable injury unless the defendants are required to come into compliance with the ADA and 29 USC §794 requirements, including the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
PAGE 19 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 20 of 25

68. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants deny that they failed to comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against person with disabilities during the period 1993 to the end of 2013 in violation of the ADA and Section 504. A judicial declaration of rights is necessary and appropriate in order that each party may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.
69. On information and belief, Defendants have engaged in other practices that demonstrate a lack of commitment to their obligations under the ADA and Section 504 and which have contributed to the lack of accessible facilities throughout the state. These practices include: (a) failing to provide accessible alternative routes during construction when sidewalks are closed; (b) failing to make bathrooms and facilities accessible at ODOT constructed and maintained rest areas and Department of Motor Vehicles locations; (c) failing to make a complaint process accessible to the community and failing to timely respond to complaints; (d) failing to engage with local officials about ADA compliance in local projects; (e) implementing a strategy designed to avoid triggering ADA compliance including the overuse of design exceptions; (f) failing to clearly identify which roads are under the jurisdiction of ODOT which hinders pedestrian complaints regarding accessibility compliance; and (g) failing to provide the community with adequate notice of ODOT projects and a meaningful opportunity to be heard about accessibility concerns.
70. Plaintiffs entered into a tolling agreement with Defendants that extended the statute of limitations for these claims through February 29, 2016.

71. above.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 70

PAGE 20 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 21 of 25
72. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or denying the benefits of, the goods, services, programs and activities of the entity or otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of disability. 42 USC § 12132.
73. At all times relevant to this action ODOT was and is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and provides a pedestrian right of way program, service or activity to the general public.
74. At all times relevant to this action, the individual Plaintiffs were and are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of the services, programs or activities of provided by ODOT. AOCIL was and is a representative organization dedicated to defending the interests of qualified individuals with disabilities and preserving their access to the community.
75. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA require a public entity to install compliant curb ramps at intersections whenever it newly constructs, paves, resurfaces or otherwise alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways at any time after January 26, 1992. 28 C.F.R. 35.151(e). The ADA also required public entities to remediate new construction, paving, resurfacing or other alterations that were not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. 28 C.F.R. Section 35.151(c)(5)(i).
76. Resurfacing projects undertaken by ODOT constitutes an alteration within the meaning of the ADA.
77. From November 1993 through at least December 31, 2013, Defendants have failed to provide compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when ODOT newly constructs, paves, resurfaces or otherwise alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways. This conduct PAGE 21 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 22 of 25
constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA. ODOT has further failed to remediate curb ramps and pedestrian signals in new construction, paving, resurfacing or alterations not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction, in violation of the ADA.
78. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Title II of the ADA, the individual plaintiffs and the members of AOCIL have been injured as set forth herein and will continue to suffer injury until Defendants are required to, and have, come into compliance with the requirements of the ADA.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973 79. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 70 above. 80. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by recipients of federal funding. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part, that: No otherwise qualified handicapped individual…shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance […]. 81. Defendants have received substantial federal financial assistance at all relevant times. 82. All programs, services and activities described above are provided at or by facilities owned and/or maintained by Defendants, or are operated and/or administered by Defendants or its agents.
PAGE 22 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 23 of 25
83. Plaintiffs are otherwise qualified handicapped individuals within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as are the members and individuals represented by AOCIL.
84. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance solely because of the disabilities of plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §794 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
85. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Section 504, the individuals plaintiffs and the members and individuals served by AOCIL have been injured as set forth herein and will continue to suffer injury until ODOT is brought into compliance with 29 U.S.C. §794 requirements.
86. Because Defendants’ discriminatory conduct presents a real and immediate threat to plaintiffs, their safety and their ability to equally access public facilities, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: 87. A declaration that Defendants’ policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to provide legal compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when ODOT newly constructs, paves, resurfaces, or otherwise alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways discriminates against Plaintiffs and fails to comply with the requirements of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 88. A declaration that Defendants’ policy, pattern and/or practice of failing
PAGE 23 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 24 of 25
to remediate non-compliant or missing curb ramps and pedestrian signals in new construction, paving, resurfacing or alterations not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction, violates Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
89. An order and judgment enjoining Defendants from violating Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
90. An order and judgment requiring Defendants to conduct a survey of all new construction, paving, resurfacing or other alteration projects undertaken on state roads between November 1993 and January 1, 2014, and to identify each and every non-compliant curb ramp and non-complaint pedestrian signal, or intersection requiring a curb ramp, along the roadways constructed, paved, resurfaced or otherwise altered by Defendants;
91. An order and judgment requiring Defendants to retrofit each and every noncompliant curb ramp at intersections requiring a curb ramp or compliant pedestrian signal along the roadways newly constructed, pave, resurfaced or otherwise altered by Defendants without bringing the ramps into compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction during that time, including constructing curb ramps where they are required but do not exist, and bringing pedestrian signals at curb ramps into compliance with the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
92. Award plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs; 93. All such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. // // //
PAGE 24 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 1 Filed 02/22/16 Page 25 of 25

DATED this 22nd day of February, 2016.

/s/ Kathleen Wilde_________ Kathleen L Wilde, OSB # 971053 kwilde@droregon.org Theodore E Wenk, OSB #001239 ted@droregon.org Thomas Stenson, OSB # 152894 tstenson@droregon.org DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738
Attorneys for Plaintiffs COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS (continued):

/s/ Jonathan Strauhull__________ Jonathan P. Strauhull, OSB #106094 jon.strauhull@lasoregon.org LEGAL AID SERVICES OF OREGON 520 SW 6th Ave., Suite #700 Portland, Oregon 97204 Phone: 503-224-4086 Facsimile: 503-295-9496
Attorney for all Individual Plaintiffs

/s/ Stephen Brischetto_________ Stephen L. Brischetto, OSB # 781564 slb@brischettolaw.com LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN L. BRISCHETTO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 621 SW Morrison St., Suite 1025 Portland, Oregon 97205 Attorney for Plaintiffs Phone: 503-223-5814 Facsimile: 503-228-1317
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

PAGE 25 of 25 – CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 1 of 32

Kathleen L Wilde, OSB # 971053 kwilde@droregon.org Theodore E Wenk, OSB #001239 ted@droregon.org Thomas Stenson, OSB # 152894 tstenson@droregon.org DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738
Stephen L. Brischetto, OSB # 781564 slb@brischettolaw.com LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN L. BRISCHETTO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 621 SW Morrison St., Suite 1025 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-223-5814 Facsimile: 503-228-1317
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF OREGON CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, MARTHA MAE BRYSON, KIMBERLY MORRISEY, DAVE MAULE, JORDAN OHLDE, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, LAURIE SITTON, CARRIE TAYLOR, and LAURA POTTS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; and MATTHEW GARRETT, in his official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00322-HZ
PLAINTIFF’S SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION
Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 29 U.S.C. § 794 et. seq.

Defendants.

PAGE 1 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 2 of 32
COME NOW the Plaintiffs and file this Amended Class Action Complaint as a matter of right under Rule 15(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
INTRODUCTION This action is brought against Defendant Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and its Director, Matthew Garrett, in his official capacity as Director of ODOT, to remedy a systemic and continuing pattern and practice of discrimination against people with physical disabilities, particularly those with mobility impairments. Effective January 26, 1992, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act required that state and local governments ensure that persons with disabilities have access to the pedestrian routes in the public right-of-way. An important part of this requirement is the obligation whenever streets, roadways, or highways are newly constructed, paved, resurfaced or otherwise altered to provide compliant curb ramps where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs, and accessible pedestrian signals at curb ramps with traffic signals. Since at least November 1993, it has been clear that paving and resurfacing are “alterations” that require the installation of curb ramps where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs. Nevertheless, between 1993 and the present, it has been ODOT’s continuing unlawful pattern, policy and/or practice to newly construct, pave, resurface, or otherwise alter roadways throughout the state without installing curb ramps or bringing non-conforming curb ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This lawsuit is filed to remedy the Department’s systematic and continuing violation of the law with respect to the new construction, paving, resurfacing and other alterations of roadways and its failure to maintain a program of reasonably accessible pedestrian rights-of-way.
PAGE 2 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 3 of 32

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to the

Americans with Disabilities Act (“the ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, specifically Title

II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et. seq.

2.

This court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343

for claims arising under the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

3.

This court has jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2201 and 2202.

4.

Defendants have a place of business in this District and transact business in

this District, and a substantial portion of the acts giving rise to this action occurred in this

District. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

5.

As a substantial portion of the acts or omissions giving rise to this action

occurred in Washington, Clackamas, or Multnomah Counties, divisional venue is proper in

this Division pursuant to LR 3-2.

PARTIES Defendant Oregon Department of Transportation

6.

The Oregon Department of Transportation (“ODOT”) is an Oregon state agency

whose responsibility is to provide a safe, efficient transportation system that supports economic

opportunity and livable communities in the State of Oregon. ODOT is a public entity under

Title II of the ADA as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. §35.104. ODOT is a

recipient of millions of dollars of federal financial assistance under 29 U.S.C. §794. ODOT uses

said federal financial assistance in its program activities, including highway construction and

maintenance. Under both statutes, Defendant ODOT is responsible for installing, repairing and

upgrading curb ramps and pedestrian signals along the state highway system throughout the

PAGE 3 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 4 of 32

State of Oregon where it has newly constructed paved, resurfaced or otherwise altered the roadway. ODOT is also responsible for maintaining a program of pedestrian rights-of-way that is “readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities. 28 C.F.R. § 35.150.

Defendant Matthew Garrett

7.

Matthew Garrett is the Director of ODOT. Mr. Garrett is sued in his official

capacity. Defendant Garrett is responsible for managing the day-to-day operations of Oregon’s

state transportation system, and for the violations alleged herein.

Plaintiff Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living

8.

The Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living (“AOCIL”) is an

Oregon statewide non-profit corporation representing seven accredited Centers for Independent

Living (CILs). AOCIL’s mission is to lead the consumer driven Independent Living Movement

by supporting the CILs, engaging in systems advocacy, community education, and development

of collaborative partnerships. AOCIL values the basic human rights of dignity, equality,

inclusion and independence for all people with disabilities.

9.

The majority of the members of AOCIL’s Board of Directors are people with

disabilities, and majority of the staff and boards of directors of the seven CIL’s are people with

disabilities. This membership requirement ensures that AOCIL is and will always be consumer-

driven and consumer controlled. AOCIL brings a unique peer perspective to the services and

advocacy it offers for people with disabilities. As such, AOCIL represents people with

disabilities and provides the means by which they can protect their collective interests.

10. People with mobility and visual impairments are constituents of AOCIL, and

many have suffered, or are continuing to suffer, injury to their right to use the streets and roads

maintained by ODOT, an injury that would allow them to bring suit in their own right.

11. The CILs are consumer controlled, community based, cross-disability non-

PAGE 4 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 5 of 32
profit agencies created and authorized by 29 U.S.C. § 796 et seq. to promote a philosophy of independent living, including self-determination, equal access, and individual and system advocacy, to maximize the leadership, empowerment, independence, and productivity of individuals with significant disabilities, and to promote and maximize the integration and full inclusion of individuals with significant disabilities into the mainstream of American society.
12. AOCIL’s Board of Directors is a membership organization, consisting of the Executive Directors of each of the CILs, and collectively represents all people with disabilities in the state, including those to whom the CILs provide services and supports.
13. The CILs represent clients who are facing impediments to their independence, including people with mobility impairments who cannot cross state roads or face unreasonable danger and obstacles when they try to do so, as a direct result of ODOT’s failure to build and maintain compliant curb ramps. The CILs, including but not limited to the Eastern Oregon Center for Independent Living (EOCIL), have been financially damaged because it is more difficult to fulfill their responsibilities to consumers whom they are charged to serve and they have expended funds to advocate for improved accessibility. Further, when consumers cannot reach the center because of the inaccessibility of state roads, the CILs have to expend funds to send staff to the homes of their constituents, or send staff to conduct meetings at accessible locations, diverting the center’s time and financial resources. This limitation on the CIL’s ability to serve its clients also frustrates the mission of the CILs and the statewide mission of AOCIL. Further the Portland metro area CIL, Independent Living Resources, has spent money advocating for compliant pedestrian signals in the Tualatin Valley Highway area (TV Highway is a state road).
PAGE 5 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 6 of 32
14. AOCIL sues in its own name for injury to itself as a statewide organization for people with disabilities.
15. AOCIL also has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members because they (a) have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests AOCIL seeks to protect are germane to its organizational purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested require the participation of individual members in the lawsuit. What is at issue in this case is whether ODOT’s multi-year continuing pattern, policy and/or practice of failing to install and upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals violates federal law, and the relief requested is statewide remediation. Neither requires participation by the individual members or constituents.
16. Defendants, by failing and/or refusing to construct or ensure construction of compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when constructing, paving, resurfacing or otherwise altering state roads, has injured AOCIL’s ability to support the CILs and their members, by impairing its ability to provide and obtain safe access to community services by its members with mobility and visual impairments. Defendants are further impairing AOCIL’s ability to promote and maximize the integration and full inclusion of individuals with disabilities into the mainstream of American society.
17. Further, AOCIL’s mission of advocating for inclusion and independence for all people with disabilities has been frustrated by Defendants’ actions, which force people with mobility and visual impairments in Oregon to have to choose between traveling within their towns and cities and their safety, thereby impairing their independence and ability to participate equally in mainstream community life.
18. There is a causal connection between AOCIL’s injury and Defendants’ inactions, and the injury will be redressed by requiring Defendants to remediate all non-
PAGE 6 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 7 of 32
compliant ramps and pedestrian signals and by making pedestrian rights-of-way accessible to people with disabilities, which is the relief sought in this case.
19. Further, the clients who are served by the CILs that comprise AOCIL are being injured by Defendants’ failure and/or refusal to make state highways safe and accessible to people with mobility and visual impairments. AOCIL brings this action on behalf of those clients.
The Individual Named Plaintiffs Plaintiff Martha Mae Bryson
20. Martha Mae Bryson is a resident of Roseburg, Oregon. She uses an electric wheelchair for mobility due to a variety of orthopedic conditions that make it difficult to walk. Ms. Bryson travels all over the central city area of Roseburg in her wheelchair. She is an activist and advocate for other people with disabilities and the homeless community in Roseburg. However, at numerous places in the Roseburg area, obstructed roads and crosswalks under ODOT’s control make it unreasonably dangerous for her and the people for whom she advocates to travel the streets of Roseburg, impeding their ability to move about town and to use certain intersections. These architectural barriers make it difficult and dangerous for her to use the streets and sidewalks of the city, as well as the services and programs available around the city.
21. Ms. Bryson’s wheelchair has one pair of larger, powered rear wheels, as well as a second pair of smaller, unpowered wheels in the front. When Ms. Bryson encounters a curb ramp with an excessive lip, slope, or other obstacle, she can only safely ascend the ramp by turning her wheelchair around and mounting the obstacle in reverse. Going up a noncompliant ramp in the forward direction can result in her chair either becoming stuck, overturning, or sliding down the slope. While proceeding in reverse can make an obstructed or noncompliant
PAGE 7 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 8 of 32
ramp surmountable to her, the elaborate process of turning her chair around in the crosswalk as traffic passes her and then moving her chair in reverse up the ramp exposes her to an unreasonable risk of being struck by a car. The added amount of time spent in the crosswalk to accommodate her turn and reverse of direction often means that she cannot cross a signaled intersection before the light changes. It also means that she cannot look at the oncoming traffic while reversing. Ms. Bryson has bone spurs in her cervical spine that make turning her head impossible. Finally, oncoming traffic does not anticipate pedestrians suddenly turning around and reversing in the middle of a crosswalk. All of these factors make transiting obstructed crosswalks unsafe for her.
22. For instance, the crosswalk on the entrance ramp to interstate highway 5 northbound from state highway 138 is highly dangerous because it is unmarked, badly maintained, and out of compliance with current ADA standards. The slope at the west curb ramp is excessive and the ramp has an excessive lip that requires Ms. Bryson to turn her wheelchair 180 degrees to ascend the ramp in reverse – all in the face of right- and left-turning traffic freely merging onto the exit ramp and accelerating to highway speeds. Although ODOT has placed a black and white text sign reminding west-bound drivers on highway 138 to yield to pedestrians, the sign would be difficult to read at traffic speeds, nor does it use any of the traditional, attention-getting colors and shapes of traffic signs. A second curb ramp on the east side of the entrance ramp has been constructed in the last three years, but the noncompliant west side ramp was not brought into compliance. Further, without a marked crosswalk, it is not clear to pedestrians or drivers (at least those that notice the unmarked pedestrian crossing at all) which of the two curb ramps on the east side of the entrance ramp should be used. Ms. Bryson faces discrimination in her access to the sidewalks daily, and is injured by Defendants’ failure to install and maintain its curb ramps.
PAGE 8 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 9 of 32
23. While pedestrians using the newer curb ramp have a gentler grade to ascend and are more visible to turning traffic, the distance across the entrance ramp by using the newer curb ramp is longer, and thus the time a pedestrian is exposed to the risk of oncoming traffic is increased.
24. Because Interstate 5 bisects the city of Roseburg from north to south, with only a few pedestrian routes over or under it, the inaccessible curb ramps on the northbound entrance ramp make it challenging to access the west side of town. The entrance ramp is immediately adjacent to Roseburg High School. Although making government buildings and schools accessible to pedestrians is the highest priority for crosswalk upgrades under federal law, the presence of the high school has not warranted adequate attention from Defendants to bring the crosswalk up to ADA requirements. Plaintiff Kimberly Morrisey
25. Kimberly Morrisey is a resident of Clatskanie, a smaller town in rural Columbia County. Because of her disability, she uses a self-propelled wheelchair at all times for mobility in her home and to get around the city. Ms. Morrisey travels around Columbia and Clatsop Counties frequently, and around the state on occasion.
26. Due to the state highway resurfacing that occurred a few years ago in Clatskanie, Ms. Morrisey is no longer able to cross Highway 30, the main state highway through town that was constructed and is maintained by ODOT, because the slope of the pedestrian crossing is too great, and the ramps were not remediated to meet the altered surface at an angle compliant with federal law. This forces her to stay on one side of town with limited access to places in the community, like the main grocery story, a local pharmacy, and city hall. Ms. Morrisey, like all citizens of Clatskanie, does not receive home mail delivery. Her mail
PAGE 9 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 10 of 32
must instead be picked up from a Post Office box. The local Post Office lies on the far side of Highway 30, and she cannot reach it in her wheelchair. Ms. Morrisey cannot receive her mail, except on days when someone drives her across Highway 30.
27. She only has access to a caregiver three times a week to take her in to the community and one of those days is to take her to church on Sunday. Because of the inaccessibility of the highway crossings, she is dependent on her parents, who live an hour away, to take her places.
28. Ms. Morrisey has “fallen forward” on more than one occasion and fortunately hershe had her caregiver with her to assist her back to an upright position. She has also been stuck“high centered” before on certain areas of the curb ramps, and required assistance to continue on her way. Neither would have happened if the curb ramps were compliant.
29. There are crosswalks in Ms. Morrisey’s town on the state highway that provide no wheelchair accessibility to people with disabilities. The curb ramps either are not present, are partial curb ramps that do not allow for wheelchair access, or the location is not correct and the ramps are not compliant. In addition, the curb ramps in her area have large lips that cannot be navigated or are difficult to navigate for self-propelled wheelchair users, and there are many aggregate or bumpy surfaces that make access more difficult. The curb ramps are not useable by Ms. Morrisey and other people with mobility impairments, resulting in ongoing injury.
30. The overall result is that Ms. Morrisey is not able to access services in her community because of missing or substandard curb ramps. Her quality of life suffers as a result, and that has contributed to a feeling of isolation in her community that is already fairly remote in location. The city has recently made repairs to city maintained sidewalks which has
PAGE 10 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 11 of 32
helped, but she is waiting for the day when, among her other concerns, Defendants will finally make the state highway crossable again for persons with disabilities.
Plaintiff Dave Maule 31. Mr. Maule is 68-year-old veteran who resides in Lincoln City, Oregon and has
lived in his residence since 1983. He has had one leg removed due to his disability, and relies on his electric wheelchair to get him around his home and to his numerous medical appointments around town. He is unable to travel down Highway 101 or to cross it because of the missing or substandard curb ramps near his home. For example, at the nearest crossing of Highway 101 at Devil’s Lake Road that is very close to his home, all curb ramps are noncompliant or missing at this major intersection. He laments that he is unable to cross the street to the public library, located in the same building as city hall and one of the main grocery stores in town. The only way Mr. Maule can safely cross over Highway 101 is by driving. The Defendants’ failure to properly maintain and improve curb ramps and pedestrian ways along Highway 101 has completely denied him pedestrian access to the west side of his town.
32. A six mile portion of Highway 101 was recently repaved, and yet none of the curb ramps were brought into compliance or even repaired. Based on information and belief, Defendants did not make the curb ramps compliant because the project design did not provide for paving the final foot of the road shoulder on either side. A well-publicized report performed by an access consultant at the request of Lincoln City demonstrated the widespread noncompliant curb ramps on Highway 101.
33. In February 2016, Lincoln City completed a self-evaluation of pedestrian ways under its own control and those lining Highway 101 under ODOT’s control. The selfevaluation identified 141 curb ramps along Highway 101 within Lincoln City, under ODOT’s
PAGE 11 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 12 of 32
control, that were out of compliance with federal law. Since ODOT road work on Highway 101 in Lincoln City was completed within the last two years, and many of the identified curb ramps lie within that construction zone, ODOT failed to uphold its obligations to upgrade and repair curb ramps.
34. The lack of curb ramps along Highway 101 at this intersection and along Highway 101 has led Mr. Maule to avoid crossing Highway 101 without assistance. He feels that he is isolated in his home, and often avoids going out at all together because it requires him to operate his electric wheelchair on the roadway which is unsafe, and deprives him of the benefit of the sidewalks that is afforded to other citizens. Plaintiff Jordan Ohlde
35. Mr. Ohlde is a long-time resident of Bend, Oregon. He uses a wheelchair to get around. Due to the poorly maintained sidewalks and curb ramps, Mr. Ohlde is often unable to use pedestrian facilities in Bend. He must instead travel along busy roads using the bicycle lane. This forces him closer to traffic and endangers his safety. These poor road conditions have contributed to the breaking of five different axles on Mr. Ohlde’s wheelchair.
36. In Bend, state highway 20 goes through the center of town. Highway 20 is called Northeast Greenwood Avenue as it travels east-west from the eastern outskirts of Bend west to Northeast Third Avenue, where Highway 20 turns north. Highway 20 goes in a northsouth direction on Northeast Third Avenue from Northeast Greenwood Avenue. Mr. Ohlde lives close to Northeast Greenwood Avenue/Highway 20. He travels on the highway to get to the pool, to his doctor’s office, and to his church. From Northeast Eleventh Street towards the center of town, Northeast Greenwood Avenue has very old, poorly maintained curb ramps. For instance, the ramps near Northeast Tenth Street and Northeast Greenwood Avenue are impassible for a wheelchair user. It would be impossible for a wheelchair user to turn north at
PAGE 12 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 13 of 32
the northeast corner of Northeast Greenwood Avenue because the curb ramp leads directly into a utility pole. Similarly, no wheelchair user could travel eastbound or southbound from the southeast corner of Northeast Greenwood Avenue at Northeast Sixth Street, because the whole ramp landing is impeded in both directions by a sign and a traffic post. In other places on Northeast Greenwood Avenue, no north-south curb ramps are provided that would allow a wheelchair user to cross Northeast Greenwood Avenue without wheeling into oncoming eastwest traffic. Many of the curb ramps adjoining Northeast Greenwood Avenue between Northeast Third and Northeast Eleventh are badly cracked and damaged.
37. On Northeast Third Avenue, noncompliant ramps make use of the sidewalks challenging or impossible for people with disabilities. One curb ramp at Northeast Third Avenue and Northeast Norton Avenue directs walker and wheelchair users into a sewer grate. Even relatively new looking curb ramps have no detectable warnings. Mr. Ohlde states that some of the pedestrian walk signals are not easily accessible because the posts on which they are placed have secondary curbs and other obstructions that place them out of reach of wheelchair users, such as at Northeast Third Avenue and Northeast Revere Avenue and at Northeast Greenwood Avenue and Northeast Third Avenue. Mr. Ohlde has attempted to use those signals and gotten his wheelchair stuck by these barriers. The signal buttons are not located on a level pad for wheelchair users.
38. Mr. Ohlde has made requests to see these problems fixed, but has experienced only mutual blame between the city of Bend and ODOT. His access to the streets of the city where he lives is impeded by Defendants’ failure to install, to upgrade, and to maintain curb ramps in compliance with the law. Instead of being permitted to use the sidewalks of the main roads of Bend, he is forced into the bicycle lane and into traffic, where oncoming vehicles are
PAGE 13 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 14 of 32
not likely to expect a wide, slow-moving wheelchair that fills most of the width of the lane. Mr. Ohlde’s property (in the form of his wheelchair), his life, and his liberty to move around his own town are jeopardized by ODOT’s failure to provide equal access for people with disabilities. Plaintiff William Phillips
39. Mr. Phillips has lived in his apartment in Portland, Oregon for 24 years. His apartment is part of a large public housing complex with 120 units located in North Portland. He has very poor eyesight and severe nerve damage in his legs that requires him to use a selfpropelled wheelchair for mobility at all times. He relies exclusively on public transportation to get him to doctor appointments and out into the community for his weekly activities.
40. While Mr. Phillips uses a wheelchair to get around, he has very limited used of his legs and can stand up with difficulty. However, he is unsteady on his feet, and it is unsafe for him to stand without support.
41. All the bus lines near his home travel along Lombard Avenue, Highway 30 bypass, a state highway constructed and is maintained by ODOT. Even though Lombard Avenue has been repaved many times in the last decade, very few of the curb ramps have been made compliant. For example, at a nearby crossing of Highway 30 at North Chautauqua Boulevard near a large public park and community center, all four curb ramps are noncompliant and too narrow for a wheelchair to descend safely. The way that Mr. Phillips copes with this noncompliance when he needs to cross at this corner is get out of his wheelchair and push his chair down off the curb and edge his way down into the roadway, risking catastrophic injury from a fall.
PAGE 14 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 15 of 32
42. There is also no accessible path along Lombard Avenue because of the noncompliant curb ramps. He has tried to operate his wheelchair in the roadway, but because there is no shoulder or bike lane, it simply is not possible without impeding traffic and risking his life, a risk he is not willing to take. Instead, he often has to wait for and take a bus a few blocks rather that travelling those blocks in his wheelchair to get to where he is going. He feels this is not fair since other people get to use the sidewalk. It further contributes to his sense of incapacity, which is particular hard given that he greatly values his own independence.
43. Mr. Phillips has also recently encountered many noncompliant curb ramps along Highway 99E that were constructed and are maintained by ODOT. This includes the portion of 99E in North Portland where it is known as Martin Luther King Boulevard, and in the central Eastside District where is it also known as Grand Avenue. Mr. Phillips does not understand why Defendants would want to avoid fixing the curb ramps when they have repaved these roads that are used heavily by both cars and pedestrians.
44. Mr. Phillips has also encountered non-compliant traffic signals on Lombard Avenue, where he cannot reach the button because of the absence of a level pad or because the button is out of his reach range. Plaintiff Laurie Sitton
45. Ms. Sitton is a longtime resident of East Portland. She lives in a house on Powell Boulevard/US 26 near 119th. She has limited motion in her right arm. She deftly controls her power wheelchair with a toggle switch. She primarily travels independently using Tri-Met fixed route public buses on the regular bus lines. She is thereby able to independently complete basic errands and medical visits, as well as visit friends and engage in social and community activities.
PAGE 15 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 16 of 32
46. Unfortunately, at numerous intersections along Powell Boulevard, the pedestrian buttons are inaccessible and do not meet federal design standards. At these intersections, she is left to wait for someone else to come along to push the button, to travel down the bike path alongside the street traffic, or to endanger herself with an unsafe approach to the button.
47. Among the intersections posing this problem are the southwest corner of Powell and 122nd Avenue, where a Safeway is located. She is unable to reach the pedestrian button to cross 122nd because the approach has an inaccessible slope, which makes her chair balance unstable. There is no level platform landing. Further, the pole on which the button is fastened has a raised cement base which hinders approach. That obstruction, together with the height of the button, make the reach excessive and the button unreachable.
48. Similarly, at the northwest corner of 136th and Powell, she cannot reach the button to cross either 136th or Powell. She likes to patronize the Plaid Pantry and a restaurant at this intersection, but her access is significantly impaired. There is a 4” curb abutting the pole on which the button is fastened, making it impossible to use a parallel or other approach to the button; there is also no level landing area and the reach range is excessive. This is true despite the fact that the actual ramps at this intersection appear to have been constructed within the past few years.
49. Several major transit stops and/or transfers also have non-compliant pedestrian signals. At the northeast corner of 112th Avenue and Powell, where Ms. Sitton makes bus transfers along 112th to Division, the curb slope prevents safe access to the buttons . At the east side of the I-205 on-ramp crossing, pole pedestals prevent accessible approach at all four (4) corners, and there are no landings or accessible approaches at any of the corners. Ms. Sitton uses this site en route to MAX lines.
PAGE 16 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 17 of 32
50. Ms. Sitton also has problems with curb ramps on Powell Boulevard, which she uses to access TriMet buses, particularly at 122nd Street , where bus lines 17 and 71 travel to downtown Portland, and at 92nd and Powell where the green line MAX runs.
51. There is also a problem with the curb ramp crossing the on ramp/ off ramp to I205 which intersects Powell Boulevard between 92nd and 98th Avenues that makes access very dangerous. This makes it particularly difficult to get off the MAX line at 92nd Avenue and go down to Powell and head east toward home. Plaintiff Carrie Taylor
52. Ms. Taylor is a woman who has a visual impairment and is ambulatory but is unable to utilize the pedestrian signals without audible and visual components. There are several intersections that she regularly travels in Hillsboro along Tualatin Valley Highway, which is a state road, which have pedestrian buttons that are unusable by her. She must therefore wait until she perceives that traffic has stopped because of the crosswalk signal being activated, and only then crosses the intersection. She has no way of knowing whether traffic has, in fact, stopped, putting her at risk of serious injury or death.
53. When Ms. Taylor encounters accessible signals in Portland or Beaverton, which have audible and visual pedestrian buttons, she is able to navigate the intersections freely and without the risk she faces along TV Highway.
54. Ms. Taylor moved to Hillsboro in late 2015 and only discovered the inaccessible state of pedestrian ways adjoining the TV Highway after moving to Hillsboro. Plaintiff Laura Potts
55. Ms. Potts has a mobility impairment and uses a wheelchair. She has encountered multiple locations on TV Highway, a state road, where there are pedestrian signals; however, she cannot reach them to activate the signals because there is either no clear, level
PAGE 17 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 18 of 32
landing pad or the button is not within compliant reach ranges. She therefore cannot cross those intersections until traffic stops for some reason other than her activating the signal, denying her equal access to ODOT’s pedestrian walkways.
56. Prior to 1999, Ms. Potts used a manual wheelchair. Because of steep curb ramps and/or curb ramps with lips at the bottom on TV Highway, she was flipped out of her chair on several occasions and suffered bruises and other injuries. This occurred even when she had an assistant traveling with her to assist her up and down these curb ramps.
57. In 1999, she switched from a manual chair to a power chair to provide her with more power to get up and down the curb ramps. However, she still had difficulty, and at some intersections chose to ignore the non-compliant curb ramp, and instead use driveways to access the sidewalk, forcing her to travel down the shoulder of the road and risk serious injury.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 58. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and other people with physical disabilities, particularly those with mobility or visual impairments, whose have been adversely affected by Defendants’ unlawful pattern, policy and/or practice of paving, resurfacing or otherwise altering roadways throughout the state without installing curb ramps or bringing nonconforming curb ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance with the Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief individually and on behalf of the class to remedy this violation and their loss of mobility and independence that result from the inaccessibility of ramps and pedestrian signals. 59. The plaintiff class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. The class consists of several thousand individuals in Oregon who have physical disabilities who have been adversely affected by Defendants’ unlawful practices.
PAGE 18 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 19 of 32
60. These are common questions of law, including inter alia: a. whether the defendants are violating the ADA and Rehabilitation Act by altering the public highway system without installing curb ramps or bringing non-compliant ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance with the ADA and Section 504; b. whether the defendants’ written policy from 2008 to January 1, 2014 that resurfacing projects “will not require ADA ramp addition or modification;” violated the ADA and Section 504; c. whether, given the scope of defendants’ failure to install and maintain compliant curb ramps, that failure can be anything other than an unlawful policy, pattern and/or practice; 61. There are questions of fact common to the class, including: a. how many curb ramps are missing or non-compliant as a result of defendants’ policy and practice, and how many pedestrian signals are out of compliance with federal law; b. whether ODOT has failed to install curb ramps or make required improvements by engaging in systemic and continuing acts of subterfuge to evade the requirements of federal law; c. whether the named plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class have meaningful access to the system of pedestrian rights-of-way on state highways; d. whether the named plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class are unnecessarily isolated in their homes and denied the full opportunity for community integration as a result of Defendants’ unlawful policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to install curb ramps or bring non-compliance ramps and pedestrians into compliance with the ADA and Section 504 when paving or resurfacing a state highway; 62. The named plaintiffs’ injuries and claims are typical of the class in that all class members are being denied meaningful and equal access to the system of pedestrian rights-ofway on state highways . The named plaintiffs adequately and fairly represent the interest of all
PAGE 19 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 20 of 32
class members, will fully and vigorously prosecute this action, and are represented by attorneys experienced in federal class action litigation and disability law. Absent certification, individual members of the class would have difficulty pursuing their own claims or remedying systemic violations on their own.
63. Defendants administer, fund and maintain the state highway system in a way that discriminates against persons with physical disabilities, including those with mobility and visual impairments, by failing to construct and maintain compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals, putting plaintiffs at risk of isolation, injury and even death. The Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the entire plaintiff class, through their policies, patterns and/or practices of altering the public highway system without installing curb ramps or bringing non-compliant ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance with the ADA and Section 504, thereby making injunctive and declaratory relief appropriate with respect to the class as a whole. As a result, the plaintiffs seek certification pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2),
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 64. Defendants provide for public use an extensive network of physical facilities around the state of Oregon, including many curb ramps, pedestrian crossings, and pedestrian signals throughout the state of Oregon at streets, roadways and highways. These ODOT facilities are a key program, service and activity within ODOT’s jurisdiction. ODOT provides this public program, service and activity for the benefit of residents of and visitors to the state of Oregon. By failing to comply with the requirements of the ADA and 29 U.S.C. §794 for the installation of compliant curb ramps and correction of non- compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when newly constructing, paving, resurfacing, or otherwise altering streets, roadways or highways, Defendants discriminate against persons with disabilities. This is a violation of federal law and has been a pattern and practice of the Defendants since at least 1993. 65. Both the ADA (since January 26, 1992) and Section 504 (since June 3,
PAGE 20 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 21 of 32
1977) have mandated that whenever a public entity itself newly constructs or alters streets, roads or highways, it must install curb ramps at any intersection having curbs or other barriers to entry from a street level pedestrian walkway, to ensure that newly constructed or altered pedestrian right-of-way programs and facilities are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.
66. Both the ADA and Section 504 also require compliance with applicable standards for accessible design. These standards contain detailed design specifications addressing such issues as, for example, the slope of curb ramps and their locations. The ADA also required public entities to remediate new construction or alterations that were not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction. ODOT has failed to remediate new construction, resurfacing or other alterations not constructed in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction.
67. The 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design, which include requirements for curb ramps, require that there be a clear and level landing pad at pedestrian signals, and that the operable buttons be at specified reach ranges and heights. Further, the Public Rights of Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAGS) require the installation of accessible pedestrian signals that provide audible warnings to those with vision impairments, directing them as to whether and when it is safe to cross the road. Defendants have failed to comply with either of those legal obligations.
68. Defendants have had an ongoing obligation to make curb ramps and pedestrian crossings and signals compliant with the ADA, and have systematically and continuously ignored that obligation.
69. During the period 1992 through at least December 31, 2014, Defendants have maintained an unlawful policy, pattern and/or practice that the resurfacing or paving of streets, roadways or highways does not constitute an “alteration” for purposes of the ADA and Section
PAGE 21 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 22 of 32
504 of the Rehabilitation Act. By no later than 2008, Defendants reduced their unlawful policy and practice to writing in the form of a Highway Design Manual. In ODOT’s Highway Design Manual, ODOT informed employees and contractors working on improvement projects involving streets, roadways or highways that resurfacing projects “will not require ADA ramp addition or modification.” This written policy was in violation of ADA and Section 504 requirements. Pursuant to this policy and practice, Defendants have failed to install curb ramps and failed to correct non-compliant curb ramps where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs in new construction, resurfacing, paving, resurfacing or other projects altering roadways.
70. On December 19, 2013, Defendants issued a Technical Services Advisory with an effective date of January 1, 2014. Under the Technical Services Advisory issued in January 2014, ODOT declared that resurfacing projects (except for those involving chip seals) were alterations under the ADA triggering a requirement to upgrade or provide curb ramps where sidewalks or prepared surfaces exist. The Technical Services Advisory changed ODOT’s unlawful written policy that resurfacing projects were not alterations under the ADA.
71. In its 2011 Transition Plan, ODOT estimated that the total number of locations needing curb ramps needed in the State was 16,938. Of that total inventory, 15,270 locations had either missing or non-compliant curb ramps. To the best of Plaintiffs’ knowledge, no inventory has been done of the pedestrian signals on state roads throughout the state to determine how many are out of compliance with federal law.
72. The scope of such statewide noncompliance, where more than three of every four locations needing curb ramps have either missing ramps or ramps in poor condition, speaks for itself. A person with a mobility impairment or a visual impairment does not have meaningful access to the system of pedestrian rights-of-way in a system where so many ramps are missing or in poor condition. Neither could such a systematic and continuing failure to install and maintain
PAGE 22 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 23 of 32
compliant curb ramps have arisen in a program that regularly installs or improves curb ramps when the adjoining road is altered. Given that most roads will need improvement and alteration over the course of more than two decades, this deficit could not have arisen except through a pattern and practice of systemic and continuing failure to upgrade and install curb ramps when required.
73. ODOT has also failed to install required curb ramps or to make required improvements in ramps by engaging in systemic and continuing acts of subterfuge around the state, specifically attempting to evade the legal requirements for ramp upgrades. Examples of this conduct include performing an alteration across all lanes of traffic on a highway except for one lane, or performing an alteration to all parts of a road, but stopping the project a few feet short of the crosswalk at an intersection. Such a policy of deliberate evasion of the requirements of federal law violates the law itself.
74. As an example of such subterfuge, between October 2014 and June 2015 on Southeast 82nd Avenue in Clackamas County near Boyer Street, ODOT resurfaced both northbound lanes, the center turning lane, and one southbound lane of traffic. However, the second southbound lane of traffic remained unresurfaced north of Boyer Street, and obviously noncompliant curb ramps at the Boyer Street intersection were not improved. Resurfacing of all five lanes of traffic began roughly ten feet south of the Boyer Street intersection. No plausible explanation for such selective repaving work could be believed other than intentional subterfuge. Similarly, repaving work on Highway 101 in Lincoln City in 2014 and 2015 appeared to be an act of subterfuge, where the road alteration stopped a few feet short of the curb, and the curb ramps adjoining Highway 101 were not improved.
PAGE 23 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 24 of 32
75. ODOT systemically fails to ensure that pedestrian ways remain reasonably accessible during times of construction work. For instance, at multiple sites in Roseburg during recent construction operations on Highway 138 (Oak Avenue) in the fall of 2015, no alternate route was identified for pedestrians, and Ms. Bryson was forced to wheel her chair in the road. Inherent in operating a system of state roads and highways is a periodic need for maintenance and construction. The pattern and practice of failure to make alternate accessible routes violates federal law.
76. ODOT engages in a continuing pattern and practice of failure to adequately oversee work done by its employees, its contractors, and managerial staff in five geographic districts, leading to nonstandard and noncompliant construction or complete failure to produce accessible pedestrian ways.
77. ODOT, as a matter of state policy, fails to maintain a reasonable means for complaint regarding the inaccessibility of any pedestrian facility to people with disabilities. The ODOT website does not provide specific guidance on how to complain about missing curb ramps or inaccessible pedestrian ways. The closest thing to a meaningful avenue for identifying noncompliant curb ramps is to fill in a catch-all Title VI/ADA discrimination form addressing all forms of discrimination (based on race, sex, disability, religion, national origin). While the form quotes the language of Title VI, the ADA is only in the title of the form and its protections are not described. A layperson would be hard-pressed to identify this form as a means to complain about inaccessible curb ramps. People with disabilities are denied access to the ODOT complaint system. Moreover, because they cannot effectively draw ODOT’s attention to the inaccessibility of some pedestrian rights-of-way, the inaccessibility of the complaint system fosters further inaccessibility of the pedestrian rights-of-way, because areas in need of new ramps,
PAGE 24 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 25 of 32
improvements to ramps, or maintenance of ramps cannot be effectively brought to ODOT’s attention.
78. Other noncompliant elements curb ramps persist in the architecture around the state. In many places, the curb ramps have slopes or cross-slopes that are too steep, lack a smooth transition to the crosswalk or otherwise have a “lip” between the ramp and pavement, lack detectable warnings, lack adequate flat spaces to allow wheelchair users to safely turn their wheelchairs at the top of each ramp, or incorporate obvious obstructions and hazards, like utility posts or sewer grates. These continuing patterns and practices of noncompliant construction and maintenance violate federal law.
79. ODOT also lacks an adequate means of monitoring and maintaining the condition of existing curb ramps and other pedestrian rights-of-way. Many of the noncompliant curb ramps around the state have broken pavement or show patterns of wear that keep people with disabilities from using them safely. In many places, the bottom of the ramp has become worn or damaged, creating a hollow for water to pool or for gravel to collect, degrading the accessibility of the ramp. Other than its infrequent self-assessments, ODOT has no ongoing, regularlyscheduled means to assess the condition of these ramps. It has no regularly-planned maintenance for curb ramps.
80. In the ways enumerated above, each of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class are excluded from participating in, or denied the benefits of, the goods, services, programs and activities of the Oregon Department of Transportation on the basis of their disability through Defendants’ failure to install, repair and upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals in compliance with the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act. These failures make the system of pedestrian rights-ofway systemically inaccessible and unavailable to the plaintiffs. Further, plaintiffs and the plaintiff
PAGE 25 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 26 of 32
class are being denied meaningful access to public buildings, transportation, places of employment and public accommodation, through either a complete denials of access, noncompliance with the ADAAGs, or the maintenance of unsafe conditions.
81. AOCIL and its members and clients and the individual plaintiffs have been harmed as a result of ODOT’s continuing non-compliance with federal and state law and the inaccessibility of curb ramps and pedestrian signals on state roads and highways, which, inter alia, frustrates autonomy and full and equal integration into community life.
82. Plaintiffs made demand that Defendants identify all new construction, resurfacing, paving or other alteration projects that have been completed during the period 1992 through December 31, 2013, and install or upgrade curb ramps and pedestrian signals where street level pedestrian walkways cross curbs, as required by the ADA and 29 U.S.C. §794. Defendants have failed to identify and correct the non-compliant new construction, resurfacing, paving and other alteration projects to bring curb ramps and pedestrian signals into compliance. The individual plaintiffs, plaintiff class, AOCIL and its members and constituents will suffer irreparable injury unless the defendants are required to come into full compliance with the ADA and 29 U.S.C. §794 requirements, including the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design.
83. Plaintiffs are informed and believe that defendants deny that they failed to comply with applicable laws prohibiting discrimination against person with disabilities during the period 1993 to the present, in violation of the ADA and Section 504. A judicial declaration of rights is necessary and appropriate in order that each party may know their respective rights and duties and act accordingly.
84. Plaintiffs entered into a tolling agreement with Defendants that extended the statute of limitations for these claims through February 29, 2016.
PAGE 26 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 27 of 32

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

85. above.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 84

86. Title II of the ADA prohibits a public entity from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or denying the benefits of, the goods, services, programs and activities of the entity or otherwise discriminating against a person on the basis of disability. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.

87. At all times relevant to this action ODOT was and is a public entity within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and provides a pedestrian right-of-way program, service or activity to the general public.

88. At all times relevant to this action, the individual Plaintiffs and the class they represent were and are qualified individuals with disabilities within the meaning of Title II of the ADA and meet the essential eligibility requirements for the receipt of the services, programs or activities of provided by ODOT. AOCIL was and is a representative organization dedicated to defending the interests of qualified individuals with disabilities and preserving their access to the community.

89. The regulations implementing Title II of the ADA require a public entity to
install compliant curb ramps at intersections whenever it newly constructs, paves, resurfaces or
otherwise alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways at any time after January 26, 1992.
28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b). The ADA also required public entities to remediate new construction,
paving, resurfacing or other alterations that were not done in compliance with the standards in
effect at the time of construction. 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(c)(5)(i).
PAGE 27 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 28 of 32
90. Resurfacing projects undertaken by ODOT constitute an alteration within the meaning of the ADA.
91. From November 1993 through the present, Defendants have continually failed to provide compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when ODOT newly constructs, paves, resurfaces or otherwise alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways. This conduct constitutes unlawful discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of Title II of the ADA. ODOT has further, on a continuing and systematic basis, failed to remediate curb ramps and pedestrian signals in new construction, paving, resurfacing or alterations not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction, in violation of the ADA. ODOT has therefore engaged in a continuing pattern and practice of discrimination against people with disabilities.
92. In addition to the many individual instances of failures to construct curb ramps required by law, the statewide program of pedestrian rights-of-way when considered as a whole is inaccessible to people with disabilities, whether the disabilities are mobility impairments or visual impairments. The Defendants’ failures to make pedestrian ways accessible deny people with disabilities safe access to the basic amenities of community living: city halls, libraries, post offices, grocery stores, pharmacies, churches, doctor’s offices, restaurants, and retail shops, as well as denying access to the pedestrian ways themselves.
93. Defendants are mandated to operate each program, service, or activity “so that, when viewed in its entirety, it is readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149 & 35.151. Pedestrian rights-ofway themselves constitute a vital public program, service, or activity under Title II of the ADA. 28 C.F.R. § 35.104; Barden v. City of Sacramento, 292 F.3d 1073, 1076 (9th Cir. 2002).
PAGE 28 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 29 of 32

Defendants’ systemic and ongoing failures have caused the state’s pedestrian rights-of-way to be inaccessible, when viewed in their entirety and when viewed within the context of individual local communities, in violation of Title II of the ADA.
94. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Title II of the ADA, the individual plaintiffs and the members of AOCIL have been injured as set forth herein and will continue to suffer injury until Defendants are required to, and have, come into compliance with the requirements of the ADA.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF SECTION 504 OF THE REHABILITATION ACT OF 1973

95. above.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 84

96. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §794, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, prohibit discrimination against people with disabilities by recipients of federal funding. Section 504 provides, in pertinent part, that:

No otherwise qualified handicapped individual…shall, solely by reason of his or her handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance […].

97. times.

Defendants have received substantial federal financial assistance at all relevant

98. Plaintiffs and plaintiff class are otherwise qualified handicapped individuals
within the meaning of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, as are the members and
individuals represented by AOCIL.
PAGE 29 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 30 of 32
99. Defendants have discriminated against Plaintiffs in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance on an ongoing and continuing basis solely because of the disabilities of plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §794 and the regulations promulgated thereunder.
100. As a proximate result of Defendants’ violations of Section 504, the individuals plaintiffs and the members and individuals served by AOCIL have been injured as set forth herein and will continue to suffer injury until ODOT is brought into compliance with 29 U.S.C. §794 requirements.
101. Because Defendants’ continuing discriminatory conduct presents a real and immediate threat to plaintiffs, their safety and their ability to equally access public facilities, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:
1. Certify this case as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23; 2. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ continuing policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to provide legally compliant curb ramps and pedestrian signals when ODOT newly constructs, paves, resurfaces, or otherwise alters sidewalks, streets, roads and/or highways discriminates against the named plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class, and fails to comply with the requirements of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 3. Issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ continuing policy, pattern and/or practice of failing to remediate non-compliant or missing curb ramps and pedestrian signals in new construction, paving, resurfacing or alterations not done in compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction, violates Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the
PAGE 30 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 31 of 32
Rehabilitation Act of 1973; 4. Issue a declaratory judgment that hat least 1993 to maintain a statewide system of
pedestrian rights-of-way in a manner that is readily accessible to and useable by people with disabilities, in violation of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
5. Issue an order and judgment enjoining Defendants from violating Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973;
6. Issue an order and judgment requiring Defendants to conduct a survey of all new construction, paving, resurfacing or other alteration projects undertaken on state roads between November 1993 and the present, and to identify each and every non-compliant curb ramp and non-complaint pedestrian signal, or intersection requiring a curb ramp, along the roadways constructed, paved, resurfaced or otherwise altered by Defendants;
7. Issue an order and judgment requiring Defendants to retrofit each and every noncompliant curb ramp and pedestrian signal at intersections requiring a curb ramp or compliant pedestrian signal along the roadways newly constructed, paved, resurfaced, or otherwise altered by Defendants without bringing the ramps into compliance with the standards in effect at the time of construction during that time, including constructing curb ramps where they are required but do not exist, and bringing pedestrian signals at curb ramps into compliance with the 2010 ADA standards for Accessible Design;
8. Award plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 12205 and 29 U.S.C. 794a; and
9. Grant all such other and further relief as it deems just and proper.
PAGE 31 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 40 Filed 11/07/16 Page 32 of 32
DATED this 3rd day of November, 2016. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Kathleen Wilde Kathleen L Wilde, OSB # 971053 kwilde@droregon.org Theodore E Wenk, OSB #001239 ted@droregon.org Thomas Stenson, OSB # 152894 tstenson@droregon.org DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Suite 200 Portland, Oregon 97205 Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738
/s/ Stephen Brischetto Stephen L. Brischetto, OSB # 781564 slb@brischettolaw.com LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN L. BRISCHETTO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 621 SW Morrison St., Suite 1025 Portland, Oregon 97205 Attorney for Plaintiffs Phone: 503-223-5814 Facsimile: 503-228-1317
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
PAGE 32 of 32 – CLASS ACTION SECOND AMENDED CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
DISABILITY RIGHTS OREGON 610 SW Broadway, Ste. 200 Portland, Oregon 97205
Phone: 503-243-2081 Facsimile: 503-243-1738

 
 RECITALS
Whereas, Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Martha Mae Bryson, Kimberly Morrisey, Dave Maule, Jordan Ohlde, William Phillips, Laurie Sitton, Carrie Taylor, and Laura Potts (Plaintiffs) and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) are Parties to a lawsuit entitled Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, et al. v. Oregon Department of Transportation, et al., U.S. District Court Case No. 3:16-cv-00322-HZ; and
Whereas, the Parties share the goal of improving access on ODOT's State Highway System, the Parties agree as follows:
DEFINITIONS
1. "State Highway System" means all roads or highways designated as such by law or by the Oregon Transportation Commission pursuant to law and includes both primary and secondary state highways. See ORS 366.005(8).
2. "Applicable Standards" means the standards in the following relating to curb ramps and pedestrian signals: Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations, PRO WAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), the ADA Standards for Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Part 4 (Highway Traffic Signals) and Part 6 (Temporary Traffic Control) of the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). If there is a conflict between standards, the conflict will be resolved with the Accessibility Consultant appointed pursuant to Section 7. If the Accessibility Consultant and ODOT disagree, DRO will be notified of the disagreement then ODOT or DRO may initiate the dispute resolution process in Section 12. If the Accessibility Consultant and ODOT agree, DRO will be notified of the conflict and the resolution. If any party disagrees with the resolution, then either party may initiate the dispute resolution process in Section 12 within 30 days. In no event will the final resolution be less than the then current law requires.
3. "Year" means calendar year.
4. "Design exception" means a written determination that documents the physical constraints that make it technically infeasible to meet all of the ADA prescribed geometric requirements for the proposed or altered feature.
5. "Undue burden" is as defined by the ADA and its implementing regulations.
6. "STIP" means the Oregon Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
Page 1 of 17

AGREEMENT
1. Update statewide curb ramp inventory
ODOT will complete an updated inventory of the curb ramps on the State Highway System by December 31, 2017 and will provide a copy to the Accessibility Consultant and DRO when it is completed. That inventory has two components: (1) a digital video review of all curb ramp locations in the system, which is nearing completion, and (2) a field review of new curb ramps built since ODOT's previous inventory in 2011 as well as all curb ramp locations within the State Highway System that were previously field-reviewed as "Good." Curb ramps that were field-reviewed as "Poor" or "Fair" as part of the 2011 Inventory will retain their rating from that inventory. All newly field-reviewed ramps will be classified using the ADA Ramp Inspection Form attached as Appendix A. Any future revisions to the ADA Ramp Inspection Form will be reviewed by the Accessibility Consultant retained pursuant to Section 7 below.
Once completed, the locations of non-compliant curb ramps in the updated curb ramp inventory shall constitute the universe of curb ramp locations that ODOT agrees to remediate per Section 4 below. In the event that it is established that ODOT did not include a location or a curb ramp that was within the State Highway System before the inventory is completed, ODOT will add the location or curb ramp to the inventory.
In the event that ODOT transfers any state highway sections to another jurisdiction after the date of this Agreement, ODOT will take steps to ensure that any curb ramp locations on such property will be remediated—either by ODOT or the transferee—if those locations have not been remediated prior to the transfer. ODOT shall remain responsible under this agreement to ensure that the necessary remediation takes place.
Locations that are added to ODOT's jurisdiction after December 31, 2017 shall not fall within the scope of this Agreement.
2. Inventory of pedestrian crossing signals
By December 31, 2017, ODOT will also complete an inventory of all pedestrian crossing signals at all curb ramp locations in ODOT's inventory. This inventory will: (1) document the number and location of such pedestrian crossing signals; and (2) assess compliance with Applicable Standards for reach to the button, height to the button, and landing adjoining the button, and will note whether the pedestrian signals contain audible components.
Once completed, the pedestrian signal inventory shall constitute the universe of pedestrian signals that ODOT agrees to remediate pursuant to Section 5 below. In the event that it is established that ODOT did not include in this inventory a pedestrian signal associated with a curb ramp location that was within ODOT's jurisdiction before the inventory is completed, ODOT will add the pedestrian signal to the inventory.
In the event that ODOT transfers any state highway sections to another jurisdiction after the date of this agreement, ODOT will take steps to ensure that any pedestrian signals at curb
Page 2 of 17

ramp locations on such property will be remediated pursuant to Section 5 below if those locations have not been remediated prior to the transfer. ODOT shall remain responsible under this Agreement to ensure that the necessary remediation takes place.
Pedestrian signals at curb ramp locations that are added to ODOT's jurisdiction after December 31, 2017 shall not fall within the scope of this Agreement.
3. Initial commitment for prioritized projects
ODOT will commit $5 million to address curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals once ODOT and Plaintiffs have identified locations and/or priorities. ODOT will begin spending the $5 million on items such as project development, design, right of way (as applicable), and construction as soon as practicable after the locations and/or priorities have been determined. ODOT has budgeted $18 million to be committed during the 2018-21 STIP to implement this Agreement.
4. Remediation of curb ramp inventory
By December 31, 2032, ODOT shall remediate all curb ramp locations identified in the inventory described in Section 1 above so as to bring them into compliance with the Applicable Standards. Remediation of a curb ramp can occur in a number of ways consistent with the Applicable Standards, depending on the physical or site constraints of a particular location as defined by PROWAG R202.3.1 including: (a) physical installation of a missing curb ramp; (b) physically upgrading an existing noncompliant curb ramp; (c) technical infeasibility through a design exception; (d) closing a pedestrian crossing as appropriate in compliance with Applicable Standards; (e) another permissible exception under the ADA and its implementing regulations; (f) right of way availability; (g) or other methods or changes to the location that bring the location into compliance with Applicable Standards as documented on the curb ramp inspection form, a copy of which is attached at Appendix A.
5. Remediation of pedestrian signals
After the pedestrian signal inventory is completed pursuant to Section 2, ODOT will remediate reach, height, and landing of the pedestrian signals identified in that inventory subject to a schedule to be negotiated after the signal inventory is completed. In remediating pedestrian signals, ODOT shall comply with Applicable Standards for reach, height, and landing. If the Parties cannot agree on a schedule for remediation of pedestrian signals, the dispute resolution provision in Section 12 will determine a reasonable schedule for remediation of pedestrian signals.
Pending an agreement regarding the schedule for remediation of pedestrian signals, to the extent feasible ODOT will remediate pedestrian signals when it remediates curb ramps pursuant to Section 4.
ODOT shall provide audible pedestrian signals upon request by the community or an individual in accordance with the ODOT policy attached hereto as Appendix B and in the
Page 3 of 17

absence of any substantial conflict or opposition by other individuals or members of the community. If ODOT amends the policy in Appendix B during the term of this Agreement, it will do so in collaboration with the Accessibility Consultant and subject to the dispute resolution in Section 12.
6. Schedule for Curb Ramp Remediation Compliance
ODOT will comply with the following schedule for remediation of curb ramps:
• By December 31, 2022, ODOT shall remediate at least 30 percent of the noncompliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory;
• By December 31, 2027, ODOT shall remediate at least 75 percent of the noncompliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory; and
• By December 31, 2032, ODOT shall complete remediation of all the non-compliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory.
To the extent feasible and subject to ODOT's good faith discretion as necessary to comply with the percentages in the above schedule, ODOT will attempt to remediate high priority locations first. The high priority locations will be identified in collaboration with Plaintiffs and the Accessibility Consultant pursuant to the Priority Criteria in Appendix C to this Agreement, subject to the dispute resolution process set forth in Section 12.
If ODOT has remediated at least 80 percent of non-compliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory by December 31, 2027, then Plaintiffs' right to fees and costs provided for in Section 10 below shall terminate.
7. Accessibility Consultant
ODOT shall retain the services of a mutually acceptable Accessibility Consultant with substantial experience in evaluating or assisting public entities in coming into compliance with Applicable Standards. The Accessibility Consultant will be knowledgeable in current federal accessibility standards and acceptable national practices and shall have a minimum of five (5) years' experience in providing consulting services related to facility accessibility and public right of way pedestrian facilities. The Accessibility Consultant must be, or must be affiliated with someone who is a registered civil engineer or a licensed architect.
The Parties agree that the Accessibility Consultant must not have served as an expert, consultant, monitor, or independent reviewer for any of the Parties or their counsel in connection with this action. The Accessibility Consultant shall be selected as follows: The Parties shall attempt to jointly select the Accessibility Consultant. If the Parties are unable to agree on an Accessibility Consultant, each party shall submit to the Court a list of up to three nominees, and the Court shall select an Accessibility Consultant from those lists pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). The nominating party must identify and describe each nominee's qualifications and experience, including listing and describing each instance in which the nominee has served as an
Page 4 of 17

expert, consultant, monitor, or independent reviewer in any action involving the Parties. A similar process will apply to the replacement of the Accessibility Consultant as necessary.
The Accessibility Consultant will have the following responsibilities:
• Review, assess, and make recommendations in consultation with ODOT as to ODOT's policies, standards, practices, training, forms, and guidance pertaining to curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals including: o ADA curb ramp and pedestrian signal inspection forms o The evaluation processes for curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals o Policies regarding audible signals o Design standards and standard drawings for curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals o Design exceptions based on technical infeasibility or other exceptions allowed under the ADA and its implementing regulations. o Accessibility remediation work that is triggered by different alteration activities; o Conduct training as deemed necessary by the Accessibility Consultant in collaboration with ODOT; o New construction and alterations to the State Highway System with respect to compliance with the ADA o Work zone alternative route procedures
• Conduct quality assurance field checks of a sampling of new or reconstructed curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals addressed under this Agreement as needed to verify compliance;
• May review all grievances and complaints concerning ADA Accessibility relating to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals, along with ODOT's responses.
• Submit reports regarding ODOT's compliance with this Agreement pursuant to Section 8. • The AC shall promptly notify DRO and ODOT of any disagreements with ODOT
regarding compliance with Applicable Standards or this Agreement.
The Accessibility Consultant will be retained for the life of this Agreement. The duties of the Accessibility Consultant will focus initially on consulting with ODOT to review existing processes and procedures for ADA compliance. ODOT's expenses in retaining the Accessibility Consultant shall not exceed $125,000 per year for the first three years beginning from the date the Accessibility Consultant is retained, $75,000 for the next three years, and then $50,000 per year for the remaining life of the Agreement.
The duties and monetary cap for expenses of the Accessibility Consultant may be expanded or reduced upon stipulation of the parties or upon ODOT proving good cause for the reduction in duties and compliance with the obligations of this Agreement.
If the Accessibility Consultant and ODOT fail to reach an agreement on issues within the scope of the Accessibility Consultant's duties, the Parties may seek to have the issue resolved through a dispute resolution process described in Section 12.
Page 5 of 17

8. Reporting
For each year of this Agreement, ODOT will prepare an annual report based upon the work ODOT has performed under this Agreement each year and provide information relating to its progress, including:
(a) list of actions undertaken and completed by ODOT each year pursuant to this Agreement;
(b) amount expended pursuant to Section 3;
(c) number of curb ramp locations remediated, specifically:
a. the number of curb ramp locations and actual curb ramps remediated per Section 4 (a) or (b) and their physical locations; and
b. the number of curb ramp locations remediated per Section 4 (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), and their physical locations.
(d) Number of curb ramp locations remaining to be remediated and their physical locations.
ODOT shall provide reports required in this Section to the Parties within 90 days after the end of each calendar year a report is required.
The Accessibility Consultant shall submit a report to the Parties regarding ODOT's compliance with this Agreement within 60 days after ODOT submits each of its annual reports to Plaintiffs and the Accessibility Consultant.
All reports and audits required by this Section shall be: (1) provided to the Parties; (2) provided to the ODOT employees referenced in Section 14; (3) made available to the Court as necessary; and (4) prominently posted on ODOT's website.
9. Alternate routes during construction
ODOT agrees to ensure that temporary pedestrian routes provided through or around work zones are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities consistent with Applicable Standards including the MUTCD. Elements of the alternate routes during construction shall include coordination with municipalities, accessibility of temporary routes to people with disabilities, appropriate directional and information signage, appropriate training of contractors and others involved in the construction process, advance notice in accessible formats to the public, people with disabilities and disability organizations of not less than 10 days prior to the initiation of construction to the greatest extent possible. Plaintiffs shall provide ODOT with contact infoimation for organizations which serve people with disabilities.
Page 6 of 17

ODOT will consult with the Accessibility Consultant as appropriate regarding accessible alternate routes during construction.
The requirements in this Section shall not be subject to a motion for contempt until January 1, 2018.
10. Monitoring
Plaintiffs may monitor ODOT's compliance with this Agreement by reviewing and analyzing the reports prepared pursuant to Section 8 and other steps as appropriate. ODOT will provide Plaintiffs with a schedule of the initial work to be performed under the Agreement. Thereafter, upon written request from Plaintiffs and to the extent the information is not already included in the reports provided for in Section 8 above, ODOT will also provide DRO with information on where work is being done, where it is planned each year, and future work scheduled for each STIP period as the Agreement progresses. Plaintiffs may consult with the Accessibility Consultant at any time regarding the requirements of this Agreement. Plaintiffs may also request in writing that ODOT provide specific documents sent to or received from the Accessibility Consultant. Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) may solicit input/information from the disability community regarding the work being performed under this Agreement and the manner in which that work is being carried out. If issues are identified with compliance with this Agreement, DRO may look into the matter, may request discovery as provided in Section 12, and may retain an expert to verify whether or not a curb ramp or pedestrian signal is in compliance with the requirements of the ADA.
Plaintiffs shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with reviewing and analyzing the reports prepared pursuant to Section 8. Plaintiffs shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees and costs for any additional monitoring work that causes ODOT to take responsive action that provides a material benefit to the class in enforcing the Agreement regardless of whether Plaintiffs invoke the dispute resolution process in Section 12. If the Parties cannot agree as to whether or to what extent Plaintiffs are entitled to fees and costs for monitoring work, the dispute will be resolved pursuant to Section 12.
11. Attorney fees for past work
ODOT agrees to pay Plaintiffs' reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees and costs through the Effective Date of this Agreement to be determined by United States District Judge Michael H. Simon, subject to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, if the parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the amount of such fees.
12. Dispute resolution and enforcement process
Any allegation of an act or omission in breach of this Agreement or allegation of noncompliance with the Applicable Standards in work performed under this Agreement may be raised by either party through the dispute resolution process in this Section. Plaintiffs will provide written notice to ODOT of any alleged non-compliance. ODOT shall have 60 days to provide a response and/or proposed solution. During this time period, the Parties shall work with the Accessibility Consultant as appropriate to attempt to resolve the dispute, and ODOT will
Page 7 of 17

provide documents at Plaintiff's request in a timely manner. If the Parties cannot resolve their dispute within this time period, either Party may bring the matter before a Special Master pursuant to FRCP 53, with each party retaining rights to reasonable discovery as authorized by the Special Master. The Special Master shall be appointed by mutual agreement of the Parties or by Judge Simon if the Parties cannot agree. If the dispute is not resolved to the Parties' satisfaction by the Special Master, the dispute may be presented within 30 days of the Special Master's decision to Judge Simon for resolution. Judge Simon's rulings under this Section may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Simon may award any injunctive or monetary relief consistent with the terms of this Agreement. If Judge Simon is not available, the Chief Judge of the United States District Court will assign an Article III judge to resolve the dispute.
In any dispute proceeding pursuant to this Section, the Prevailing Party shall be awarded their reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with the dispute. The standards for determining entitlement to, and the amount of, attorney fees are those set forth in the Civil Rights Attorney Fee Awards Act, 42 USC 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §12205. The plaintiff is a Prevailing Party for purposes of this Section if the plaintiff prevails on any substantial issue that obtains some of the relief sought in the litigation, and the defendant is a Prevailing Party for purposes of this Section if the defendant prevails on claims that are frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
The dispute resolution process set forth in this section can be used at any time, with the exception of disputes over ODOT's compliance with Section 6. Disputes regarding ODOT's compliance with Section 6 cannot be raised until January 1, 2021. If at any time after January 1, 2021 Plaintiffs allege that ODOT is not likely to remediate curb ramp locations in the inventory in accordance with the schedule in Section 6, Plaintiffs may seek appropriate relief pursuant the dispute resolution process in this Section.
13. Termination
This Agreement terminates when ODOT has completed the obligations in Sections 4 and 5, subject to a de minimus exception.
14. ODOT oversight
ODOT will identify (1) a person at ODOT with access to the Director as necessary to be responsible for implementation of processes developed in consultation with the Accessibility Consultant for the remediation obligations set forth in Section 4; and (2) the ADA Coordinator for ODOT. ODOT will make this information prominently available to the public on its website.
15. Public complaint and request process
ODOT will actively seek input regarding accessibility for all to transportation infrastructure and associated programs. ODOT will provide an opportunity for citizens and municipalities to submit Comments, Questions, Concerns or Requests (CQCR) regarding missing or suspected non-compliant curb ramps, pedestrian signals and other accessibility issues.
Page 8 of 17

This CQCR process will be separate from ODOT's formal, non-discrimination grievance procedure. An individual who submits a CQCR is not precluded from proceeding to ODOT's grievance procedure at any point. Both of these processes will be overseen and tracked by the staff of ODOT's Office of Civil Rights.

The CQCR process will provide a user-friendly, informal, responsive methodology.

A CQCR can be submitted through multiple means, but primary contact points are:

ODOT's Website: AskODOT: Office of Civil Rights:

(insert URL/link)

(insert contact info)

ODOT ADA Title II Coordinator

ODOT ADA@odot.state.or.us

Phone:

855-540-6655

Interpreter: 711

Fax:

503-986-6382

In addition to primary contacts, ODOT's Region or District offices may also accept completed CQCR foirus. All ODOT employees can provide any concerned citizen the primary contact information to submit a CQCR.

AskODOT and ODOT's Office of Civil Rights help concerned citizens route their CQCR through the process. When a concerned citizen needs help to complete the information needed for the CQCR, he or she may request assistance from AskODOT or Office of Civil Rights staff. It is also an option to have another person complete the information on their behalf. Requested assistance may also include communication in formats other than written. An anonymous CQCR will also be accepted.

Process to Submit a CQCR:

A fillable form (copy attached as Appendix D) will be posted on ODOT's website. The primary contacts listed above will be prepared to assist any concerned citizen with documenting the information or completion of the foul'. The following information should be included when filling out the form:

•

Contact Information: Name, Address, Phone, Email

•

Representative Contact Information (when completing form on behalf of another)

• Issue Description: Location of Site, Topic of Issue, Narrative Description of CQCR

• Resolution Requested

ODOT will provide an initial response to acknowledge receipt of the CQCR within 10 days. If the CQCR addresses a location that is not under ODOT's jurisdiction, ODOT will promptly respond with the contact information to submit the CQCR to the appropriate jurisdiction as well as forward the CQCR to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Page 9 of 17

When ODOT receives a CQCR regarding accessibility at a location under ODOT's jurisdiction, ODOT's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will convene the standing members of the ADA Communication Team (ADA-ACT) to investigate and take appropriate action to resolve the request as promptly as possible. Members of ADA-ACT are managers in ADA-concerned areas of ODOT. These knowledgeable managers can evaluate the CQCR or assign it to other technical staff to complete the evaluation. An initial evaluation of the CQCR will determine:
Accessibility Issue and associated information. Feasibility of solution options Timeframes to initiate and resolve the accessibility issue.
As appropriate, ODOT may consider alternate solutions to address the needs raised in the request. When ODOT's evaluation concludes, a report will document the conclusions drawn. This report will include:
Copy of the CQCR Summary of findings Explanation of analysis Summary of any action(s) detemlined appropriate
ODOT will provide the requester a copy of the report documenting the findings of the evaluation within 10 days of the reports completion. For more complex investigations, the requester will receive information about the evaluation plan and timeline. Periodic updates on the progress of the CQCR evaluation will be provided based on this plan. The requester will also receive information on the resolution and actions taken, or to be taken to address the accessibility issue. This information will be shared in the necessary or preferred format of communications, such as large print, Braille, e-mail or audio recording. Oral communications by videophone or TTY are also options. This same report with the same information is also shared with parties within ODOT who will implement any corrective action. Follow-up by staff from the Office of Civil Rights ensures all corrective action is completed.
ODOT staff wants to hear about all barriers and suggested solutions. Staff will continue to make full efforts to ensure accessibility to all and compliance with ADA requirements by implementing improvements. Some requests may not be able to be accommodated immediately and some suggested solutions may not be feasible. ODOT staff will make best efforts, as part of the evaluation of the CQCR, to explore viable alternatives. Once findings from an evaluation have been shared with the requester, follow-up questions can be directed to the staff of the Office of Civil Rights who will pursue any new, additional information.
16. Self-evaluation and transition plan
ODOT has independent obligations under the ADA to update its ADA transition plan, and conduct assessments in connection with that plan. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to expand or reduce any obligations ODOT has under the ADA with regard to a transition plan, nor does this Agreement create any enforceable rights regarding the transition plan. ODOT intends
Page 10 of 17

to continue to fulfill its ongoing transition plan obligations, separate and apart from this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, ODOT will welcome input from Plaintiffs, the Accessibility Consultant, and other interested parties on how to conduct the self-evaluation and update to its transition plan.
17. Joint press release
The Parties agree to announce this settlement in a joint press release describing their partnership in improving Accessibility throughout the Oregon State Highway System.
18. Enforceable agreement, class certification, and fairness hearing
This Agreement shall be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Oregon — Portland Division contemporaneously with Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) filing on behalf of named class members of a federal class-action complaint alleging statewide violations of Title II of the ADA and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act (Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint) with respect to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. DRO shall take steps necessary to certify a class with respect to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals (hereinafter, the class) and ODOT will stipulate to class certification.
Upon class certification, the Parties will jointly request approval of the Agreement pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). After notice to all class members, the Court will conduct a fairness hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) to decide whether the Agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the claims of the plaintiff class. The Parties agree to cooperate in presenting the Agreement to the Court and urging its approval as fair and reasonable.
If approved, the Court shall enter this Agreement as an order of the Court, and retain jurisdiction over this Agreement until its termination. The Effective Date of the Agreement shall be the date of entry by the Court.
Should the Court approve this Agreement, the Agreement shall preclude any member of the class from asserting any claims for declaratory or injunctive relief that are based on or arise out of the facts and practices alleged in the Second Amended Complaint relating to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals.
ODOT shall pay any costs related to class certification. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to an award for any costs, expert witness fess and reasonable attorney fees in connection with class certification.
Except as provided in this Agreement, during the pendency of this Agreement, Plaintiffs shall not file suit under the ADA for any claim or allegation set forth in the Second Amended Complaint declaratory or injunctive relief related to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signal.
Page 11 of 17

Class members shall not be precluded from asserting claims for damages arising from allegations that curb ramps or associated pedestrian signals are not in compliance with the ADA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Class members are not precluded from asserting claims that pedestrian signals not associated with curb ramps violate the ADA, and/or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. All claims for violations of the ADA and Section 504 for work performed in compliance with this Agreement are barred.
Class members shall not be precluded from asserting any claims based upon facts and practices alleged in the complaint unrelated to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals. Any claims based upon facts and practices alleged in the original or First Amended Complaint unrelated to curb ramps and associated signals will be dismissed without prejudice.
As described in this section, "curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals" shall include the curb ramps, signal pushbuttons, audible indicators, turning spaces immediately adjoining the curb ramp used to access the ramp, clear spaces immediately adjoining any signal button to enable a person in a mobility device to access the button, and pavement immediately adjoining a curb ramp used in determining the counter-slope. It shall not include any section of sidewalk, crosswalk, or other pedestrian facility other than that immediately adjoining a curb ramp or pedestrian signal.
19. No admission of fault
In entering into this settlement Agreement, ODOT does not admit any wrongdoing or liability to Plaintiffs, or any entitlement by Plaintiffs to any relief under any claim upon which relief is sought in their complaint in this or any other matter. Inclusion of obligations under requirements in this Agreement shall not be construed as a finding or determination by the Court that, absent this Agreement, ODOT would otherwise have such obligations or requirements.
20. Force Majeure
ODOT shall not be considered in breach of this Agreement to the extent that performance of any of the obligations incurred herein is prevented by an event of Force Majeure, including but not limited to: acts of God (such as, but not limited to, fires, explosions, earthquakes, drought, tidal waves and floods); war, hostilities, invasion, act of foreign enemies, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, or military or usurped power, or civil war; contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel, or from any nuclear waste from the combustion of nuclear fuel, radio-active toxic explosive, or other hazardous properties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component of such assembly; riot, commotion, strikes, lock outs or disorder; or acts or threats of terrorism.
21. Funding
Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as permitting any violation of Article XI, Section 7 of the Oregon Constitution or any other law regulating liabilities or monetary
Page 12 of 17

obligations of the State of Oregon. ODOT will make diligent efforts to obtain necessary funding, appropriations, limitations, allotments, or other expenditure authority.
22. Authorized signatures
The signatures below of officials and attorneys representing the class Plaintiffs, and the State signify that these Parties have given their final approval to this Agreement. Each party to this Agreement represents and warrants that the person who has signed this Agreement on behalf of his or her entity or clients is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement and to bind that party to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.
23. Integrated agreement
This Agreement and any documents incorporated by reference constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the Parties.
24. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and the counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Agreement, notwithstanding that each party is not a signatory to the original or the same counterpart. All references to signature or execution of the Agreement shall be calculated from the date on which the last party executed the Agreement.
25. Notices
"Notice" under this Agreement shall be provided to the following or their successors:
Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capitol Street NE, MS 11 Salem, OR 97301-3871
Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096
General Counsel Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096
Disability Rights Oregon 610 S.W. Broadway, Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205
Page 13 of 17

Law Offices of Stephen L Brischetto Attorneys at Law 621 SW Morrison St Ste 1025 Portland OR 97205
26. Transportation remediation
The Parties agree that mitigation of transportation barriers for persons with disabilities is important, especially in areas on state highways where transit is limited and curb ramps have not yet been remediated. Before January 2017, ODOT will recommend the following to the Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC).
a. ODOT Recommendations to PTAC Regarding PTAC Members
1. ODOT agrees to recommend to PTAC that it select an AOCIL member to fill the new Senior and People with Disabilities position on PTAC.
2. When the current Citizen/Transit User-at-large position on PTAC becomes vacant, ODOT agrees to recommend that PTAC consider candidates who are public transit consumers who self-identify as a person with a disability.
b. ODOT Recommendation to PTAC Regarding Workgroup
ODOT will recommend that the PTAC form a permanent workgroup that focuses on helping Persons with Disabilities engage in transit statewide and to mitigate barriers. ODOT will also recommend to PTAC that the Disability Workgroup will address the following issues:
1. Investigate and solicit additional sources of funds to augment existing special ride programs to mitigate barriers throughout the state including taxi voucher programs, shuttle programs, and paratransit.
2. Identify methods to promote service of the target areas by local entities.
3. Analyze gaps in disability transit statewide, and analyze the state allotment of funds, including but not limited to division of funds based on population of seniors, people with disabilities, and location of target areas to see if additional prioritization is warranted.
4. Recommend changes to state management plan to serve target areas, and to serve persons with disabilities throughout the state regardless of state highways.
Page 14 of 17

5. Prepare a case study of South Lane Wheels with model procedures and grant applications, so that other local entities could adopt similar programs.
6. Investigate and solicit a study, possibly through encouraging an entity to apply for a grant using 5311 planning dollars, on any of the above topics.
IF PTAC agrees to form the workgroup, any recommendations from the workgroup will be made to PTAC. IF PTAC decides to support the recommendation and recommends that ODOT adopt any of the workgroups recommendations, ODOT will reconsider only those recommendations that comply with federal and state laws and requirements
27. Education and outreach
During the class notice period, ODOT will jointly partner with AOCIL in coordinating meetings regarding this Agreement in each of the five ODOT regions. ODOT agrees to supply a meeting room in each ODOT region for these meetings. AOCIL will provide notification of these meetings to interested parties known to AOCIL; ODOT will post notice of these meetings on its website and issue public notice of these meetings. ODOT and AOCIL will work together to develop the agenda for these meetings.
After this Agreement is approved by the Court, ODOT will offer a presentation during public meetings of various regularly scheduled ODOT Transportation Advisory Groups, such as the Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Policy Advisory Committee. ODOT will make best efforts to schedule at least four such meetings each year through 2021 in geographically dispersed locations. These meetings will be designed to educate and engage the public about the work ODOT has performed under the Agreement, or is planning to perform, the availability of alternate routes during construction, the priorities of remediation, and the public complaint and request process. The meetings will also solicit public comment on the status of accessible public pedestrian walkways and facilities under ODOT's control in local communities. ODOT will collaborate with AOCIL to engage the local disability community and advertise these meetings.
WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby execute this Agreement,

Martha Mae Bryson

Date

Kimberly Morrisey

Date

Carrie Taylor

Date

Laura Potts

Date

Laurie Sitton

Date Page 15 of 17

Dave Maule Jordan Ohlde

Oregon Dept

ansporta

B

Print Name: Matthew Garrett

Its: Director
Date: (0

Association of Oregon Living Centers

By:

Print Name:

Date
Date
Date
(0 -2--6--(6
Date

Page 16 of 17

Its: Date:

APPROVAL AS TO FORM:
By: Stephen Brischetto Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date:

Disability Rights Oregon
By: Kathleen Wilde Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date:

Oregon Department of Justice

By:

car--

Carla Scott

Attorney for State Defendants

Date:

I ) I

Page 17 of 17

APPEN DIX A

Zreparrmentof Troasportution Project Name (Section)

ADA Ramp inspection Form

Construction Yea Contract No. Highway No.

MP

Cross StreetName

Ramp Style (PR, PL, C, UD EW, CT, BT)
Counter slope -/

Glemr170
610Pe

PERPENDICULAR RAMP (PR)

Counter slope * Run 1=TUrning space (Double-counted)
PARALLEL RAMP (PL)

Counter slope"

COMBINATION RAMP (C)
??? UNIQUE DESIGN (UD) - take photo

Pedestrian access route (re measure clear width)

CD

0.

Detectable warning surface

Cross slope (2.0% max.)

'a

4.1 Running slope (8.3% max.)

iQ

_74 Counter slope (5.0% max.)

(D

Landing area (x &Y) (2.0% max./ 4' x min)

0

Gutter Flow Slope (as directed)

734-5020 (10-17-2016)

Calibrate smart level before each use.

RAMP RUN 1

Pass

Fail

Running Slope 1

158.3% >8.3%

Curb Running Slope

Cross Slope 1

5.2.0% ▪ >2.0%

Corner Positions

Detectable Warning

Lip Height

Gutter Flow Slope Counter Slope )

Slope Differential

RAMP RUN 2

Running Slope 2

Cross Slope 2

RAMP RUN 3

unning Slope 3

ir r

Cross Slope 3

r

TURNING SPACE

Landing Width X

Landing Length Y

Landing Slope X

Landing Slope Y

(TD, X)

None

51/4" , ' >1/4"

Increasing Mileage Direction

Street

<50%.

Ramp Pasfilans

Pass

Fail

58.3%,• >8.3%

52.0%,• 2.0%

Pass

Fail

Romp Posiiio Function Condition (G,F,P)

cafe
North AZIOW

Good (G) = all applicable boxes on left pass. OR Design Exception addresses criteria that do not pass_
Fair (F) =all boxes on left pass, except detectable warning

<83% t‘..)> 8.3% 1. „1 Poor (11 =any box fails other than detectable warning

s ir,- 2.0% 'i_:-...:tr >2.0%1,,..,) See also Standard Drawings RD755 and TM458 to assess.

Pass

Fail

provisions not shown: (flares, inlets, pushbutton reach, alignment, etc.)

41* and

Comment: 1-r or

52.0% l>2.0%

MISCELLANEOUS Clear Width (feet)

Pass

Fail

<

4'

Physical Condition (G,F,P)

Inspectors Signature

Date

ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex. Control Number

I I
Print name dearly
1
Company/Agency

Certification No.
L
Crew No. (0 DOT)

http://www,oregon.eaviODOT/HWY/CONSTRUCTION/Pages/HwyCanstformsLaspx

ADA Ramp inspection Form

Submit by E-mail

Ca mil-no:ion Year coat.= Hignmeayno.

MSSstreet Name

ramp style
(P5, Pi, C, US akr, Cr, Et

4 -"-rone-
co,nver slope

PERPENDICULAR RAMP (PR)

Calibrate smart level before each use.

RAMP RUN

Pass

Fail

Running SI ope 1 Curio Running Slop..

8.3% > 3_39s" c'z'="-= s EL.3% y, >

Crass Slope 1

is 2_ 0 > 2.105S'

Detectable Warning

cm" X) 0 None 0

Lip Height

1,147

4

Gutter Flow Slope

Counter Slope{+I- )

> 5_0%0

Corner Position
(Ns
:42 .c E\ 3 0 focraoprag leistge Orterikw
Romp Pcsiriorn

Street

Dangle alma-' Fban 1.Tcywing .wace filw.Ve-santect9
PARALLEL RAMP (PL)

Slope Differential Ealp=0„1„V Running Slope 2 Cross Slope 2 RAMP RUN

Pass Pass

Ramp PosiE an Fail
Function Condon (G,F,P)
Good (G) = all appliimble boxes on left pass DR Design Exc4- )ton addresses L.Caeria that do not pass_
Fail Fair [Elie all boxes on left pass, except detectible warning

Running Slope- 3

(,) Poor CP) =anyboxfals otherthan cleteCablewarninz

Camtar .Srapo-
COMBINATION RAMP {C) ???
UNIQUE DESIGN MD) - take photo
Pedestrian access mute (re measure dear width) W - A Datectabte warning surface
Orassskspa {2_0% max.) Hawing slope {ELS% max.) Coulter slope Me% max)
Landing area pav() (2.0% max. 14 x 4 mle)

oss Slope 3
Landing Width X Landing Length Y Landing Slope X Landing Slope Y

1 <2O3S > Pass

sae cisc swna`zrzt Dm:ft:5s x.D755 and 77035,5..' assess

Fail prosrelTaas AM-Shaw/7: civimemr Etc)

pushbi.Tron.raccb,

...._-_--_—_1JI and O or
7l.-l--,1 szlisy,,, >2_0%

Comment

MISCELLANEOUS Clear Width (feet)

Pass

Fail

<4! rr,

Physical Condition (G,F,P) ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex. Control Number

MOE

Inspettaesi,Ignalure Print name dearly

Cerrifraiton rta.

Gutler ROW Slope (aedirected)

734-50213. t10-19-2016)

• R' set Entire F.otan.. 1111111111111111211111E31

Corrig:auff.tgenCf

,.

Crew No. ;00011)

pviOaftjelnYICCI=PONP,.-.:.r. s;liwynx=rwe

610 Z abed 'V xpueddV

razi=r.
Pro era Name Ise-moni

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (Perpendicular)

C.anstruction Year contract No. Highway No.

MP

cross Streealnlame

Submit by E-mail

PERPENDICULAR RAMP (PR)

Pedestrian access route (ro measure clearwidth)

Detectabiewarning surface

Cross slope (2.O% malt.)

i

Running slope (8,3% rrEcc)

74, Counter elope (15.0% max.)

cn- Landing area.(X& Y){2.0% max N' x 4' min.?
.1f constrained at back of walk, min_ Y length: is S.

Cutter Flow Slope (as directed)

734-5020{1049-2010

Calibrate smart level before each use.

Running Slope 1 Curb Running Slope

Pass

Fail

Cornar

<53% a. > S.3%1 0') Comm.= Fay as Positions

83% 4

3).

Cross Slope 1 Deteciziole Warning Lip Height

2.0% > 2_8%
(TD, X) 6.4 None 0
-1 1/4" 0 >114' 0

r34

5`I 21r=:ng iiRcoor. airscamt

Street

Griller Flow Slope

Counter Slope

<5_3%0 >5.0%

SI o e DifFerential

'&'L'' .v==...asagescosaa

Romp Posif m

/ I \ T1114-411,
arthArrow

Where flared sides exist a 4' wide unobstructed

Function Condition (G,F,.P)

sidewalk is required around the flared sides with cross slope not greater than 2.C%

Good lo)= alt ap prEcabie boxes on lair pa. 05 O-,-sign E>xe.pdan addres criteria ghat do nor pass_

If the running slope of the sidewalk around the flared sides is more than 5.0% use a combination

Fair [Fl= all lam:es ea lett pass, exert dese.mble,naraing Poor (P) = any box faUs other Man rie=c,hie warning

style ramp inspection forrrL.

See cisc, Srandard ilantdrgs 50755 end T1455 :O assess

TURNING SPACE Landing Width X Landing Length Y Landing Slope X

Pass
.,,....._l

Fait prot.tions ncr. ..A.gnmeac ers.)

1 >41!*

;4.=

Comment

1

7-7 , and

Or

'-, Cr% >2,0%

(r.lates, area,-pusalaaroa reank,

Landing Slope Y

MISCELLANEOUS

Pass

Fail

Clear Width (feet) r====1,4

<4'

Physical Condition (G,F,PI

Inst.cs sstgnazure

ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex. Control Number

Pilot name early.

Cestdicanan No_

CornpanWAFency

Craw No .'0001-'!

6 JO £abed 'N1xpueddY

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (Parallel)

Submit by E-mail

Prox•ct Name [Se:tool

Construadon Year onntract

Hignmay

cross streetName

PL amirepSzcie
Cower sfclor -;

sr rrow sive 1=n:rain, _swam Woubin-cculcal

librate svuert level before each use_

RAMP RUN 1

Pass

Fail

Co=aer Positions

Running Slope 1 Curb Running Slope Cross Slope 1 Detectable \Naming Up Height -Gutter Flow Slope Counter Slope )

<

O> 2030

[TD, X)

None 0

:11 4 0 > 1,(4' 0
_=__ _ _ 1:11n <5.0510. > 5_0510

gA
1 3
.1\
tnomosIng IlifeaLe , Cfregion
Dorno Positions

Street

Slope Differental

RAMRS.U.N..2

Running Slope 2

i

Cross- Slope 2

1 1

RAMP RIJN 3

Running Slope 3

pass_

RamoFail

/ N Incficate Naret Arrow

,

F-unction Conditon (GF,P)

, s 3,554 ,...-_-; > S....356°,7-;

1 S. 2_0% ,::-7. > 2_13%4, _ ;

sood Is) =sit applimble boxes on left pass.
DR Design Exp-doss addresses afteria that do not pass.

Pass

Fail Fair [Fl = as boxes on left pas except zlemombte. warning

< 53% f,.}› 53% 0 Pcor [P] =any box fails caber than demactithle warning

Carafes slaps' Run 1.Turnlog space tDoatite-cxinted./
PARALLEL RAMP (PL)
Pedestrian access route (To measure clear width)
Detectable waning surface Cross slope (2.0% max.) ti Running slope p.3% max.) Counter slope (5_0% max.) Landing area (X& Y) (2.0% max./ x
If constrained at back of walk min. Y ;engin is 5'.

Ca-oss Slope TURNING SPACE .anding Width X .riding Length Y _anding Slope X _ending Slope Y

Pass

See cis° Stoncford ..7aviacingraRD7S3 omilDSISZ asses

Fail provEsioh naz'shown: 01 er=',

pcmhbarcon readp,

ir-1

1

and

[-----------if <-7 0%

Comment ltti or .,,,,,,...,,!,
.:..20%

MISCELLANEOUS

Pa

Fail

Clear Width (feet)

o

4' 0

Physiml Condition (G,F,P)

sispeaorlsseatature

Daze

Gutter Flow Slope (as dIrecteeq,

ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex. Control Number

734-5020 (10-19-2016)

'61.i6ifi1 6 POrrri .

Pnil- nt"a-m- rderny compansiRaencs'

certificaten rzo_
L
crew No.3,0D07:,

6Jo j7abed 'V xpueddV

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (Combination)

Submit by E-mail

Proiect NarnetSmsnorit

[)
Cow:mob= Year contract No. Highway Na.

MP cross Street Name

, r1lbrate smart level before each use.

RAMP RUN 1
Running Slope 1 Oath Running Slope-.

Pass

Fat

>3_3%("''f{

Carr P.eift44
3 n

Corner Positaions

Cross Slope 1 Detectable Warning tip Height Gutter Flow Slope

0 [ID X)

Non..

<Ica' 0 >

O au, -a, ac jr7r,

r,r,Ta 3

lonmesing 161 s,

1

area-JOT:

Street

Counter Slope RI=

< 5 .0% >5.0%

Slope Differential WIP
Running Slope 2 Cross Slope 2 RAMP RUN 3 Panntio.g Slope 3

Pass

Fail

ta5.. S.35S•,_; >

„

120%r >2o%`-

Pass

Fail

Ramp
Function Condition {6,s- 6p
wood [5)=a applicants bo•. s on left. pass. 05i5n Exception, addresses criteria chrtsla not pass.
Fair IFp= all boxes on left imss, easept cletecallate warning

S..3% )_> 83%

Poor (P) = any boxfaits otherathan detemsblewarnita

41 11140P

Cross Slope 3

4r4.f%t%°°Wm1.1-%°-f1"t4,1M11r11r ' 4 . 41111111.7 _ending Width X

%IRO COMBINATION RAMP (C)

aanding L ength Y 'anding Slope X an ding Slope Y

See also Sa.r..Ins'erd Zrrnvahrps E0755 and niSCss

prOtrairMa-

(,fiar=„. infers]. pctshivmon rend:a.

eminent, cart!

=

r-fit ' 4

tr-.. 41'

Comment

r,1 -----11 and .) o, r In

1,1- t-----,d 03a

>2_0%

Pedestlan access routs (To Measure claaraidth)

NIISCELLANEOUS

Pass

Fail

Datergalie waning surface
Cross slope 120% rums) F. Running slope (ES% max)
7 Countar slope {5.0% max)

Clear Width (feet) = >

ni <

Physical Condition (G,F,P)

ADA Design Exception (Y,N)

Landing area PC-fiYll (.2-016 max l4' x 4 min.)" 'If ccinstraked at bacicof walk, min_ Y length is 5'.

Deign Ex Control Number

Cashier FlowSlope {es elrecsacry

=sperm s Signature Prirrrra early Companya‘'Agency

Date Certification No. L Stew No_ i3ODOT:l

734-5020 (10-15-2016)

Rest Endre ForrTt.. :

XVPyc

6 JO 9 abed 'V xpueddV

Wasp:Acme Prole= Name jSeccoel
1=i Ramp Styie-

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (Blended Transition)

Submit by E-mail

ccl• -mucticr, Year contract No. Highwayve.

MP

Cross street Name

CeRbl-Aesmart le.rel before each use_

.l3,AMP fit FN S Running Slope 1 Curt Running Slope Cross Slope 1. Detectable Warning Lip Height Gutter Flow Slope

„ ,

Pass

Fail

5_0%

5_09G > 5.Ges4,4

S20%0 >2_0%

None 0

Caine= :PostImictLe
Vi
o 2
ionsss'Tog t..rhettne Gireakin
Pcstions

Street

Counter Slope {+/-1 Slope Differential

Rarrlp PosPf.c.ri Function Condi-don i‘lGF,R)

Blended Transffons are locations where the pedestrian walkway and the street crossing intersect at the me plane v/Fd- lo'It the need of a ramp_ If a slope is greater than 5_0%, this is not a Blended Transition and should be inspected using a different inspection form_

Good (a) = eli appli bra boxes on ler, pass_ ca Design Exception addresses criteria that do not rw,.
Fair (FIB = 31.1 bfLYA5 ea left pass, Fee-Apt ciet-,.c-abts.rx,iarrang Poor (P) = any box fails otherthan detectable. warning
e cisofrranclord D-rnwisss.F.Z755arms' TM:15S proirkions otshoun.: Cri=„„ in push:by-T=1 react', catnitient. etc) Comment

640 9abed 'V xpueddV

BLENDED TRANSITION (UT)

PectestriOrt access mute (ro measure clear width)

Detectable warning surface Cross skive 12.0% reax.)

Punning slope (6.0% max)

Counter stops (5.0% max}

Gutter how slope ttla dkecte0)

734-5020 (ID-1-2016)

Entire Form

MISCELLANEOUS Clear Width [feet) Physical Condition CG,F,P1 ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex. Control Number

Pass

s Signatur

Date

enrri: namcete".i. --r`.'qr•

Certdication rta_

companlvAgency,

•L
new NO. (000T)

sv.rr-__naartririVrtrt:Ctre217LOWP..;,-.14wyr....-tranr-4=---r.

fitDeparZnotraf

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (Cut-Through Island)

Submit by E-mail

role= `ame secnonl
ale

171 nsnncdnn Year Contrast Na_ HighwayNo_

n t
MP

CrossStreet Name

v144r >, - RampStyle

Calibrate small' level before each use. Pass

Mi

Corner

Comer Position. Positions

Running Slope 1. Cross Skip e 1 Detectable Warning

ilk >=

N

12.20 1

0

4.0 ""IN)

\

CID: X} 0 None 0 ( 3A

/1\ 3

Lip Height

S1/4' >1,(4°

Adjacent Strt Slope

Counter Slope (+/-) `1-1<5.0%0 > 5.0°,50

2 Incrwsirl lacc93 Cfrwrka

Romp PosINors

1

Street

Slope Differential U
If running slope exceeds 5_0%, use curb ramp inspection forrn,_

Ramo PottiOn Function Condition (G,F.P)

orthiarow

If located at stop or yield control approach, cross slope Good (G)=all applicable boxes on left

shall he 2050 max; if located at uncontrolled or signalized intersection., cross slope max is 5_0%; if located rnidhlock„

OR Design Exception address.-

that do not pass_

Fair IF). all boxes on leer pass, xcpt detecmble warning

cross slope allowed to equal grade of adjacent street

Poor (P) =arty box fans other than demo:able. warning

Use separate inspection form for each opening of cut-

through_

See aka Srono'ord Drnmirgs RD755 and 1771455 ro lams=

Pass

Fail provisions .7orshown:
aggornen;. eccf

Inez; oustthutron mock,

_ending Width X

Comment:

CUT THROUGH (CT)

anding Length Y _ending Slope X

and i or >xt

_ending Slope Y 1 - .• '

610Labed 'V xpueddV

MISCELLANFM5

Padesbian accessroure {To measure clearyfritb)

Clear Width (feet)

Detectatiferaarning surface

Ctoss dope (See note")

Physical Condition (G„c,,P)

4.4 Running dope (see note')

ADA Design Exception (Y,N)

4— Counterslope (5.0% Inez.)

Design Ex_ Control Number

Adjacent street slope {As crirected)

Pass

Fail

> 5,

<5`

lr -p,ecto s kgnature

Print nameciearly

Company,Agency

lH
Date
Certification No_
I Crew No_ (0001)

734-5020 (10-10-2016)

"R set. Entire Fo

OTarilmw‘n--,-4.-,W- OCOTItragOOt,STP=101ViNec,ft.-,cora--.1_

Ramp e

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (End of Walk)

Submit by E-mail

r [I

Corstnc.rtion Year comma= No. puerway

RIP

DescriptiMi of location inear crow stre or landmark)

Calibrate short level before each use.

Pass

Fail

Corner I Positions

Running Siegel

S '&396 f > 8.356c)

owl Cross Slope 1
Detectable Warning

< 0960> Z.096 (TD, XI 0 None 0

lip Height

=I 51J4" > 114'

1
C 3A

ic; 27 ,-.-.-.=,...,.._,
aA a

lercra,wrng Iflicogr, 2 1 i•-.•...,, arealOn

street

Use the End-of-Walk style inspection form only in Iocations where sidewalk ends at locations that are not intersections.
Turning space/landing area may be measured at eitherthe bottom of the ramp

4)-'

(",f2

iR t

11 H
,9

Ramp Pos'itohj I I

. Poion.., I

Function Condition (G,F,P)

\z.
Nord:LAI:row

run or at-the top.

Good (G). all applicable boxy on left pass.

OP. Design Exception addresses criteria that do not pan.

Pair {F) = all boxes on 1.4t pa=, except derecmble "earning

Poor (P) =any box fails oth erthan detectable warning-

END OF WALK (EW)

Pedestrian access route (ro measure dearwicab) Omessiope 1253% max.)

Running gape {82% max)
Landing area K&Y) cam mex./4*x 4' min)

734-5020 (10-10-2016)

Reset Entire Fo

TURNING SPACE .anding Width X .anding Length Y ending Slope X _ending Slope Y MISCELLANEOUS Clear Width (feet)

Pass

Fail

, I=,

a- 4'

<4

E

, anti I

i.e,.,=....N.,v

or

.._09.6 >2.095

See alsoSrandcteDrawkos RD:755 ood TAWS ro

proLisior

puslthua.on reed],

arignra.ea;

Comment

. _

.......

Pass

Fall

>4,

Physical Condition (G,F,P)

truce= s na are

Date

ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex. Control Number

Prinrnarne dearly

Card-fit:3ton No.

ComparrilAger Inax`x.-x..YODOTAIWW/CONSL-RUCTION.M.s...,.18.-.

Crew No. (ODOT)

6JO9 aced 'V xpueddV

ADA Ramp Inspection Form (Unique Design)

Submit by E-mail

coramuarran Year corpaa.ar

Higtrh.vay NO_

1.1P

Crolnree' tNam

UD •••• Ramp Swle

Ilibrate smart level before each use_

RAMP RUN 1
Running Slope 1 Curb Running Slope

Pass

Fait

_SS_S% > S_S% )

Cross Slope 1

" S2_0% j>2-05SI

Detectable Warning Lip Height Gutter Flow Slope

riD0 X) 0 None 0 <1/4" 0 >1_14' 0

CounterSlope :1-1-1-

In <5_0% > 5_0%0

Por-n-.i=i0orr

Corner Prraitioans

g 2Q3 ••••,
lE sr =faro. MiTes,se
iVroaqr.0
4

Street

Click here to add image (pdf)

Slope Differential trAmL-, tckYrk.-. 2. Running Slope 2 Cross Slope 2
Running- Slope.

Pass

Fail

Pos -Zon.

Indicate North Arrow

o_3% <

0. 3% •

Function Condition

_.sood (*I =all applkmble boxes on lgt pass.

clR

Exception aciicirs criteria 7far.clo nor pass_

Pass

Fail— Fair tn.= all bcroas on left pans, eraeptcleta-carble. waraing

< as5s

as% C) Poor (Pj = any bruciails otheranan rletec:able warning

Cross Slope S
6 1,,,,,,(210,C,..,1 I,-

Pass

Sae sisoStandarr) 'Dr.:we:vs ED755 ars!TA.14513 c ss _s
Fail prot,&onsnszsIsswn: tic. Ynkry, pus:lb:arca renal; ...a,,runear, era)

??? UNIQUE DESIGN (LID) -take. phut°
Pedestrian SC01329 route, go measure clear width) Detedablo warning surface ‹— Cross slope 42-0% max-)

..a nding'AridthX
.anding Length y znding Slope X

=

.1

and :i

li.„._.,

<-, Ct-..r,

'`: 4:
''' 1 or >2_0%

Comment e4,

nding Slope Y

Arastklm-sor.4- .3

Pass

Fail

-4` Clear Width (feet. Physical Condition (G,F,P)

4` e

::TrspeliMatgraraire.

Rurating slope pie% nmx.) Counter skips (5.0% max.) LantlIne area (X 1012:0% rneocli, X 4'Inin,) Gutlor Flow Slope (as dream*

.40.A. Design Exception (Y,N) Design Ex Conl..ol Nurnb&-

Print name clearly Company..t.ency-

734-51320110-15-201.6)

15ikt.04.71 ntlree,Iromi •

Date Certification ntcl_ Crew NO. CODeA

6JO 6 abed 'y xpueddV

APPENDIX B

ODOT Audible Pedestrian Signal policy, ODOT Traffic Manual, section 5.3
5.3 Audible Pedestrian Signals
Audible pedestrian signals provide information in a non-visual format such as audible tones, speech messages, and/or vibrating and tactile surfaces. If a signalized intersection presents difficulties for pedestrians who have visual disabilities, an audible pedestrian signal may be provided to augment the standard pedestrian signal.
ODOT often receives requests to install audible pedestrian signals at signalized intersections from local jurisdictions and from individuals who need the non-visual format. When the local jurisdiction has a written policy to install audible pedestrian signals on traffic signals within their jurisdiction, work with the local jurisdiction to proceed with the audible signal installation.
If the local jurisdiction does not have a written policy to install audible pedestrian signals, or the request is from an individual who needs the non-visual format, the following process shall be used.
• Document the local jurisdiction or individual user request to install the audible signal. Send a copy of this documentation to ODOT's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Attention ADA Title II Coordinator.
• Hold an on-site meeting with the requestor to understand the issues from the requestor's perspective. Discuss this location as well as alternate locations that may be investigated as more appropriate options. Include a discussion about the user's route and learn of any other barriers to accessibility along that route. o Document this on-site meeting and the issues discussed. Send a copy of this meeting documentation to ODOT's office of Civil Rights, Attention ADA Title II Coordinator. o Often the user's route includes local jurisdiction systems as well as the state highway. When this is the case, send a copy of the meeting documentation to the local jurisdiction. Follow-up with a phone call to the local jurisdiction to discuss the audible signal request, the on-site meeting, and any required coordination to address the audible signal and any identified barriers on the user's route.
• Following the on-site meeting, perform an engineering study in response to the request as discussed in Chapter 4E of the MUTCD. The engineering study includes the following: o Initial request o Onsite meeting notes o Requested intersection location(s) o Intersection characteristics o Signal phasing o Traffic volumes o Posted speeds o Sight distance o Crash history o Neighborhood acceptance o Evaluation of alternative routes o Include alternate signalized crossing to determine if there are more desirable locations for the audible signal location.
• Consult with the local jurisdiction on the engineering study.
Appendix B, Page 1 of 2

• When the engineering study discovers community opposition or conflicting format requests, contact Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living (AOCIL) for input on methods to resolve this issue.
• The Region Traffic Engineer will coordinate with the OCR ADA Title II Coordinator to determine if installing the audible signal is the appropriate response to the request. Approval authority to install the audible signal, which is a traffic control device, is delegated to the Region Traffic Engineer. However, in those circumstances that the Region Traffic Engineer determines that based on the engineering study, the audible signal should not be installed, the Region Traffic Engineer and the OCR ADA Title II Coordinator will determine what other options will be used to address the request.
• Region Traffic Engineer will contact the requester and discuss the ODOT determination on the audible signal request. If the audible signal has been determined to be inappropriate for this circumstance, the Region Traffic Engineer will discuss the alternate option(s) ODOT will use to address the request. Discussion on timeframes for completion and ODOT commitments for ongoing communication by ODOT to the requestor need to be part of this discussion.
Appendix B, Page 2 of 2

APPENDIX C

Appendix C
High Priority Locations for the purpose of Settlement Agreement Section 6 Within 1 through 6 below, priority is given to walkways that serve government offices and facilities, public transportation, places of public accommodation, places of employment and continuity of routes.
1. Missing curb ramps 2. Existing curb ramps, functionally a barrier because of any
a. Lip > 1/2" b. < 3' wide c. < 36" x 36" turning space with cross slope >3% d. Ramp running slope > 9.5% 3. Missing and non-compliant curb ramps at locations where there have been wheelchair pedestrian fatalities since 2010, and locations of any future wheelchair fatalities. 4. Existing curb ramps missing truncated domes, 5. Missing and non-compliant curb ramps at cities/towns/ communities locations without public transit that have sidewalks and curb ramps. 6. Missing and non-compliant curb ramps on critical corridors recommended by AOCIL and other representatives of the disabled community. In addition, citizen complaints or requests to address 1 and 2 above will be deemed high priority. Below are ODOT's general priorities to address missing and non-compliant curb ramps: A. High Priority Locations for the purpose of Settlement Agreement Section 6. B. Special Transportation Areas (STA's) and downtown areas. C. Urbanized areas. D. All remaining areas within the state.
Appendix C, Page 1 of 1

APPE1\ DIX D

7 Oregon DepotIntent of n'ansportatIon
Contact Information
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP

ODOT OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS CONCERN, QUESTION, COMMENT OR REQUEST
EMAIL

If you are completing this form on behalf of another person:
REPRESENTATIVE NAME
EMAIL

DATE PHONE
RELATIONSHIP PHONE

Issue Description
LOCATION OF SITE — ADDRESS, SITE NAME, OR DESCRIPTION

TOPICS COVERED CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

El Curb ramp

El Sidewalk

El Parking

D Service Animal D Transit Stop

Bathroom

fl Pushbuttons u Crosswalk

u Audible Signal u DMV

El Construction Work Zone

fl Other:
DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN, QUESTION, COMMENT OR REQUEST-. INCLUDE THE DATE IF RELATED TO A SPECIFIC INCIDENT

Resolution
DESCRIBE THE RESOLUTION YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE
Have you submitted this information before? ElYes uNo

If preferred, this form may be printed, filled out and mailed to:
ODOT Office of Civil Rights MS 31 355 Capitol St, NE Salem, OR 97301.
Assistance is available upon request: • Call toll-free (855) 540-6655 • E-mail ODOTADA©odot,state.or.us, • TTY, use 711 relay service, ask to connect to (855) 540-6655

734-6061 (9/2016)

Appendix D, Page 1 of 1 Page lof 1

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 1 of 42
RECITALS Whereas, Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Martha Mae Bryson, Kimberly Morrisey, Dave Maule, Jordan Ohlde, William Phillips, Laurie Sitton, CatTie Taylor, and Laura Potts (Plaintiffs) and the Oregon Depattment ofTransportation (ODOT) are Parties to a lawsuit entitled Association ofOregon Centers for Independent Living, et al. v. Oregon Department ofTransportation, eta!., U.S. District Court Case No. 3: 16-cv-00322-HZ; and Whereas, the Parties share the goal of improving access on ODOT's State Highway System, the Parties agree as follows:
DEFINITIONS I. "State Highway System" means all roads or highways designated as such by law or by
the Oregon Transportation Commission pursuant to law and includes both primary and secondary state highways. See ORS 366.005(8). 2. "Applicable Standards" means the standards in the following relating to curb ramps and pedestrian signals: Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and its implementing regulations, PROWAG (Public Right of Way Accessibility Guidelines), the ADA Standards for Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG), Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Part 4 (Highway Traffic Signals) and Part 6 (Temporary Traffic Control) of the MUTCD (Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices). Ifthere is a conflict between standards, the conflict will be resolved with the Accessibility Consultant appointed pursuant to Section 7. If the Accessibility Consultant and ODOT disagree, DRO will be notified of the disagreement then ODOT or DRO may initiate the dispute resolution process in Section 12. If the Accessibility Consultant and ODOT agree, DRO will be notified of the conflict and the resolution. If any party disagrees with the resolution, then either patty may initiate the dispute resolution process in Section 12 within 30 days. In no event will the final resolution be less than the then current law requires. 3. "Year" means calendar yeat·. 4. "Design exception" means a written determination that documents the physical constraints that make it technically infeasible to meet all of the ADA prescribed geometric requirements for the proposed or altered feature. 5. "Undue burden" is as defined by the ADA and its implementing regulations. 6. "STIP" means the Oregon Statewide Transpottation Improvement Program.
Page 1 ofl7

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 2 of 42
AGREEMENT
1. Update statewide curb ramp inventory
ODOT will complete an updated inventory of the curb ramps on the State Highway System by December 31, 2017 and will provide a copy to the Accessibility Consultant and DRO when it is completed. That inventory has two components: (1) a digital video review of all curb ramp locations in the system, which is nearing completion, and (2) a field review of new curb ramps built since ODOT's previous inventory in 2011 as well as all curb ramp locations within the State Highway System that were previously field-reviewed as "Good." Curb ramps that were field-reviewed as "Poor" or "Fair" as pa1t ofthe 2011 Inventory will retain their rating from that inventory. All newly field-reviewed ramps will be classified using the ADA Ramp Inspection Form attached as Appendix A. Any future revisions to the ADA Ramp Inspection Form will be reviewed by the Accessibility Consultant retained pursuant to Section 7 below.
Once completed, the locations ofnon-compliant curb ramps in the updated curb ramp inventory shall constitute the universe of curb ramp locations that ODOT agrees to remediate per Section 4 below. In the event that it is established that ODOT did not include a location or a curb ramp that was withln the State Highway System before the inventory is completed, ODOT will add the location or curb ramp to the inventory.
In the event that ODOT transfers any state highway sections to another jurisdiction after the date of this Agreement, ODOT will take steps to ensure that any curb ramp locations on such · prope1ty will be remediated-either by ODOT or the transferee-if those locations have not been remediated prior to the transfer. ODOT shall remain responsible under thls agreement to ensure that the necessary remediation takes place.
Locations that are added to ODOT's jurisdiction after December 31,2017 shall not fall within the scope ofthis Agreement.
2. Inventory of pedestrian crossing signals
By December 31, 2017, ODOT wil I also complete an inventory of all pedestrian crossing signals at all curb ramp locations in ODOT's inventory. Thls inventory will: (I) document the number and location of such pedestrian crossing signals; and (2) assess compliance with Applicable Standards for reach to the button, height to the button, and landing adjoining the button, and will note whether the pedestrian signals contain audible components.
Once completed, the pedestrian signal inventory shall constitute the universe of pedestrian signals that ODOT agrees to remediate pursuant to Section 5 below. In the event that it is established that ODOT did not include in this inventory a pedestrian signal associated with a curb ramp location that was within ODOT's jurisdiction before the inventory is completed, ODOT will add the pedestrian signal to the inventory.
In the event that ODOT transfers any state highway sections to another jurisdiction after the date ofthis agreement, ODOT will take steps to ensure that any pedestrian signals at curb
Page 2 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 3 of 42
ramp locations on such propetty will be remediated pursuant to Section 5 below if those locations have not been remediated prior to the transfer. ODOT shall remain responsible under this Agreement to ensure that the necessary remediation takes place.
Pedestrian signals at curb ramp locations that are added to ODOT's jurisdiction after December 31, 2017 shall not fall within the scope ofthis Agreement.
3. Initial commitment for prioritized projects
ODOT will commit $5 million to address curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals once ODOT and Plaintiffs have identified locations and/or priorities. ODOT will begin spending the $5 million on items such as project develo.pment, design, right of way (as applicable), and construction as soon as practicable after the locations and/or priorities have been determined. ODOT has budgeted $18 million to be committed during the 2018-21 STIP to implementthis Agreement.
4. Remediation of curb ramp inventory
By December 31, 2032, ODOT shall remediate all curb ramp locations identified in the inventory described in Section l above so as to bring them into compliance with the Applicable Standards. Remediation of a curb ramp can occur in a number of ways consistent with the Applicable Standards, depending on the physical or site constraints of a particular location as defined by PROWAG R202.3.1 including: (a) physical installation of a missing curb ramp; (b) physically upgrading an existing noncompliant curb ramp; (c) technical infeasibility through a design exception; (d) closing a pedestrian crossing as appropriate in compliance with Applicable Standards; (e) another petmissible exception under the ADA and its implementing regulations; (f) right of way availability; (g) or other methods or changes to the location that bring the location into compliance with Applicable Standards as documented on the curb ramp inspection f01m, a copy of which is attached at Appendix A.
5. Remediation of pedestrian signals
After the pedestrian signal inventory is completed pursuant to Section 2, ODOT will
remediate reach, height, and landing ofthe pedestrian signals identified in that inventory subject to a schedule to be negotiated after the signal inventory is completed. In remediating pedestrian signals, ODOT shall comply with Applicable Standards for reach, height, and landing. If the Parties cannot agree on a schedule for remediation of pedestrian signals, the dispute resolution provision in Section 12 will determine a reasonable schedule for remediation of pedestrian signals.
Pending an agreement regarding the schedule for remediation of pedestrian signals, to the extent feasible ODOT will remediate pedestrian signals when it remediates curb ramps pursuant to Section 4.
ODOT shall provide audible pedestrian signals upon request by the community or an individual in accordance with the ODOT policy attached hereto ac:; Appendix B and in the
Page 3 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 4 of 42
absence of any substantial conflict or opposition by other individuals or members ofthe community. IfODOT amends the policy in Appendix B during the term of this Agreement, it will do so in collaboration with the Accessibility Consultant and subject to the dispute resolution in Section 12.
6. Schedule for Curb Ramp Remedia tion Compliance
ODOT will comply with the following schedule for remediation of curb ramps:
• By December 31, 2022, ODOT shall remediate at least 30 percent ofthe noncompliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory;
• By December 31, 2027, ODOT shall remediate at least 75 percent ofthe noncompliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory; and
• By December 31, 2032, ODOT shall complete remediation of all the non-compliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory.
To the extent feasible and subject to ODOT's good faith discretion as necessary to comply with the percentages in the above schedule, ODOT will attempt to remediate high priority locations first. The high priority locations wili be identified in collaboration with Plaintiffs and the Accessibility Consultant pursuant to the Priority Criteria in Appendix C to this Agreement, subject to the dispute resolution process set forth in Section 12.
IfODOT has remediated at least 80 percent of non-compliant curb ramp locations in the curb ramp inventory by December 31,2027, then Plaintiffs' right to fees and costs provided for in Section 10 below shall terminate.
7. Accessibility Consultant
ODOT shall retain the services of a mutually acceptable Accessibility Consultant with substantial experience in evaluating or assisting public entities in coming into compliance with Applicable Standards. The Accessibility Consultant will be knowledgeable in cunent federal accessibility standards and acceptable national practices and shall have a minimum offive (5) years' experience in providing consulting services related to facility accessibility and public right of way pedestrian facilities. The Accessibility Consultant must be, or must be affiliated with someone who is a registered civil engineer or a licensed architect.
The Parties agree that the Accessibility Consultant must not have served as an expett, consultant, monitor, or independent reviewer for any ofthe Patties or their counsel in connection with this action. The Accessibility Consultant shall be selected as follows: The Parties shall attempt to jointly select the Accessibility Consultant. Ifthe Patties are unable to agree on an Accessibility Consultant, each party shall submit to the Court a list of up to three nomjnees, and the CoUtt shall select an Accessibility Consultant from those lists pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 706(a). The nominating patty must identify and describe each nominee's qualifications and experience, including listing and describing each instance in which the nominee has served as an
Page 4 of 17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 5 of 42
/
expett, consultant, monitor, or independent reviewer in any action involving the Patties. A similar process will apply to the replacement of the Accessibility Consultant as necessary.
The Accessibility Consultant will have the following responsibilities:
• Review, assess, and make recommendations in consultation with ODOT as to ODOT's policies, standards, practices, training, fo1ms, and guidance pertaining to curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals including: o ADA curb ramp and pedestrian signal inspection fo1ms o The evaluation processes for curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals o Policies regarding audible signals o Design standards and standard drawings for curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals o Design exceptions based on technical infeasibility or other exceptions allowed under the ADA and its implementing regulations. o Accessibility remediation work that is triggered by different alteration activities; o Conduct training as deemed necessary by the Accessibility Consultant in collaboration with ODOT; o New construction and alterations to the State Highway System with respect to compliance with the ADA o Work zone alternative route procedures
• Conduct quality assurance field checks of a sampling of new or reconstructed curb ramps and pedestrian crossing signals addressed under this Agreement as needed to verify compliance;
• May review all grievances and complaints concerning ADA Accessibility relating to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals, along with ODOT's responses.
• Submit reports regarding ODOT's compliance with this Agreement pursuant to Section 8. • The AC shall promptly notify DRO and ODOT of any disagreements with ODOT
regarding compliance with Applicable Standards or this Agreement.
The Accessibility Consultant will be retained for the life of this Agreement. The duties of the Accessibility Consultant will focus initially on consulting with ODOT to review existing processes and procedures for ADA compliance. ODOT's expenses in retaining the Accessibility Consultant shall not exceed $125,000 per year for the first three years beginning fi·om the date the Accessibility Consultant is retained, $75,000 for the next three years, and then $50,000 per year for the remaining life ofthe Agreement.
The duties and monetary cap for expenses of the Accessibility Consultant may be expanded or reduced upon stipulation of the patties or upon ODOT proving good cause for the reduction in duties and compliance with the obligations of this Agreement.
If the Accessibility Consultant and ODOT fail to reach an agreement on issues within the scope ofthe Accessibility Consultant's duties, the Parties may seek to have the issue resolved through a dispute resolution process described in Section 12.
Page 5 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 6 of 42
8. Reporting For each year ofthis Agreement, ODOT will prepare an annual report based upon the work ODOT has petformed under this Agreement each year and provide information relating to its progress, including:
(a) list of actions undertaken and completed by ODOT each year pursuant to this Agreement;
(b) amount expended pursuant to Section 3;
(c) number of curb ramp locations remediated, specifically:
a. the number of curb ramp locations and actual curb ramps remediated per Section 4 (a) or (b) and their physical locations; and
b. the number of curb ramp locations remediated per Section 4 (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g), and their physical locations.
(d) Number of curb ramp locations remaining to be remediated and their physical locations.
ODOT shall provide reports required in this Section to the Parties within 90 days after the end of each calendar year a repoxt is required.
The Accessibility Consultant shall submit a repoxt to the Parties regarding ODOT's compliance with this Agreement within 60 days after ODOT submits each of its annual reports to Plaintiffs and the Accessibility Consultant.
All reports and audits required by this Section shall be: (1) provided to the Parties; (2) provided to the ODOT employees referenced in Section 14; (3) made available to the Court as necessary; and (4) prominently posted on ODOT's website.
9. Alternate routes during construction
ODOT agrees to ensure that temporary pedestrian routes provided through or around work zones are accessible to pedestrians with disabilities consistent with Applicable Standards including the MUTCD. Elements of the alternate routes during construction shall include coordination with municipalities, accessibility oftemporary routes to people with disabilities, appropriate directional and information signage, appropriate training of contractors and others involved in the construction process, advance notice in accessible formats to the public, people with disabilities and disability organizations of not less than I0 days prior to the initiation of construction to the greatest extent possible. Plaintiffs shall provide ODOT with contact information for organizations which serve people with disabilities.
Page 6 ofl7

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 7 of 42
ODOT will consult with the Accessibility Consultant as appropriate regarding accessible alternate routes during construction.
The requirements in this Section shall not be subject to a motion for contempt until January 1, 2018.
10. Monitoring
Plaintiffs may monitor ODOT's compliance with this Agreement by reviewing and analyzing the reports prepared pursuant to Section 8 and other steps as approptiate. ODOT will provide Plaintiffs with a schedule of the initial work to be performed under the Agreement. Thereafter, upon written request from Plaintiffs and to the extent the information is not already included in the reports provided for in Section 8 above, ODOT will also provide DRO with information on where work is being done, where it is planned each year, and future work scheduled for each STIP period as the Agreement progresses. Plaintiffs may consult with the Accessibility Consultant at any time regarding the requirements of this Agreement. Plaintiffs may also request in writing that ODOT provide specific documents sent to or received from the Accessibility Consultant. Disability Rights Oregon (DRO) may solicit input/information from the disability conununity regarding the work being pe1fotmed under this Agreement and the manner in which that work is being carried out. If issues are identified with compliance with this Agreement, DRO may look into the matter, may request discovery as provided in Section 12, and may retain an expert to verify whether or not a curb ramp or pedestrian signal is in compliance with the requirements of the ADA.
Plaintiffs shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in connection with reviewing and analyzing the repo1ts prepared pursuant to Section 8. Plaintiffs shall also be entitled to reasonable attorney fees, expert witness fees and costs for any additional monitoring work that causes ODOT to take responsive action that provides a material benefit to the class in enforcing the Agreement regardless ofwhether Plaintiffs invoke the dispute resolution process in Section 12. Ifthe Patties cannot agree as to whether or to what extent Plaintiffs are entitled to fees and costs for monitoring work, the dispute will be resolved pursuant to Section 12.
11. Attorney fees for past worl{
ODOT agrees to pay Plaintiffs' reasonable attomey fees, expert witness fees and costs through the Effective Date of this Agreement to be determined by United States District Judge Michael H. Simon, subject to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, ifthe parties are unable to reach agreement regarding the amount ofsuch fees.
12. Dispute resolution and enforcement process
Any allegation of an act or omission in breach ofthis Agreement or allegation of noncompliance with the Applicable Standards in work performed under this Agreement may be raised by either patty through the dispute resolution process in this Section. Plaintiffs will provide written notice to ODOT of any alleged non-compliance. ODOT shall have 60 days to provide a response and/or proposed solution. During this time period, the Pmties shall work with the Accessibility Consultant as appropriate to attempt to resolve the dispute, and ODOT will
Page 7 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 8 of 42
provide documents at Plaintiffs request in a timely manner. If the Parties cannot resolve their dispute within this time period, either Party may bring the matter before a Special Master pursuant to FRCP 53, with each party retaining rights to reasonable discovery as authorized by the Special Master. The Special Master shall be appointed by mutual agreement of the Patties or by Judge Simon ifthe Parties cannot agree. Ifthe dispute is not resolved to the Parties' satisfaction by the Special Master, the dispute may be presented within 30 days of the Special Master's decision to Judge Simon for resolution. Judge Simon's rulings under this Section may be appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Simon may award any injunctive or monetary relief consistent with the tetms of this Agreement. If Judge Simon is not available, the
ChiefJudge of the United States District Comt will assign an Article III judge to resolve the
dispute.
In any dispute proceeding pursuant to this Section, the Prevailing Party shall be awarded their reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred in c01mection with the dispute. The standards for determining entitlement to, and the amount of, attorney fees are those set fotth in the Civil Rights Attorney Fee Awards Act, 42 USC 1988 and the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §12205. The plaintiff is a Prevailing Party for purposes ofthis Section if the plaintiff prevails on any substantial issue that obtains some ofthe relief sought in the litigation, and the defendant is a Prevailing Pa1ty for purposes of this Section ifthe defendant prevails on claims that are frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.
The dispute resolution process set forth in this section can be used at any time, with the exception of disputes over ODOT's compliance with Section 6. Disputes regarding ODOT's compliance with Section 6 cannot be raised until January 1, 2021. If at any time after January 1, 2021 Plaintiffs allege that ODOT is not likely to remediate curb ramp locations in the inventory
in accordance with the schedule in Section 6, Plaintiffs may seek appropriate relief pursuant the
dispute resolution process in this Section.
13. Termination
This Agreement tetminates when ODOT has completed the obligations in Sections 4 and 5, subject to a de minimus exception.
14. ODOT oversight
ODOT will identifY (1) a person at ODOT with access to the Director as necessary to be responsible for implementation of processes developed in consultation with the Accessibility Consultant for the remediation obligations set forth in Section 4; and (2) the ADA Coordinator for ODOT. ODOT will make this information prominently available to the public on its website.
15. Public complaint and request process
ODOT will actively seek input regarding accessibility for all to transpottation infi·astmcture and associated programs. ODOT will provide an oppo1tunity for citizens and municipalities to submit Comments, Questions, Concems or Requests (CQCR) regarding missing or suspected non-compliant curb ramps, pedestrian signals and other accessibility issues.
Page 8 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 9 of 42

This CQCR process will be separate from ODOT's fo1mal, non-discrimination grievance procedure. An individual who submits a CQCR is not precluded from proceeding to ODOT's grievance procedure at any point. Both ofthese processes will be overseen and tracked by the staff of ODOT's Office of Civil Rights.

The CQCR process will provide a user-friendly, informal, responsive methodology.

A CQCR can be submitted through multiple means, but primary contact points are:

ODOT's Website: AskODOT: Office of Civil Rights:

(insett URL/Iink)

(insert contact info)

ODOT ADA Title II Coordinator

ODOT_ADA@odot.state.or. us

Phone:

855-540-6655

Interpreter: 711

Fax:

503-986-6382

In addition to primary contacts, ODOT's Region or District offices may also accept completed CQCR forms. All ODOT employees can provide any concemed citizen the primary contact information to submit a CQCR.

AskODOT and ODOT's Office of Civil Rights help concemed citizens route their CQCR through the process. When a concerned citizen needs help to complete the information needed for the CQCR, he or she may request assistance from AskODOT or Office of Civil Rights staff. It is also an option to have another person complete the information on their behalf. Requested assistance may also include communication in formats other than written. An anonymous CQCR will also be accepted.

Process to Submit a CQCR:

A ftllable form (copy attached as Appendix D) will be posted on ODOT's website. The primary contacts listed above will be prepared to assist any concerned citizen with documenting the infonnation or completion of the form. The fo1Iowing inf01mation should be included when filling out the form:

Contact Information: Name, Address, Phone, Email Representative Contact Information (when completing form on behalf of another) Issue Description: Location of Site, Topic ofissue, Narrative Description of CQCR Resolution Requested

ODOT will provide an initial response to acknowledge receipt of the CQCR within 10 days. If the CQCR addresses a location that is not under ODOT's jurisdiction, ODOT will promptly respond with the contact information to submit the CQCR to the appropriate jurisdiction as well as forward the CQCR to the appropriate jurisdiction.

Page 9 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 10 of 42
When ODOT receives a CQCR regarding accessibility at a location under ODOT's juriscliction, ODOT's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) will convene the stancling members ofthe ADA Communication Team (ADA-ACT) to investigate and take appropriate action to resolve tbe request as promptly as possible. Members of ADA-ACT are managers in ADA-concerned areas of ODOT. These knowledgeable managers can evaluate the CQCR or assign it to other technical staffto complete the evaluation. An initial evaluation of the CQCR will determine:
Accessibility Issue and associated infotmation. Feasibility ofsolution options Timeframes to initiate and resolve the accessibility issue.
As appropriate, ODOT may consider alternate solutions to address the needs raised in the request. When ODOT's evaluation concludes, a rep01t will document the conclusions drawn. This repott will include:
Copy of the CQCR Summary of findings Explanation of analysis Summary of any action(s) determined appropriate
ODOT will provide the requester a copy of the report documenting the findings ofthe evaluation within 10 days ofthe reports completion. For more complex investigations, the requester will receive information about the evaluation plan and timeline. Periodic updates on the progress of the CQCR evaluation will be provided based on this plan. The requester will also receive information on the resolution and actions taken, or to be taken to address the accessibility issue. This information will be shared in the necessary or preferred format of communications, such as large print, Braille, e-mail or audio recording. Oral communications by videophone or TTY are also options. This same repmt with the same information is also shared with patties within ODOT who will implement any corrective action. Follow-up by staff from the Office of Civil Rights ensures all corrective action is completed.
ODOT staff wants to hear about all barriers and suggested solutions. Staff will continue to make full effotts to ensure accessibility to all and compliance with ADA requirements by implementing improvements. Some requests may not be able to be accommodated immediately and some suggested solutions may not be feasible. ODOT staff will make best efforts, as patt of the evaluation of the CQCR, to explore viable alternatives. Once fmdings from an evaluation have been shared with the requester, follow-up questions can be directed to the staff of the Office of Civil Rights who will pw·sue any new, additional information.
16. Self-evaluation and transition plan
ODOT has independent obligations under the ADA to update its ADA transition plan, and conduct assessments in connection with that plan. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to expand or reduce any obligations ODOT has under the ADA with regard to a transition plan, nor does this Agreement create any enforceable rights regarding the transition plan. ODOT intends
Page 10ofl7

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 11 of 42
to continue to fulfill its ongoing transition plan obligations, separate and apart from this Agreement.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, ODOT will welcome input from Plaintiffs, the Accessibility Consultant, and other interested patties on how to conduct the self-evaluation and
update to its transition plan.
17. Joint press r elease
The Patties agree to announce this settlement in a joint press release describing their partnership in improving Accessibility throughout the Oregon State Highway System.
18. Enforceable agreement, class certification, and fairness hearing
This Agreement shall be filed with the United States District Court for the District of Oregon- Pmtland Division contemporaneously with Disability Rights Oregon (ORO) :filing on behalf of named class members of a federal class-action complaint alleging statewide violations ofTitle II ofthe ADA and Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act (Plaintiffs Second Amended Complaint) with respect to cmb ramps and associated pedestrian signals and seeking declaratory and injunctive relief DRO shall take steps necessary to certify a class with respect to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals (hereinafter, the class) and ODOT will stipulate to class cettification.
Upon class cettification, the Patties will jointly request approval ofthe Agreement
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e). After notice to all class members, the Court will conduct a
fairness hearing pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e) to decide whether the Agreement is a fair, adequate and reasonable resolution of the claims of the plaintiff class. The Parties agree to cooperate in presenting the Agreement to the Coutt and urging its approval as fair and reasonable.
If approved, the Comt shall enter this Agreement as an order of the Court, and retain jurisdiction over this Agreement until its termination. The Effective Date of the Agreement shall be the·date of entry by the Coutt.
Should the Court approve this Agreement, the Agreement shall preclude any member of the class from asserting any claims for declaratory or injunctive relief that are based on or arise out ofthe facts and practices alleged in the Second Amended Complaint relating to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals.
ODOT shall pay any costs related to class ceitification. Plaintiffs shall be entitled to an award for any costs, expert witness fess and reasonable attorney fees in connection with class certification.
Except as provided in this Agreement, during the pendency of this Agreement, Plaintiffs s hall not file suit under the ADA for any claim or allegation set fmth in the Second Amended Complaint declaratory or injunctive relief related to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signal.
Page 11 of 17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 12 of 42
Class members shall not be precluded from asserting claims for damages arising :fi·om allegations that curb ramps or associated pedestrian signals are not in compliance with the ADA or Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act. Class members are not precluded fi·om asserting claims that pedestrian signals not associated with curb ramps violate the ADA, and/or Section 504 ofthe Rehabilitation Act. All claims for violations ofthe ADA and Section 504 for work pe1formed in compliance with this Agreement are barred.
Class members shall not be precluded from asserting any claims based upon facts and practices alleged in the complaint unrelated to curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals. Any claims based upon facts and practices alleged in the original or First Amended Complaint unrelated to curb ramps and associated signals will be dismissed without preju~ice.
As described in this section, "curb ramps and associated pedestrian signals" shall include the curb ramps, signa[ pushbuttons, audible indicators, turning spaces immediately adjoining the curb ramp used to access the ramp, clear spaces immediately adjoining any signal button to enable a person in a mobility device to access the button, and pavement immediately adjoining a curb ramp used in determining the counter-slope. It shall not include any section of sidewalk, crosswalk, or other pedestrian facility other than that immediately adjoining a curb ramp or pedestrian signal.
19. No admission offault
In entering into this settlement Agreement, ODOT does not admit any wrongdoing or liability to Plaintiffs, or any entitlement by Plaintiffs to any relief under any claim upon which relief is sought in their complaint in this or any other matter. Inclusion of obligations under requirements in this Agreement shall not be construed as a finding or determination by the Comt that, absent this Agreement, ODOT would otherwise have such obligations or requirements.
20. Force Majeure
ODOT shall not be considered in breach of this Agreement to the extent that pe1formance of any of the obligations incurred herein is prevented by an event ofForce Majeure, including but not limited to: acts of God (such as, but not limited to, fires, explosions, eatthquakes, drought, tidal waves and floods); war, hostilities, invasion, act offoreign enemies, rebellion, revolution, insurrection, or military or usurped power, or civil war; contamination by radioactivity from any nuclear fuel, or fi·om any nuclear waste fi·om the combustion of nuclear fuel, radio-active toxic explosive, or other hazardous prope1ties of any explosive nuclear assembly or nuclear component ofsuch assembly; riot, commotion, strikes, lock outs or disorder; or acts or threats ofterrorism.
21. Funding
Nothing in tbis Agreement will be construed as permitting any violation of Article XI, Section 7 ofthe Oregon Constitution or any other law regulating liabilities or monetary
Page 12of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 13 of 42
obligations of the State of Oregon. ODOT will make diligent efforts to obtain necessary funding, appropriations, limitations, allotments, or other expenditure authority.
22. Authorized signatures
The signatures below of officials and attorneys representing the class Plaintiffs, and the State signify that these Parties have given their final approval to this Agreement. Each patty to this Agreement represents and warrants that the person who has signed this Agreement on behalf of his or her entity or clients is duly authorized to enter into this Agreement and to bind that patty to the terms and conditions ofthis Agreement.
23. Integrated agreement
This Agreement and any documents incorporated by reference constitute the entire integrated Agreement of the Parties.
24. Counterparts
This Agreement may be executed in counterpatts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and the counterparts shall together constitute one and the same Agreement, notwithstanding that each patty is not a signatory to the original or the same counterpart. All references to signature or execution ofthe Agreement shall be calculated from the date on which the last party executed the Agreement.
25. Notices
''Notice" under this Agreement shall be provided to the following or their successors:
Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capitol Street NE, MS 11 Salem, OR 97301-3871
Attorney General Oregon Department ofJustice 1162 Comt Street NE Salem, OR 97301 -4096
General Counsel Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Comt Street NE Salem, OR 9730 I-4096
Disability Rights Oregon 610 S.W. Broadway, Suite 200 Pottland, OR 97205
Page 13 ofl7

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 14 of 42
Law Offices of Stephen L Briscbetto Attorneys at Law 621 SW Morrison St Ste 1025 Portland OR 97205
26. Transportation remediation
The Parties agree that mitigation of transportation barriers for persons with disabilities is impottant, especially in areas on state highways where transit is limited and curb ramps have not yet been remediated. Before January 2017, ODOT will recommend the following to the Public Transp01tation Advisory Committee (PTAC).
a. ODOT Recommendations to PTAC Regarding PTAC Members
1. ODOT agrees to recommend to PTAC that it select an AOCIL member to fill the new Senior and People with Disabilities position on PTAC.
2. When the current Citizen/Transit User-at-large position on PTAC becomes vacant, ODOT agrees to recommend that PTAC consider candidates who are public transit consumers who self-identify as a person with a disability.
b. ODOT Recommendation to PTAC Regarding Worl<group
ODOT will recommend that the PTAC f91m a pennanent workgroup that focuses on helping Persons with Disabilities engage in transit statewide and to mitigate baniers. ODOT will also recommend to PTAC that the Disability Workgroup will address the following issues:
1. Investigate and solicit additional sources offunds to augment existing special ride programs to mitigate barriers throughout the state including taxi voucher programs, shuttle programs, and paratransit.
2. Identify methods to promote service ofthe target areas by local entities.
3. Analyze gaps in disability transit statewide, and analyze the state allotment offunds, including but not limited to division offunds· based on population of seniors, people with disabilities, and location of target areas to see if additional prioritization is wananted.
4. Recommend changes to state management plan to serve target areas, and to serve persons with disabilities throughout the state regardless of state highways.
Page 14 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 15 of 42

5. Prepare a case study of South Lane Wheels with model procedul'es and grant applications, so that other local entities could adopt similar programs.
6. Investigate and solicit a study, possibly tlu·ough encouraging an entity to apply for a grant using 5311 planning dollars, on any of the above topics.
IF PTAC agrees to form the workgroup, any recommendations from the workgroup will be made to PTAC. IF PTAC decides to support the recommendation and recommends that
ODOT adopt any ofthe workgroups recommendations, ODOT will reconsider only those recommendations that comply with federal and state laws and requirements
27. Education and outreach
During the class notice period, ODOT wHI jointly partner with AOCIL in coordinating meetings regarding this Agreement in each ofthe five ODOT regions. ODOT agrees to supply a . · meeting room in each ODOT region for these meetings. AOCIL will provide notification of these meetings to interested parties known to AOCIL; ODOTwill post notice ofthese meetings on its website and issue public notice ofthese meetings. ODOT and AOCIL will work together to develop the agenda for these meetings.
After this Agl'eement is approved by the Court, ODOT will offer a presentation during public meetings ofvarious regularly scheduled ODOT Transportation Advisory Groups, such as the Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Policy Advisory Committee. ODOT will make best efforts to schedule at least four such meetings each year through .2021 in geographically dispersed locations. These meetings will be designedto educate and engage the public about the work ODOT has performed under the Agreement, or is planning to perform, the availability of alternate routes during construction, the priorities of remediation, and the public complaint and request process. The meetings will also solicit public comment on the status ofaccessible public pedestrian walkways and facHities under ODOT's control in local communities. ODOT will collaborate with AOCIL to engage the local disability community and advertise these meetings.
WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby execute this Agreement,

Martha Mae Bryson

Date

Kimberly Morrisey

Date

'Ac~#~Laura Potts

D;a;te--;o-!G
Date

Laul'ie Sitton

Date Page 15 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 16 of 42

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 17 of 42

S. Prepare a case study of South Lane Wheels wilh model procedures and grant applications, so that other local entities could adopt similar programs.
6. Investigate and solicit a study, possibly through encouraging an entity to apply for a grant using 5311 planning dollars, on any of the above topics.
IF PTAC agrees to fonn the workgroup, any recommendations from the workgroup will be made to PTAC. lF PTAC decides to support the recommendation and recommends that ODOT adopt any of the workgroups recommendations, ODOT will reconsider only those recommendations that comply with federal and state Jaws and requirements
27. Education and outreach
During tl1e class notice period, ODOT will jointly partner with AOCIL in coordinating meetin~ regarding this Agreement in each oft11e five ODOT regions. ODOT agrees to supply a meetingroom in each ODOT region for these meetings. AOCIL will provide notification of these meetings to interested parties known to AOCIL; ODOT will post notice of these meetings on its website and issue public notice ofthese meetings. ODOT and AOCIL will work together to develop the agenda for these meetinss.
After this Agreement is approved by the Court, ODOT will offer a presentation during public meetings of various regularly scheduled ODOT Transportation Advisory Groups, such as the Public Transportation Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Policy Advisory Committee. ODOT will make best efforts to schedule at least four such meetings each year through 2021 in geographically dispersed locations. These meetings will be designed to educate and engage the public about the work ODOT has perfonned under the Agreement, or is planning to perfonn, the availability of alternate routes during construction, the priorities of remediation, and the public complaint and request process. The meetings will also solicit public comment on the status ofaccessible public pedestrian walkways and facilities under ODOT's control in local connnunities. ODOT will collaborate with AOCIL to engage the local disability community and advertise these meetings.
WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby execute this Agreement,

Martha Mae Bryson

Date

!Gmberly Morriseykk.
~
Carrie Taylor

Date

l' J.l

I (~

Date

Laura Potts

Date

Laurie Sitton

Date Page 15 ofl7

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 18 of 42

5. Prepare s ca$e study of South Lane Wheels with model procedures and grant applications, so that other local entities could adopt similar progtams.

6. Investigate and solici1 a study, possibly through encouraging an

entity 10 npply for a grant using 5311 planning dollars, on any of

.·.

the above toplos.

iP PTAC agrees to fonn the wockgroup, any recomm.endatioru from the worl<group will be made to PtAC. IF PtAC decides to support the recommendation and recommel\ds that
ODOT adopt any o~ the workgroups recommendations, ODOT will reconsldet only those
recommendations that comply wjfu. federal and state laws and requit¢ments

27. Education and outreach

Durlng tlle olass notice period, ODOT will jointly partner with AOCIL fn coordinating meetings regarding this Agreement in each of the nve ODOT regions. ODOT agrees to supply a meeting room in each ODOT region fur these meetings. AOCJL will :provide notific~Jtion of these meetings to interested parties known to AOCILi ODOT will post notice of these meetings on its website and issue publio notice ofthese meetings. ODOT and AOCIL witt work together to develop the agertda for these meetings,

After tl1js Agreement is approved by the Court, ODO'f Will offer a presentation during 'Public meetins,s of various regularly Ad1eduled ODOT Transportation Advisory Groups, such as the P\lbllc Transportation Advisoxy Corrunittee (PTAC) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Policy A<hri~ory Committee. ODOT will mak:e best efforts to schedule at least four such meetings each yesr through .2021 in geosrapbically dispersed locations. These meetings will be designed to
educate and engage fue p11blio about the work ODOT has performed under tl1e Agreement, or is planning to perform, the availability ofalternate routes during construction, tl1e priorltie1l of retnedi~~i..m, and the public complaint and request process. The meetin~ will also solicit public comment on the status ofaccessible public pedestrian walkways and fa¢ilities under ODOT's control in local ¢ommunities. ODOT will collebo:rate wjth AOCIL to engage the local disability community and advertise these meetings.

WHEREFORE, the Parties hereby execute this Agreement.

Martl1a Mae Bryson

Date

Kimberly Morrisey

Date

Carrie Taylor

Date

tw' r..aura Potts
~ ~L'aurie"sf '~t.t.o,n~ lbn
....

Date
Da~~ J~ \~
Page 15 of 17

H~V 3!90 3113S~H~

£9L9tv8£B9

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 19 of 42

5. Prepm·e a cnse study of South Lane Wheels with model procedures
and grant applications, so that othel' local entitiet> could adopt
similar ptugrums.
6. lnve!ltigatc and solicit n study, possibly tlu'Ough encouraging an entity to apply ibr n grdllt us-ing 5311 planning dollars, on nny of the obove topics.
IF PTAC agrees to fom1 the workgroup, 11ny recommendations from the workgroup will be m11de Lo P'l'AC. IF PTAC decides to support the recommendation and rcconltl)ends that QDOT adopt any ofthe workgroups recomtnendations, ODOT will reconsider o11ly those
recommendations that comply with federal and state laws and requi.re~nents
1.7. .EdlJCRtion and outreach
During the class .nolioe pedod, ODOT will jointly partner with AOCIL in coordin~tiog meetinga rego.rd.i11g this Agreement iti each of tho :five ODOT regions. ODOT agrees to supply a meeting room in each ODOT region fot those meetings. AOClL will provide notification of these meetings to :interested partiell known to AOCIL; ODOT will post notice of these meeting$ on its website and issue puhlio notice of these meetings. ODOT and AOCIL will work togethel' to develop tbe agend-a for these meetings.
After this Agreement is apptoved by the Court, ODOT will offer a presentntjon during public meetiJlgs ofvarious regularly scheduJed ODOT Transportatiou Advisory Groups, such as the PubJJc Transpottation Advisory Committee (PTAC) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Policy Advisory Co.mt.nittee. ODOT will make best effmts to schedule m·least four such meetings ench year thrt\ugb. 2021 in geographically dispe1·sed locations. Tb.ese meetings will be designed to educo.te ond engage the publio about the work ODOT has perfonned uudor the Agt·eement, ur i:J plannl.ng to perform, the avo.ilability of alternate routes during construc.tion, the priorities of remediatio.~ and the public complaint and req11est p.rocess. The weetiugs will also solicit public comment on the status of accessible public pe.destdan walkways and facilities under ODOT's control in local communities. ODOT will collaborate with AOCIL to engage the local diRRbiHty community atld advertise these meetings_
WHEREFORE, tho Parties hereby execute thJs Agreement,

Martha Ma.e Bryson

.Date
)1-bl-15
Date

l/~ 'd

8£.t.l£t?2£0Sl:Ql

Pnge 15 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 20 of 42

Pave Maule Jordan Ohlde

Date

Date

,I

Date

Pr.intNam.e: Matthew Garrett Its:· Director
· Association of Ol'eg~n Living Centers By: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ PrlntNrune: ---------------
Page 16 ofl?

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 21 of 42
SKM_C654eH)1'I ll91 G020.pd1 1 /1

William Phillips

Date

Marlhew Gmoll

Dare

Oregon Department ofTransportltion By. __________________

Print Name: M4rthew Garrell Jrr. Dircs;lor.

Dale: --------- - - -- Assooiation ofOregoo Living Centers By. __________________

Print Notne: - -- - - - -

Page 16 or li
.·

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 22 of 42

DaveMau]e

Date

Jordan Ohlde

Date

Date

Matthew Garrett

Date

Oregon Department of Transportation By: ______________________

Print Name: Matthew Garren Its: Director
Date: -----------------------
Association ofOregon Living Centers By: _______________________

PrintName: - - - - - -- - -

Page 16 of 17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 23 of 42

Dave Maule

Date

Jordan Ohlde

Date

William Phillips

Date

Matthew Garrett

Date

Oregon Department of Transportation

By: ------------------------
Print Name: Matthew Garrett

Its: Director

Date: ----------------------

Association of Oregon Living Ce ers

By: _L~~~====-

jb/A.{ Q PrintName:

CC) ~J(- V.CC ""'vY\ e._

Page 16 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 24 of 42

Its:

l.:::__ Date: _!..__/{+-;.IJ_--1-l..:.....:....:lo._..:(....
I

APPROVAL AS TO FORM:

By: _____________________
Stephen Brischetto Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date: ----------------

Disability Rights Oregon

By:

__~----------------­
Kathleen Wilde

Attorney for Plaintiffs

Date: ---------------

Oregon Department of Justice

By: __~----------------­
Carla Scott Attorney for State Defendants

Date: ---------------

Page 17 of17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 25 of 42

Its: Date: _ __ _ _ _ __ __

Date:

_...,_lt-+-/.:::.J+/--'1--\'o•:.._ _
rJ

Disability Rights Oregon
By:~~~~~---------­
Kathleen Wilde Attorney for Plaintiffs

U{'-l·(i({
Date: - - ' - - - - -- - -

Ol'egon Depattment ofJustice

By: {!~ _j_ ~~

Date:

Carla Scott .

Attorney for State Defendants

Page 17 of 17

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 26 of 42
APPENDIX A

1/r=

ADA Ramp Inspection Form

ijll il I

li L'!I:== = = = = = = -

...... __ ,__ i:•-=='='1t-==

~

Construction Year Contract No. Highway No.

MP

Cross Street Name

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 27 of 42

:

~

Ramp Style

(PR, PL, C, UD.

EW, CT, BT)

PERPENDICULAR RAMP (PR)

Calibrate smart level before each use.

rr -=

RAMP RUN 1

Running Slope 1

I!

c\ C' Pass

Fail

IJ $ 8.3% > 8.3%

corner Posi

Corner Positions

j _::y, Curb Running Slope L,. _ -~1

Cross Slope 1

r--- <2.0%

> 2.0%(;'

lj Detectable warning

C' I (TD, X)

None (C~

(

3A

1
;)

~ ~~ t

Lip Height

~

C', ;J ~ 1/4" > 1/4" :J~

-"- Increasing /Jile<J<}e 2
Oirectlon

street

·~ er-
• Run J=Turning spac;e (J)oubfe-axmfedJ
PARAUEL RAMP (PL)

COMBINATION RAMP {C)

???
UNIQUE DESIGN (UD) -take photo

)>

--oo

WHmHml Pedesbi"an access route {To measure clear width)

(1)

::J
0x.·.
}>
-u

..§gggJ <>

Detectable warning surface Cross sl.ope (2.0% max.) Running slope (8.3% max.)

Q)
<C

.J Countsr slope (5.0% max.)

(1)

-"

l

landing area (X&'(} (2.0% max./4' x4' min.)

.0....

Gutter Aow Slope (as directed)

c.o

734-5020 (10-17-2016)

Gutter Flow Slope Counter Slope(+/-} Slope Differential RAMP RUN 2 Running Slope 2 Cross Slope 2
unningSiope3
Cross Slope 3
TURNING SPACE
Landing Width X LandinglengthY landing Slope X Landing Slope Y

I

I]

- II
r==- L

_

-_---,'11I <

5.0%

~'~='·i

>

5

.0%=~-

·

I Romp Posi1lo

Romp
POSitio~
'~-

?£

Pass

Fail

..__, ~ North.Arrow

:

: s 8.3% ,'~, > 8.3% ,",

Cr -..------- ----1-

",..-.. '

'...-.~..

- :----

---·:

~

2.0%

'...

} >
,.

2.0%

~

;

Pass

Fail

Function Condition (.G,F,P)
Good (G)= all applicable boxes on left pass. OR Design Exceptio n addresses criteria that do not pass.
Fair (F) =a ll boxes on left pass, except detectable warning

-------· :------:$83% ~:~J>8.3% ~=) Poor (P) =any box fails other than detectable wamlng
:------: S2.0% C)> 2.0%~:)

'------- 1

See also Standard Drawings R0755 and TIVI458 to assess

I Pass

Fail provisions not shown: (flares, inlets, pushbutton reach, alignment, etc.)

'

l -I1 > ,.

'*

Comment:

4 -~.··11< 4 ..~~ ~-------------------------------------:

ij . and ··~ ~ 'J or

·\::::..'

'

1
:

1

I S2.0% '>2.0%
]

MISCELLANEOUS Clear W idth (feet)

~ 4'

P\as~s < 4'

\F~a i l

;~---

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

. --

__

'
J

It -~====-~==~-~~~
Physical Condition {G,F,P}

-~
tnspectoi'SSignature

ADA Design Exception {Y,N)

~

il

--------. Design Ex. Control Number

..
I

I

Print name clearly
;

I--- ----- -I

- -- - - - - - - -- - -- - - - - -- - -- Company/Agency

= = = - If-=' =

C-er-ti-fic-a-ti-on--N.o. .

r

1

L' .-------JI1
Crew No.(ODOT)

http://www.oreeon;eov/ OOOT/HWV/CONSTRUcnON/Paees/HwyConstl'ormsl.aspx

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 28 of 42

R
=np

s~~

(PR,P!.,C,UD E\'l,cr,WT)

~~~~=~~~ ==!iiU ID~~==-I====L==d ADA Ramp Inspection Form

iji!F= co~nYar ccmna:uo. tfi,.>ln\"K)'fiQ.

MP

O"OS$StreetName:

ll'-t!l$jljiWJju@l

~, ~~~s:S~-::#

:SS.:rn8>8.3918 It c:alibrate.smartle'lel before~ch use.

RAMP RUN :l.

Pass

Fait D ~

: S!:~/:W.~"'l.S

?

RunningSiope~
curoRunru-n..,-. slope

• ~ s..3r,. .... >s.s~•

Co= ~O<:i3.J~oJ~ IY'i

>-

'~-

~"' fV~'>-;
.~.,-~~1 '

PERPENDICULAR RAMP (PR)

~~;

U U Detectable Wa;ning L....:Jltro, X)

None

Up Height

0 0 n ft

~ :S l/4ft

> 1/4•

1' _;_· ---~1:.....
( 31! ::)

~ ~

·.;
---=:--:

~ fn-:r~':s;':~""'

Street

GCouutt~esrlAoopweS~l+op/e- l

ij
,.

R~s.w.Q>s.or.Q ft

(;1' 4~
R 112

PR~o~m,.=.

· ~ I•Torttlnp-~todl PARAllEl. RAMP (PL}

Slope -tfferential .Qj;\Mg!U!~J
RunnlngSiope2
Cross Slope 2

I)

~mp ?osit:oh1

Pass

Fail

I

I I I ••

1 -- -,

..

~- runc:DonCon~(G,F,P)

! t_ ___ __ ~S.3r.~_;>S.3Y.~ _;

r-----, L_____ _! -<?-·()%._..,_-,, >.-, oh."...._....,"

Go.od jGj • a! appliab!e 1>c1= c:n left pass. tr.t Oesi!lD EloC:itp:ioo ad~ criteri:a ;;~g, do""'~

Runnll\2 SlOP::: 3

-... .. ,------- Pass

Fail Fair(F)..,all bon:son ldt pass. ~ deti>C3ble v.oamin:

:.._______J:$8.3%:... )>8..5%~......} PG« (P) : anybaxtai!s cnl>uthan de~\\<amin:

>2-0%:::J :--,---- : S203G ::)
== '--- - --•

Suc:isc$:;Sid::rdDtTJUtir.gs 1i!>7SSC!XiTM45S Q

lURNJNG SPACE

Pass

fajJ ;r:>~:1$DC:shcwn:(ftans,wm, pus.,burmr.raod>,

=I

i

1t:i!g11:r>e:rr, m;,)

t.anom:Widthx Landing lengthY

c : J - -·--·-' > 4"•

.,.< A-'* () :C-o-m-m--e-n-t:---------------------------;

OOMBtNAnON RAMP {C)
? ?? UNIQUE DESIGN (UD) - take photo

Landing SfOPi! X l.andingSiopeY

!CJl r~ ====l1

and S'Z.O%

l: >2o.r0~ :,j :

----------------~====~~~~==::=:=c==~l

!
;:I

)>
--oo
<D :J
x0·.
]>
"U I»

1:;::::::::::! ~an accoc3 rou1e (T'o mnstre a- w1dth)

-~ -G=-
)'
~

Oaloc:table wami'ig Slll1al:e

Clo5:s$1opa {2..0" IIIIIX.) Rutring $(Ope {8.3S ~)

am., c-ner
l..arr:*lg

salncspaep(:S:.&O'%Y).~.-.=> ,.v

x.-

QJ!Iot Flow S!opo {ls<fll'llded)

MISCEllANEOUS
Cfearwtdfu (feet) B
.. Physical Condition (G,F,Pr
ADA Deslgn Exeption (Y,N)
Desien Ex. a:mtrol Number

ij 2.4' I

QPass <4' . ij

QFail

:--------------------------------------: I I
~~~~~;~.~~~~~~~----------------- oa~

n ~ ll
:~--------------J:

L..._d;
i

uij ~ -L-~_-~o _-~ _-n _-_- _-riO,J..

c:.ms:mw.r.p.aq

en-·• 1110. (OOO'!j

(Q
<D

734?020 (1~19-2.016)

-N
0
co

I !~eserEiiii~:.~i:rnii ;;~ ~~~J r;: .~·.:- ~;..-r:ti =·"f~7 )~-~~ ~~

rr::;;::/,,fw-.~;:;;.~-:/'rf'l~Yl~,(/P:;::.'ltW)"Or::::;ro.~

== r-.

11£"

~

Pr"l"..t:tNametS'.!<:aOIIJ

ADA Ramp fnspection Form {Pe rp encficular)

Uo U

~D I

conmuaianYer convacrNo. ~wayNo.

rAJ>

O"OssSl:Uttnme

j Submit by E-mail
ij

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 29 of 42

CUrb Running Slope

Cross Slope 1

Det..edableWamm• g

!..ip Height

Gutter Flow Slope eounterstope{+/-J Slope Differentia!

r=~ ss.o%0>s.0%0 Q,B,." 1 , ~

EcmpPos:iF.on

Wnere flared sJ~ C!Xist,. a 4' wide unobstn:cted

function Condition {G,F,P)

sid~valk is required around the flared sides with cross stope not.greaterti-.an 2.0Y...
lfthe runningslope ofthesidewalk.around tile ilared sides is more tha:~ 5.0%, use a combination

~od IG)= all! applico!t.e :boxi:s Oil left p2SS. OR~ E=polol\ ac!<IP<-SeS atteria ;bat do 11« pass.
P.Ur 1F}=au haxesoo left pass. ~ det=aa~>r~ ,.•"Zntin:
Pcor(P) •actfhaxfails othutban ~warning

style ramp inspec:Oonfonn.

SU c:\soSU:ndatr! ormvf"'gs1\.1>:55ar:d l"MASS ::::o a = ru=~R.N.,l=N~G~SP=-~c=r,----------P- ass----F-a-i~ i prc.tsiDr.sDC:: v.cwn: {.i!ares, .Wr.r,;xS".J:o.TrDnrear!:,

t.andin:Wid'"..hX Landing LengthY

~•

1

1ctisn;ne.-rr, m:.)

0 0 . =
br==~

> 4.,. and

, ... :r

~C-o-m- -m-e-n-t-----------------------------i

PERPENDICULAR. RAMP (PR)

tanding Slope X

)l <? .w
~ -U7.0

,.. • .., 0 i"-*4,. A>

,
1

:
t

h.:::::::!:!:! Pedestrlan:accoss .rct11e (Tomeasuro c:IBa:rwlellll) ==.:..:.l

t_ .a~~n~d:i~~o:~~o~pe~Y~---=~==:=~!:==~==~==:c~:J:I

: I

)>
--oo
CD
:axJ·.
]>
"U
Ill

-1~1imiilg~1J <>
j
'l

Detadable Vl'llring GUrfeoe
en:- :slope (2.0% msx.)
Runnlllg S Dpe (8..3'30 ~) O:lu"d8r elope (S.~ ~
landing BlVS (X & 'I') ~ max./~ X 4 ' min.)* " IfCIOnSirllinad at bade otwd(, M.. Y length isS'.

Goller AowSiop& {as dlre<:ted)

P MlSCEl.J.ANfOUS
ClearWtdth{feet)
Physical Condroon (G,F..P} .ADA Design Exception (Y,N) Design Be.. Corrt:rol Number

0 0 Pass

Fa.1 l

:

u ~ 4'

<4'

--- -----------------------.-------~j

C: ~ ll ~ [r--------n,
L_______ J

IIISpeCiO?ssrgaarur~
ltname::
UC:>mpa:ty/~~C)'

r.>=o;r.a====a
~~ODJ
H[~=~===]
CCE\'1 NO• .;<lOOt)

<0

CD

-w
0
co

734-50"'..0{1o-u.20l.6)

·~~ResifPltlfe~f.@~id I :_.: ~~ :-..: : · 1.!2.-:~·" 1!'' ··~=--~~-~:

:r:::;:.'.~~~,_~rr.;:;n-..·.YiaJ~CF~u.,.lh;:::.·rm,~

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 30 of 42

T= I--·-·~·

"'"' ;=~~ ~ l~i!l;;ttild#§ubiil
!' ~== ~

Slopel

,l ~,._~ ---.....:---'-P:2.o..,-'

~ 3:

2,~, p. .

"-.. ..

::§r;. AI\

3 2

Slreet

.slcP•~

.$/~ COt.nl'U

.../

~

~ 1/iJrt 1•Tumln9 .spac-o

~

~

(f)ou!;{rrct)iJn/cd}

Lip Height Guti'er Flow Slope CounterSiope(+/- } stope Differential
AAM!?.RUN?
Running Slope 2
crozSiope2

'l-------":
~ f-._-_-_-_-_-_;!

sa.3% ........• ,_,
S2..0%.•..'.......,.

>S.
~,. ?-

3% .......... ,_,
0~, ,·,_-,,

; ·~

1-1. )' rr.ti2

u

I. ~ .' _,..1

! Rar:'l !:> ?o:ffio~

(l
l!omo ll•
Pe:iti'Zl!

I
.i'unction Condmon \G;1',P)

Good lG)•allappi<:abtebaoeson lett pass. ort D~en Exe:ption ach!resses cmeria ..mrt do ooc pass.

RAMPRUfol3
~rnngSJope3

r------, ,,.. PaSS

fail I'U" lfl: aD boxes on left pass, exo:eJn d~cabl"e v11umo::

1

~~o:~..~;,,~>. 'O.•..)>s~~ ,.,,_,J Poor (P) : auy box tails ctllj!Tthao d~le wa~

:=-:.:.:-:.::~

-...

... ...

Cross SlopeS

:

: ::£2.0%:__:>2.0%;_,1

Oxn>rer sJc~_.

t...---- --:J

suOsc~~at/;):TIK-:ngsM7SSrmti71~:t~

• IWn I•TuroiDg sptJt:2 (J)c.ucl..-ct:Jan~
PARALLEL RAMP (PL)
1::;:;:::::-::j P8dos11fan aa:ess rout& (To moasuro dc:lr v.idlh}

TURNING SPACE Landing Vl/id'"Jl X Landing !..ength Y

1>-c>Ss

Fail ~•i.<io.·..sncrstu:•m: (}ia.<I:S, mietl, pusf.J:uarmr~adl,

r:Jt~d~· . ol;n.'n~!IC)

j

U and

or

Q

,C-o-m--m-e-n-t------------------------------,

I

J

I

)>
-o -o
<D
~

===-== ::._._: ¢> .J

Delectable waainO 61lrfsce
Closs slope (2.D'l' -.} Running e!O)Xt (8.3% max.) Counter slope ($_()% rmx.)

'i" · landing area (X& Y) (2..0% max./ 4' x 4' min.).. • rr oo~ at bad< of wal<, min.. Y ~Qnglh i& 5'.

Landing Slope X

h

Lancfing Slope Y

H

MISauANEOUS
<lear-Width [feet) j!

Physical Conortion (G,F,P}

I

! H s2.JJ% >2.09o

I I

II _ _· __ :

I I

I

I

Q Q -.-------------------------------- E~4' I! I! n

P= <4'
~

fail .

I I

-~
oate ~~~~~~C?~s~~--.~ ~~~----------------

cx.·

Gutter Aow Slope (as directed)

)>

-o

ADA Design Exception ('l,N) Design Ex. Cor.trol Number

~ _ ~ lj
. ;.I.. ____-_-__-_,I

~·
a.-..-.

: ;- -
,._S:.:,.c.

HP

M

cso:u

<D

-~
0
CD

734-5"020 {1.0..33-2016)

·.•.::=!_:. J.r~r~,?~-=:- ~!"~ 1.!. • J : , :--:1 ?~ · - ~1:-J_,!_~

·:::::;=l/·NW"#I~.?"'·:O~""':W'.t,v.·m~!..~~~c~~

Submit by E-mail

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 31 of 42

RAI\I1P RUN 1

Pass

Fatf

Running-Slope:!. Curb Runnmg Slope

':::
-~

""" •4' •

crossSiopel

!~
'"

Detectable Waming

• I

UpH~
Gut"..er AO\v Sk>pe

M . ll 0 }J H~~8:Sl/4D

..!
> 1/4.0 -----·~4~1

(f l C J eounter-sJcpe-~+/- J

~s.oy.Q > s_.oy.Q n

ij 2

Slope Otffere=l ~

• ;;:amp ?csi!::cf']

l!AMW!IrV Running:Slope 2 Cross Slop~ 2 RA!IIIP RUN$ RunningSiope3
CrossSfopeS

?ass

Fall

·-

,

•

L_____ ! :

!

r~-------------'

:SSS2-.3.0%%~-·,.-.-.__-";,>>82..30%~,!-.-,-_--.~~.,

' . • Function Condition {G,f.?)
~d {G)= -;hppJIG~ boxes CD left pass.
Olt ~:n =~"ion acklres:ses afwinh:n de> aot pas:..

Pass

Fall Fair ffj=all bens o a left p-..ss, c::~ <le~!e vaminj;

L______ ] :_,1 r·--·----- :SS.S% :_-.._.. ;>s~ ., ... man Po:>r (P) • allYbox!ae ether d~e\\Wni~

-... .. ,.-·--·-·
.... :

--~:~2..0%:

,
;>2.0%:... )

....______,

.SiNcl:so~nd(3;J~fD\\~F.D755ar.d~:o~

TU RNJNG SPACE

?ass

fail pmo.'fslo.·.: nc:shewn.: ifto.-r;. ~ pu:s.~burro., re«!J,

COMBINATION RAMP (C)

Landing Width X landing Lengthy landi115 Slope X landin~ Slope Y

u Ql

I

c.:'~"r;'=J

r 0 Q 24'* fl and

---4~,""

,IC--o-m-m--e-n-t - --------- ---------------- ---.I

I

I

I

I

I

I

r Y ,,

q :S2.0%

>2.0%

I I I

I 1

I

1

! I

I

)>
--uu
<ll
:xa:I·.
]>

1::::::::::-:iJ
-I --~ <-
j ~

~ !Ialii$$ ltXliB (ro..-sunu:leat'Oiicllll)
~ MU1Iing =face Clos1slop& (2.0% 'INIX.)
Aumlog *'Pe CB-3" ~)
Cau'1larsope (5.0% max.)
a. ~ - Q< Y) {2.0% n-./4' x 4" min.)"
.. lf~d llt bad<cfwalk.rrin. Ylengthis5'.

0 0 _____________________________"________ I

I

ICVl1e1aS!C'\'EVJ".t.dlAtNitE(O~UtS)

a

ij~ 4' Pass <4' Fail :

:ij

Physical Condition (G,f,P)
.4DA Design &c:ption (Yl~)
Oedgn Ex. Control Number

h •H
~ •n
r----- -;
,~--------",

=~Wtcr'ss;,owur~
[
Pnrr: nam.de.at~f r rJ

o;r.e
==;Jd ij ;;=oa

L_______ ac-e:-tff-i.c-:a-ti-o-n-L.'{,o.

y

j

S U!Ier RawSiope(EtSdlrected)

----------------------- com~~YIA,~

cnwNo.iOOOT)

'"'0

cIo»

734-5020 (10-1.9-:?.0l.G)

'. ;~:J~~et~~ Foljil.~~~~:JI <:::.o.• 1•·•:::.~:. ;; 01;·.-;,. ::=.:::..:-:::. ~l~ r< t: . ~e;::~.~.,.iOlXNI'fr:.,..~~~~'Hw)or..._.==r<

<ll

-<.n
0
(!)

Submit by E-mail

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 32 of 42

g IPR •
!tamp SlY~*

O!!ibratesmart level before each use..

Running Slope 1
CUrb Runnlf\i Slope
cross Slope 1
OeU!cta.bUe \Varni.n&
Up Height
Gutter Flow Slope
Counter Slope{+/-} stope Differe.rri:laI
31ef'lded Tcansitfons are locatfons where the
pedestrian w~lk\wy and the str~t aossinl;" intersectatthe same plane wiihoutthe need of a ramp. If a slope is ereater than 5.0%, this iS not a Bter..de:d Transition ~nd should be inspected usinga differentinspectionform.

c 3A ~1J I~>~-'P

~ Joc.-zcs!og 1./ii~

I =====·~~

0 lli fi

a 4/.,,~,~;-I:1<2

G~rttaPian
Pc cns

street
l!_1_"~·~/~ -d~-~i'~-

! 2or.tpPosmc4

~

1 · n Func:tlon Con<mfon (G,f,P)

GOOd (G) :all appfoab!f! boX.S OD left pliSS. O;t ll~gn ~OD ll<f~afterill!Jr. do ace~
FU' (F}" au boxes on l~ft pass, ex:.e;:;t dtozacablt ·~

P=<" (P) • -..:r.y bax fails em~ de.-..cnble v:am~

su asos:::n.::::rd ~;,gsF.D75S ar.d 'iliU.SS ~ <ttSCSS
Fr:ll.~-.snc:.<Jo.t:nn: (jiares, ;me:~;. pusltb::;'OOII reod:,
Cli;ts.=.~ esr.J

·IC-o--m-m--en-t------------------------------.I

I

I

I

I

I

I

BLENDED TRANSffiON (BT)

)> "'0 "'0 <D
:ax::l.·
]>
-u
Ill <0

1::::·:. "'
~ ~
¢o
~
......

PcdcRiatleocc:sa rau1c (ro mcaauc deer wid:!'~) OGiaclllbJg. wwnklg &rlac:e
~~(2.CW.Il'IBX.)
Rurmlng tlope (6.0% me><.)
Countlof&topo(Smfon!CDt} GUC1101'1Iclwslope(l'.s~

PhysiCi!ll Condition (G,f,P}
ADA Design E.xception (.Y,N)
Design Ex. Control Number

=
;----'"'---: !., _______ ..!

u- n

-.~~~-~~~~s~.~~·~~e~--------------- oa~

M

n~~~~,

= ; ; Pnnt naroedbiJY

evtfticnion NO• 11

"===~='='"====...,====~I!
;::

'--------~

O'ewNo.(Ooot1

<D

-0>
0 <D

734-502G (10-J.S..:W16)

lrt~\~~t"Eitj{i~~~ijii~f . ry =.-:· ~~~~~ _.]:-~_:.._!~-~ - 1 - .. ~:.?! =-.=J

l·=r::.:..u'W.c:r""~~i""~~·..y;m.\S7'F.2.1'0o:~-:;,~

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 33 of 42

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 34 of 42

=;y~
D~== (
Pn>jec:mm., W l
~~ iEW ->--~ .-- """

ADA Ramp lnspection FQrm (End of Walk}

~Submit by E-mail

] I n II i j 0 1 COtt1:0'\laion Yur Co=No.. HioJir.vayNo.

MP

Oe.scri)ni<m ofloanon {nsrar:rcrcs:SU"eet ""'anl1maricJ

J JPo'si~~ions L "'""'" ""'"'..,., "'"'"""'""·

MMl!.RUN 1

Pass

[..

Fan -

-

• !

CoxDe2: Po=

I

RunningSiopel r::::Hse.3%q>8396Q

~. v GA!~~

crossslopel

B

[)e;'.Ectablewaming J x

lip Height

~

is2.o96Q>2.096Q
3Jrro,XJ 0 NoneO
3J 0 0 _ Sl/4" > 1/4"

~ t_~

( 3A ~1] ~t _.a_s_ _

===r:;::::.:;.,l

1.-.cr=~_lf!.,_
- = lw•

2

-=-__,
Slreet

...

USe the Enckri-lilalkstyl: inspectionfonn orko{ in locations where sidewalk endsat locationsthat are not interseCtions.

4"' ,/,Q2
b U. ·
R=p i>osil!o'nl

. ~=:>
l'o!..!.l.i.<=

~ .,j,

JJo

--.:::;_~..:;:;--

'?Ja~

Turningspac.:/landing area may be me<Dured at eitherthe bottom of the ramp

I I

•••

))C~

ij Function Condition (G,F,.P)

3

run or atthetop.

Good (G)=all appliob<eboxe>:on leftpaos. OR Oesli:Jt fxaplion ~ afteria mu donot~

?.1lr{F)= a:1 tooxu on kft pass, !!XaP" daea:ablewarnlnt

Poor (P)oaany be>< !3!1scdrer'Chi!n dete=blewam;n:

-"""",...,..,.,.,.=-"',...,.=-------------- Su:JisoSa:r.:ir::r:Drawir:as!'.!!75Sar:~';l,ol.15Sn>=

TURNINGSPACE

Pass

Fail p!'a'.isi>r:s.oo~s.':c"m:(fiCf'e.i-:ka,pusr.b=nnadl,

Landing Width X Landing Le!'lgth Y LandingSio~X

~

.....~. .=~e:::::..J

: : ~ u~ ~==a "'\'1n>-d 4, Qo<4r•
~

eomment_-

Q•~---------------------------- --· -:
•

l

l

a===1l $2.\)0~ >2.0'!~

)>
--oo
CD
:ax::1·.
'}>
"U
cIoll
CD
-co
0
CD

Lamf~Slope Y

~

:

,

: ~~~~~~-~~~~~-=a===-=======~·

----------------------------f----1 I l'vUSCEU.ANEOUS
aear'lllidth <teet)

i ~ 4•

0Fail :
< 4'

l

!::::;::;;:;J Pedool!lan ..x:essroullt (To measunt .-.width)

<1- Qoaslolopa~"""''

-

Rblri1g...,. (II..S!' ...-.)

Physical Condition (G,F,P}

ij

ADA Design Exception (Y.N}g!::::===:a

Design Ex. Control Number

-----,
_ _ ____._ _.JI

1

LandingMill()(&'I) (2m; ma.{4'x of rOO.)

734-5020 (1(1-1()-2016)

iW'~~f.Eififri¥,E;g}ril~7,Jil . - :y~~}~ ·:;_,!2:-:~~~t·Ilr. ~\;.G?· ?-,~,!..~

m?ss.z=.
1 _~ ~

1r·Date

-

1

c::::::; Pr'..trrn2nlt:Ue.loflY

Certificoticn No.

ar:== = = = = = == = = = Jij

CcmpVI'ff~·

Cl'f:'.v Mo. {OOOl)

t;t:;:r..~....~..;o:r..:.ooat~·tt'/COIISfjlljCQCr~"P:;t::.~:~

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 35 of 42

7r.~ H

ft UD .- ij
itlmp~e

PrO)eO:IQ!Dels=Ionl

ADA Ram p [nsp ection Form {Uniq ue Desiti:n)

[1'1!!·6\IIJD§u@f

c.:r.!!c:UonY.;Jl n I0 1 ~~==========='~d • QJCEUGctNO.. Hi-:b~O'fNO.

M?

c!r!=.ossstreet tolane

~

li ~ •n. L Oll£bratesmartleve! beforeeach use.

r3· RRuAnMniPn~.RSiUoNp1e:l.
CUrb R•.JnnfngS[op.::
.--.~.,S~Iope l
0 0 ( 1 Detectable Wcwnfng 0 0 Up 1-!P~ht

. .

Pass

Fat1

C::>=o::

~S.3% :S8..3%§>S..3%

...,.. ..,.....

>8.3%.

Co:co.c>: P<=>.Hoti
. . ..~

~~ i':>s.ii:J.c=
b

?
1~

,

<-L-v"7"o" >:LOo/"o"U

I
,J

•
•

uJj (~i Dl /, 4X")

None >!/4ft

· 3.lt

1
-"="I ·J~
2 j

,-

~ ~>--
!1~E
,;rr=<

r

\
a

2lJ.:2...if.€'·.T,. .<G-i.-J~c?"o.-'.,..._--_?__-, --S-'!t-G-at

~ ss.~~J>S.0%· 0 M ;
Gutter Flow Slope

CounterSJope{+/-} ~ -·-v'

· ti

~Ti. ?~~ ~~)'- I ~
IL . ,

Gr=ck"
~

~------

Click h&<e to add image (pdf)

S1o Diiferentlal

~'Cttnn

Running Stope 2

Cross Slone?

.._...._..,.

>

, .....,,.,,..,;~Ul't"

_

Runn:nrS!op....e 3

Crossstope.:>

~m.~·L""e

~

·~

?ass

Fail

r -- - ,
2.0Yo:.'-· :'-------J: :$3..3%,,-_-,,>8..~1~ ....-. _-,~
[------~ :S2.0%•'~; >

!..__ __ -~

'-

-"

r-------

Pass

Fail

-~

-~

~

~ SS~ :... .)> S..33S ~.. )

!;:-=:====~:

:S2.

0%

_,
:_ _;

;,

-
2...G%~ _

_l

~------'

k

d

Pass

Fall

~amy.:> ?osrncr; .
?unction Condition (G,.=)')
Goodt:i) •all~ppr.abl"_~onlel'tpass. -oRC'2::SI:r'J ea:~p:.onad'(lr::s:si!:Sc:rftaria;hatdoo«~
P.lit'lF)• allboxesonleftp=,~t:Ulet<>~v4r.Unr; Poor (P) = attyb.o.xfailsother~ tfe!eC:Iblt:\\errU:t:
S<!co::~~onmir.gsF.D7S5a::aTM45So:>c:= ~i:siottsn~;':.an.,.,.:(j!cr=,~.pus."lb-.;-a:oare.ach, ::i.~n-:tt_ l!tc.,l

1.3ndin::VVidtil X

ff

ij Landing l e n g t h Y

l l ij
I

~2n:4d'

Q

<4' or

Q

;r::~----------------------- --- --1

???
UNIQUE DESIGN (,UO} -ta~ photo
(:::.::::::::1 ~I!ICCBI3 I'OC.Clt (To 11183SU11tciestM:!th)

::==;....) j" l.3ndingSlopeX

r:::J~1 _(}%

>2.()7C,

1 1

I I

Landin• Slope Y

:

:

-;:;I.:Cl=~==,:;-21;-4-.~o~-<-4-=-.-:8~-~il I~----------------------------f_____ I

)>
--oo
CD
:cxJ·.
}:>

M#Q
4-
-
-i1'

O~le-wamit1g~acc
Cn=Siope (2.~ ~
Fbmiogsloprt (U%- IISX,) Co unza ulopo{S..Q'l'max.)
t.andlrlgareepc&Y) (2.3 ~/4'X-4'm111J

Ph).'Slc:al Condition (G,F,P) ADA Design exception (Y,N)
Design Ex. Control Number

H

n T

ij h • ·--------~
~--------:

lnSp~o?s Slga:mlfe
l .
Pnrtt~dearf,
L::

Date
tl w:p=_==c:;'lu c:em6c;r.jooNo.
il c===~=J

\)

_

·Gut!ot"Flow Sfopoo (a$~

compan-f/t.r;encv

c:e.w r~o. •:ooar'J

Ill

<0

734-5020 {:1.[)..19-2016)

!~;,-ij~e~Eilur~J;Om{~il

.r; :~;·3_1· :E-'":E-E-J-T~~-:- ="~..~,:. -=--~ ~-~

:r::::;:./lw.·,..~:zrr::;;::a_~'!C=~:lf\'.,,.r;--m~~~~~,o~

CD

-co
0
co

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 36 of 42
APPENDIXB

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 37 of 42
ODOT Audible Pedestrian Signal policy, ODOT Traffic Manual, section 5.3
5.3 Audible Pedestrian Signals
Audible pedestrian signals provide information in a non-visual format such as audible tones, speech messages, and/or vibrating and tactile surfaces. If a signalized intersection presents difficulties for pedestrians who have visual disabilities, an audible pedestrian signal may be provided to augment the standard pedestrian signal.
ODOT often receives requests to install audible pedestrian signals at signalized intersections from local jurisdictions and from individuals who need the non-visual format. When the local jurisdiction has a written policy to install audible pedestrian signals on traffic signals within their jurisdiction, work with the local jurisdiction to proceed with the audible signal installation.
If the local jurisdiction does not have a written policy to install audible pedestrian signals, or the request is from an individual who needs the non-visual format, the following process shall be used.
• Document the local jurisdiction or individual user request to install the audible signal. Send a copy of this documentation to ODOT's Office of Civil Rights (OCR), Attention ADA Title II Coordinator.
• Hold an on-site meeting with the requestor to understand the issues from the requestor's perspective. Discuss this location as well as alternate locations that may be investigated as more appropriate options. Include a discussion about the user's route and learn of any other barriers to accessibility along that route. o Document this on-site meeting and the issues discussed. Send a copy of this meeting documentation to ODOT's office of Civil Rights, Attention ADA Title II Coordinator. o Often the user's route includes local jurisdiction systems as well as the state highway. When this is the case, send a copy of the meeting documentation to the local jurisdiction. Follow-up with a phone call to the local jurisdiction to discuss the audible signal request, the on-site meeting, and any required coordination to address the audible signal and any identified barriers on the user's route.
• Following the on-site meeting, perform an engineering study in response to the request as discussed in Chapter 4E of the MUTCD. The engineering study includes the following: o Initial request o Onsite meeting notes o Requested intersection location(s) o Intersection characteristics o Signal phasing o Traffic volumes o Posted speeds o Sight distance o Crash history o Neighborhood acceptance o Evaluation of alternative routes o Include alternate signalized crossing to determine if there are more desirable locations for the audible signal location.
• Consult with the local jurisdiction on the engineering study.
Appendix B, Page 1 of 2

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 38 of 42
• When the engineering study discovers community opposition or conflicting format requests, contact Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living (AOCIL) for in.put on methods to resolve this issue.
• The Region Traffic Engineer will coordinate with the OCR ADA Title II Coordinator to determine if installing the audible signal is the appropriate response to the request. Approval authority to install the audible signal, which is a traffic control device, is delegated to the Region Traffic Engineer. However, in those circumstances that the Region Traffic Engineer determines that based on the engineering study, the audible signal should not be installed, the Region Traffic Engineer and the OCR ADA Title II Coordinator will determine what other options will be used to address the request.
• Region Traffic Engineer will contact the requester and discuss the ODOT determination on the audible signal request. If the audible signal has been determined to be inappropriate for this circumstance, the Region Traffic Engineer will discuss the alternate option(s) ODOT will use to address the request. Discussion on timeframes for completion and ODOT commitments for ongoing communication by ODOT to the requestor need to be part of this discussion.
Appendix 8, Page 2 of 2

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 39 of 42
APPENDIXC

. I

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 40 of 42
Appendix C
High Priority Locations for the purpose of Settlement Agreement Section 6 Within 1 through 6 below, priority is given to walkways that serve government offices and facilities, public transportation, places of public accommodation, places of employment and continuity of routes.
1. Missing curb ramps 2. Existing curb ramps, functionally a barrier because of any
a. Lip> 1/2"
b. < 3' wide c. < 36" x 36" turning space with cross slope >3% d. Ramp running slope > 9.5% 3. Missing and non-compliant curb ramps at locations where there have be~n wheelchair pedestrian fatalities since 2010, and locations of any future wheelchair fatalities. 4. Existing curb ramps missing truncated domes. 5. Missing and non-compliant curb ramps at cities/towns/ communities locations without public transit that have sidewalks aod curb ramps. 6. Missing and non-compliant curb ramps on critical corridors recommended by AOCIL and other representatives of the disabled community. In addition, citizen complaints or requests to address 1 and 2 above will be deemed high priority. Below are ODOT's general priorities to address missing and non-compliant curb ramps: A High Priority Locations f9r the purpose of Settlement Agreement Section 6. B. Special Transportation Areas (STA's) and downtown areas. C. Urbanized areas. D. All remaining areas within the state.
Appendix C, Page 1 of 1

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 41 of 42
.
I
I
I
. i
APPENDIXD

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 47 Filed 12/05/16 Page 42 of 42

]~,. (Ion D1p1rfmont of 7'r.lnsporfatlon

ODOT OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS CONCERN, QUESTION, COMMENT OR REQUEST

Contact Information
NAME

ADDRESS
CllY, STATE, ZIP
If you are completing this form on behalf of another person:
REPRESENTATIVE NAME

IEMAIL

EMAIL
I

Issue Description
LOCATION OF SITE- ADDRESS, SITE NAME, OR DESCRIPTION

DATE PHONE
RELATIONSHIP PHONE

TOPICS COVERED - CHECK ALL THAT APPLY

O Curb ramp

D Sidewalk

0 Parking

0 Service An !mal D Transit Stop D Bathroom

0 Pushbuttons D Crosswalk

0 Audible ?ignal DDMV

O Construction Work Zone

D Other:

DESCRIPTION OF CONCERN, QUESTION, COMMENT OR REQUEST -INCLUDE THE DATE IF RELATED TO A SPECIFIC INCIDENT

Resolution
OESCRJBE THE RESOLUTION YOU

LD LIKE TO SEE

Have you submitted this Information before? DYes ONo

If preferred, this form may be printed, filled out and mailed to: ODOT Office of Civil Rights MS 31 355 Capitol St. NE Salem, OR 97301 .
Assistance Is available upon request: • Call to ll ~free (855) 540-6655 • !:-mall ODOT_ADA@odot.state.or.us·
• TTY, use 711 relay service, ask to connect to (855) 540-6655

•'

734-6061 (9/2016)

Appendix D, Page 1 of 1
Page 1of 1

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 53 Filed 03/27/17 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF OREGON CENTERS FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, MARTHA MAE BRYSON, KIMBERLY MORRISEY, DAVE MAULE, JORDAN OHLDE, WILLIAM PHILLIPS, LAURIE SITTON, CARRIE TAYLOR, and LAURA POTTS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs.

Case No. 3:16-cv-00322-HZ
ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION; and MATTHEW GARRETT, in his official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation,
Defendants.

This matter coming on before me on the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement in this case, and having duly considered the Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement (ECF No. 47), the arguments and exhibits submitted by the parties and evidence and argument at the fairness hearing held on March 27. 2017,
I HEREBY FIND that the settlement is fundamentally fair, reasonable and adequate and therefore hereby APPROVE the Settlement Agreement. Further, this Court shall retain

Page 1 - ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 53 Filed 03/27/17 Page 2 of 2

jurisdiction over the Agreement as provided in the Settlement Agreement itself until such time as the Agreement is terminated pursuant to paragraph 13 thereof.

SO ORDERED this ~':1- day of )!{Aft.a..(

' 2017.

1l~JUDGE United States District Court of Oregon

Page 2 - ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

 
 Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 56 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION

ASSOCIATION OF OREGON CENTERS ) Case No. 3:16-cv-00322-HZ

FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, MARTHA )

MAE BRYSON, KIMBERLY MORRISEY,j
DWAILVLEIAMMASULPEH,IJLOLRIPDSA, NLAOUHRLIDEES,ITTON,~

ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER

CARRIE TAYLOR, and LAURA POTTS, )

)

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

)

)

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF

)

TRANSPORTATION; and MATTHEW

) )

GARRETT, in his official capacity as

)

Director ofthe Oregon Department of

)

Transportation,

)

)

Defendant( s).

)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-)

The parties hereto stipulated and jointly moved the Court for the Appointment of Special

Master for Settlement Agreement ("Motion for Special Master") pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure ("FRCP") 53. After considering the papers submitted in support of and in

opposition to the motion, arguments of counsel, and all other matters presented to the Court,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Parties' Stipulated Motion for Special Master is

PAGE 1 - ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 56 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 4
GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT pursuant to FRCP 53, the Court hereby appoints
the Hon. Janice Wilson (Ret.), as the Special Master in this case. 1). Scope of Duties: The Special Master shall adjudicate all disputes under Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement approved by the Court on March 29, 2017 including but not limited to disputes as to the award of attorney fees and under Section 12. 2). Scope of Authority: The Special Master shall have all the authority provided in FRCP 53(c)(1) and (2) to resolve disputes within the scope of Section 1 herein. 3). Procedures for Briefing Submitted to Special Master. The Special Master may resolve disputes presented orally in-person or telephonically, in a letter brief, or in formal motions. All papers will be submitted directly to the Special Master by e-mail with a courtesy copy by US Mail or overnight courier, as directed by the Special Master. Briefing schedules will be determined by the Special Master. 4). Discovery Disputes. Meet and confer required. In the event of a discovery dispute under Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement, the parties shall first meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the dispute. In the event the parties are not able to reach an agreement, the dispute will be resolved by the Special Master. The party seeking relief shall, with notice to the other party, contact the Special Master to determine her availability for a telephonic conference at a time when both parties are available. In the event that the party seeking the relief wishes to submit a letter brief, the party seeking relief shall send a letter not to exceed five (5) pages (to be distributed by email) outlining the issues(s) in the dispute and its position. The party opposing may submit a letter not to exceed five (5) pages (to be distributed by email) outlining the party's reasons for its opposition. Should the Special Master find further briefing necessary
PAGE 2 - ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 56 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 4

upon conclusion of the telephone conference, the Special Master will order it. This paragraph

sets forth the default procedures for resolution of discovery disputes. The Special Master,

however, may alter these procedures with respect to a particular dispute as she deems appropriate

and necessary.

5).

Preservation of Record. Pursuant to FRCP 53(b)(2)(C), the Special Master shall

maintain orderly files consisting of all documents submitted to her by the parties and any of her

written orders, findings, and/or recommendations. Any order issued by the Special Master shall

be e-mailed to the parties. Such e-mailing shall fulfill the Special Master's duty to serve her order

on the parties. In addition, any order issued by the Special Master shall be filed via Electronic

Case Filing ("ECF") in a notice of ruling by the party designated by the Special Master in the

order, or, in the absence of such designation, the moving party. Any records of the Special

Master's activities other than her written orders, findings, and/or recommendations shall be filed

in accordance with paragraph 6.3 herein.

6).

Action on Special Master's Orders. Reports, or Recommendations

6.1) Pursuant to FRCP 53(b)(2)(D) and (g), the procedures described in paragraphs 6.2

through 6.3 herein shall govern any action on the Special Master's orders, reports and/or

recommendations.

6.2) Time Limits for Review. Any party dissatisfied with the Special Master's

resolution of a dispute may present the dispute for resolution by Judge Simon within the time set

forth in Section 12 of the Settlement Agreement between the parties.

6.3) Filing the Record for Review. The party presenting a dispute for resolution by

Judge Simon shall submit with such request for resolution any record necessary for Judge Simon

to review the Special Master's order, report, and/or recommendation, including any transcripts of

PAGE 3 - ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER

Case 3:16-cv-00322-HZ Document 56 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 4

proceedings before the Special Master and any documents submitted by the parties in connection

with the Special Master's order, report, and/or recommendation.

7).

Ex Parte Communications. To facilitate the fulfillment of her duties hereunder,

the Special Master may communicate ex parte to Judge Simon to the extent that the Special

Master deems necessary and appropriate. In addition, the Special Master may have ex parte

communications with a party but such communications shall be limited to administrative matters

such as scheduling hearings, telephone calls or briefing, if such arrangements cannot be made in

a timely manner by contacting any administrative assistant of the Special Master.

8).

Compensation. The Special Master shall be compensated at her normal hourly

rate for her services. The cost of the Special Master's compensation shall be paid by the State of

Oregon by and through the appropriate agency thereof.

9).

Master's Declaration. Pursuant to FRCP 53(a)(2) and (b)(3), the Special Master

shall file a declaration with this Court that states she is not subject to any of the grounds for

disqualification ofjudges set out in 28 U.S.C. § 455 prior to undertaking duties pursuant to this

order.

10).

Diligence. Pursuant to FRCP 53(b)(2), the Court hereby directs the Special

Master to proceed with all reaso; tle diligence in performing her duties.
i DATED this day of ~.I\~ , 2017.
4&~ United States District Court Of Oregon

PAGE 4 - ORDER APPOINTING SPECIAL MASTER

 
 Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 1 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

U.S. District Court District of Oregon (Portland (3)) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:16−cv−00322−HZ

CLASS

Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living et al v. Oregon Department of Transportation et al Assigned to: Judge Marco A. Hernandez Cause: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act
Special Master
Hon. Judge Janice R. Wilson

Date Filed: 02/22/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities Act − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto Attorney at Law 621 SW Morrison Street Suite 1025 Portland, OR 97205 503−223−5814 Fax: 503−228−1317 Email: slb@brischettolaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk Disability Rights Oregon 610 SW Broadway Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 503−243−2081 Fax: 503−243−1738 Email: ted@droregon.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson Disability Rights Oregon 511 SW 10th Avenue Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 503−243−2081 Fax: 503−243−1738 Email: tstenson@droregon.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde Disability Rights Oregon 610 S.W. Broadway Suite 200 Portland, OR 97205 503−243−2081 Fax: 503−243−1738 Email: kwilde@droregon.org TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Plaintiff Martha Mae Bryson

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 2 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Strauhull Legal Aid Services of Oregon 520 SW 6th Ave. Ste 700 Portland, OR 97217 503−224−4086 Fax: 503−295−9496 Email: jon.strauhull@lasoregon.org TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Plaintiff Kimberly Morrisey

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Plaintiff Dave Maule

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 3 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

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

Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Plaintiff Jordan Ohlde

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Plaintiff William Phillips

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 4 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

Plaintiff Laurie Sitton

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Plaintiff Carrie Taylor

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Laura Potts

represented by Stephen L. Brischetto (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Theodore E Wenk (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Thomas Stenson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 5 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan P. Strauhull (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/07/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen L. Wilde (See above for address) TERMINATED: 06/29/2017

V. Defendant Oregon Department of Transportation

represented by Carla Scott Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971−673−1880 Fax: 971−673−5000 Email: carla.a.scott@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina R. Englander Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971−673−1880 Fax: 971−673−5000 Email: nina.englander@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee R. Stineman Oregon Department of Justice Trial Division 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971− 673−1880 Fax: 971−673−5000 Email: renee.stineman@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Kaplan Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971−673−1880 Fax: 971−673−5000 Email: scott.kaplan@doj.state.or.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Merritt Oregon Department of Justice 100 SW Market Street Portland, OR 97201 971−673−1880 Fax: 971−673−1884 Email: matthew.merritt@doj.state.or.us TERMINATED: 10/26/2016

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 6 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

Defendant
Matthew Garrett in his official capacity as Director of the Oregon Department of Transportation

represented by Carla Scott (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Nina R. Englander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Renee R. Stineman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Scott J. Kaplan (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J. Merritt (See above for address) TERMINATED: 10/26/2016

Date Filed 02/22/2016
02/22/2016
02/22/2016 02/22/2016 03/09/2016 03/21/2016 04/05/2016 04/05/2016

# Docket Text
1 Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $400 collected. Agency Tracking ID: 0979−4494163 Jury Trial Requested: No. Filed by Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living against All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Proposed Summons, # 3 Proposed Summons). (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
2 Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Marco A. Hernandez and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. Discovery is to be completed by 6/21/2016. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 7/21/2016. Pretrial Order is due by 7/21/2016. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (dsg) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
3 Summons Issued Electronically as to Oregon Department of Transportation. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. (dsg) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
4 Summons Issued Electronically as to Matthew Garrett. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3−5. (dsg) (Entered: 02/22/2016)
5 Waiver of Service of Summons Returned Executed by All Defendants. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 03/09/2016)
6 Joint Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1) Agreement . Filed by Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Martha Mae Bryson, Dave Maule, Kimberly Morrisey, Jordan Ohlde, William Phillips, Laura Potts, Laurie Sitton, Carrie Taylor. (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/21/2016)
7 Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading. Filed by All Defendants. (Merritt, Matthew) Modified on 4/6/2016 to correct event type and title. (mr) (Entered: 04/05/2016)
8 Declaration of Matthew Merritt in Support of State's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time. Filed by All Defendants. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time 7 .) (Merritt, Matthew) (Entered: 04/05/2016)

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 7 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

04/06/2016 04/28/2016
05/13/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/19/2016 05/25/2016 05/25/2016 05/27/2016 05/31/2016 06/01/2016 06/08/2016 06/13/2016 06/13/2016
06/14/2016 06/22/2016

9 ORDER: Granting Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading 7 . Answer/Response is due by 5/25/2016. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr) (Entered: 04/06/2016)
10 Amended Complaint . Filed by William Phillips, Kimberly Morrisey, Laurie Sitton, Laura Potts, Martha Mae Bryson, Carrie Taylor, Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Dave Maule, Jordan Ohlde against All Defendants. (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 04/28/2016)
11 Joint Status Report Rule 26 Conference. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Brischetto, Stephen) (Entered: 05/13/2016)
12 Notice of Association of Attorney Matthew J. Merritt,Nina R. Englander for Matthew Garrett,Nina R. Englander for Oregon Department of Transportation. Filed by All Defendants (Merritt, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
13 Notice of Association of Attorney Matthew J. Merritt,Scott J. Kaplan for Matthew Garrett,Scott J. Kaplan for Oregon Department of Transportation. Filed by All Defendants (Merritt, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
14 Notice of Association of Attorney Matthew J. Merritt,Carla Scott for Matthew Garrett,Carla Scott for Oregon Department of Transportation. Filed by All Defendants (Merritt, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
15 Notice of Association of Attorney Matthew J. Merritt,Renee R. Stineman for Matthew Garrett,Renee R. Stineman for Oregon Department of Transportation. Filed by All Defendants (Merritt, Matthew) (Entered: 05/19/2016)
16 Request for Judicial Notice in Support of FRCP 12 Motions. Filed by All Defendants. (Scott, Carla) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
17 Motion to Dismiss , Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement. Filed by All Defendants. (Scott, Carla) (Entered: 05/25/2016)
18 Notice re Amended Complaint, 10 Filed by All Plaintiffs (Related document(s): Amended Complaint, 10 .) (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 05/27/2016)
19 Order − At the parties' request, the Court is setting a 2−day Settlement Conference for June 22, and June 24, 2016 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 05/31/2016)
20 Instructions Regarding Settlement Conference set for Wednesday, June 22, 2016, and Friday, June 24, 2016. Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 06/01/2016)
21 Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss , Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement 17 Oral Argument requested. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Stenson, Thomas) (Entered: 06/08/2016)
22 Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response/Reply to Motion to Dismiss , Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement 17 . Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by All Defendants. (Scott, Carla) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
23 Declaration of Carla Scott in Support of Expedited Opposed Motion for Extension of Time for Reply in Support of Rule 12 Motions. Filed by Matthew Garrett, Oregon Department of Transportation. (Related document(s): Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to a Motion 22 .) (Scott, Carla) (Entered: 06/13/2016)
24 ORDER: Granting State Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply to Motion to Dismiss 17 . Reply is due by 7/11/2016. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
25 MINUTES OF FIRST DAY OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference was held before Settlement Judge Michael H. Simon. The parties will continue settlement discussions on 6/24/2016. Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, Ted Wink, Jonathan P. Strauhull, and Kathleen L. Wilde present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Carla Scott, Nina R. Englander, and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant(s). Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 06/24/2016)

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 8 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

06/24/2016
07/15/2016 07/18/2016 07/19/2016 07/28/2016
07/28/2016 08/23/2016
08/24/2016 09/20/2016

26 MINUTES OF SECOND DAY OF SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE: A settlement conference was held before Settlement Judge Michael H. Simon. The parties agreed to meet again with the Settlement Judge on July 15, 2016, at 9:00 AM. In addition, the parties agreed that the Settlement Judge shall request from Judge Hernandez that the pending deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (ECF 17 ) be extended from July 11, 2016, to July 29, 2016. Judge Michael H. Simon. Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, Ted Wink, Jonathan P. Strauhull, and Kathleen L. Wilde present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Carla Scott, Nina R. Englander, and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant(s). Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 06/24/2016)
27 MINUTES of Settlement Conference − A Settlement Conference was held today from 9:00AM to 11:00AM. The Court sets a further Settlement Conference for 7/28/2016 at 01:00PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, Ted Wink, Jonathan P. Strauhull, and Kathleen L. Wilde present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Carla Scott, Nina R. Englander, and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant(s). Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (mja) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
28 MINUTE ORDER − The parties have agreed that the Settlement Judge shall request from Judge Hernandez that the pending deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (ECF 17 ) be extended from July 29, 2016, to August 12, 2016. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/18/2016)
29 ORDER: Reply to Motion to Dismiss 17 is due 8/12/2016; Motion is taken under advisement as of 8/15/2016. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
30 MINUTES of PROCEEDINGS: A Settlement Conference was held today from 1:00PM to 3:00PM. Progress is being made. The Court sets a further Settlement Conference for 8/23/2016 at 12:00PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. In addition, the parties agreed that the Settlement Judge shall request from Judge Hernandez that the pending deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (ECF 17 ) be extended from July 29, 2016, to August 24, 2016. Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, Ted Wink, Jonathan P. Strauhull, and Kathleen L. Wilde present as counsel for plaintiffs. Carla Scott, Nina R. Englander, and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant. Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
31 Scheduling Order by Judge Michael H. Simon. Order − At the parties' request, the Court is resetting the TIME set for the Settlement Conference from 8/23/2016 at 12:00PM to 8/23/2016 at 09:00AM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. Ordered by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 07/28/2016)
32 MINUTES of Proceedings: A Settlement Conference was held on Tuesday, August 23, 2016, from 9:00 AM to 11:00 AM. Good progress continues to be made. The Court sets a further Settlement Conference for Tuesday, September 20, 2016 at 1:00 PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. In addition, the Settlement Judge requests that Judge Hernandez reset the deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (ECF 17 ) from August 24, 2016 to September 26, 2016. Kathleen L. Wilde, Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, and Jonathan P. Strauhull present as counsel for Plaintiffs. Carla Scott and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for Defendant. Judge Michael H. Simon, presiding. (pvh) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
33 Scheduling Order: Regarding Motion to Dismiss 17 , the Court adjusts the deadlines as follows: Reply is due by 9/26/2016. Motion is taken under advisement as of 9/29/2016. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (mr) (Entered: 08/24/2016)
34 MINUTES of Proceedings: A Settlement Conference was held on Tuesday, September 20, 2016, from 1:00 PM to 3:00 PM. Good progress continues to be made. The Court sets a further, and anticipated final, Settlement Conference for Monday, October 24, 2016 at 12:01 PM in Portland, Courtroom 13B, before Judge Michael H. Simon. In addition, the Settlement Judge requests that Judge Hernandez reset the deadline for Defendant to file its reply in support of its motion to dismiss (ECF 17 ) from September 26, 2016 to October, 26, 2016. Kathleen L. Wilde, Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, and Jonathan P. Strauhull present as counsel for

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 9 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

10/17/2016 10/18/2016 10/26/2016 11/03/2016 11/07/2016 11/07/2016 11/09/2016
11/14/2016 11/15/2016
11/17/2016 11/18/2016

Plaintiffs. Carla Scott and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for Defendant. Judge Michael H. Simon, presiding. Kathleen L. Wilde, Stephen L. Brischetto, Thomas Stenson, and Jonathan P. Strauhull present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Carla Scott and Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant(s). Judge Michael H. Simon presiding. (mja) (Entered: 09/20/2016)
35 Scheduling Order: Regarding Motion to Dismiss 17 . The Court adjusts the deadlines as follows: Reply is due by 10/26/2016 Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (kms) (Entered: 10/17/2016)
36 Motion to Withdraw . Filed by Martha Mae Bryson, Dave Maule, Kimberly Morrisey, Jordan Ohlde, William Phillips, Laura Potts, Laurie Sitton, Carrie Taylor. (Strauhull, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
37 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Matthew J. Merritt Filed by All Defendants (Scott, Carla) (Entered: 10/26/2016)
38 Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint/Petition . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint) (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/03/2016)
39 ORDER by Judge Marco A. Hernandez: Granting Attorney Jonathan Strahull's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for all individual Plaintiffs 36 . Granting Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint 38 . Amended Complaint is due 11/10/2016. (jp) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
40 Second Amended Complaint Class Action. Filed by William Phillips, Kimberly Morrisey, Laurie Sitton, Laura Potts, Martha Mae Bryson, Carrie Taylor, Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Dave Maule, Jordan Ohlde against All Defendants. (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/07/2016)
41 Scheduling Order: Upon agreement of counsel, Rule 16 Conference is SET for 11/15/2016 at 11:00AM by telephone before Judge Marco A. Hernandez. The parties shall call into the court's conference line (the phone number provided via separate email) five minutes prior to the scheduled conference time. The court will join the conference at or shortly after the appointed time. Counsel are required to confer prior to the conference. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of the case, relevant dates and deadlines, and any other significant issues. If consents to Magistrate Judge are going to be filed, it is helpful if they are filed prior to the time of the conference. If the parties plan on presenting a proposed schedule, it is helpful if they email that to the courtroom deputy by noon the day before the hearing. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
42 Unopposed Motion to Certify the Class . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Settlement Agreement, # 2 Attachment Declaration of Wilde, # 3 Attachment Declaration of Brischetto) (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 11/14/2016)
43 MINUTES of Proceedings: Court heard Unopposed Motion to Certify Class 42 filed 11/14/2016. Court to rule no later than 11/22/2016. If approved, Joint Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement Agreement due no later than 12/5/2016. Order by Court to issue no later than 12/12/2016. Parties to distribute and post class notice no later than 12/22/2016. Class objections and comments due by 2/22/2017. Joint Motion for Final Approval due 3/8/2017. Fairness Hearing is SET for 3/27/2017 at 9:00 am in Courtroom 14B before Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Stephen L. Brischetto, Kathleen L. Wilde, Thomas Stenson present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Carla Scott, Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Amanda LeGore. Judge Marco A. Hernandez presiding. (jp) (Entered: 11/16/2016)
44 ORDER: Granting Unopposed Motion for Settlement Class Certification 42 . Signed on 11/17/2016 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp) Modified on 11/18/2016 to correct the filing date from 11/18/2016 to 11/17/2016(jp). (Entered: 11/18/2016)
45 ORDER by Judge Marco A. Hernandez: Finding as Moot Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice in Support of FRCP 12 Motions 16 and Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Strike, or in the Alternative, for a More Definite Statement 17 . (jp) (Entered: 11/18/2016)

Case 3:16-cv-322 As of 03/20/2019 04:19 PM PDT Page 10 of 10 Page ID#: <pageID>

12/05/2016
12/05/2016
12/12/2016 12/19/2016 01/09/2017 03/07/2017
03/27/2017
03/27/2017 03/29/2017 06/02/2017 06/05/2017 06/29/2017

46 Joint Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Class Action Settlement. Filed by Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Martha Mae Bryson, Dave Maule, Kimberly Morrisey, Jordan Ohlde, William Phillips, Laura Potts, Laurie Sitton, Carrie Taylor. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 − Proposed Settlement, # 2 Exhibit 2 − Notice of Proposed Settlement, # 3 Exhibit 3 − Contact List) (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
47 Corrected Exhibits Proposed Settlement Agreement re Joint Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Class Action Settlement 46 . Filed by Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living, Martha Mae Bryson, Dave Maule, Kimberly Morrisey, Jordan Ohlde, William Phillips, Laura Potts, Laurie Sitton, Carrie Taylor. (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/05/2016)
48 ORDER: The parties Joint Motion for Order Preliminarily Approving Proposed Class Action Settlement 46 is GRANTED. See attached 4−page Order for full text. Signed on 12/12/2016 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp) (Entered: 12/12/2016)
49 Amended Proposed Form of Order Submitted regarding method of class notice. Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Submission of Proposed Amended Order) (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 12/19/2016)
50 AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF PROPOSED CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT − Signed on 1/9/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (pg) (Entered: 01/10/2017)
51 Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement. Oral Argument requested. Filed by Association of Oregon Centers for Independent Living. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Proposed Settlemenet, # 2 Exhibit Declaration of Thomas Stenson, # 3 Exhibit Collection of Major Systemic Settlements) (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
52 MINUTES of Proceedings: Hearing held on the parties' Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement 51 . The motion is GRANTED. Order to issue. Stephen L. Brischetto, Theodore E. Wenk, Thomas Stenson, Kathleen L. Wilde present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Carla Scott, Scott J. Kaplan present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Nancy Walker. Judge Marco A. Hernandez presiding. (Related document(s): Motion − Miscellaneous, 51 .) (jp) Modified on 3/28/2017 to correct typographical error (jp). (Entered: 03/27/2017)
53 ORDER granting Joint Motion for Final Approval of Proposed Class Action Settlement Agreement 51 . Signed on 3/27/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp) (Entered: 03/27/2017)
54 Judgment. Signed on 3/29/2017 by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp) (Entered: 03/29/2017)
55 Joint Motion to Appoint Special Master . Filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Declaration of Judge Wilson) (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/02/2017)
56 Order Appointing Special Master. Signed on 6/2/2017 by Judge Michael H. Simon. (mja) (Entered: 06/05/2017)
57 Notice of Attorney Withdrawal: Filed by All Plaintiffs (Wilde, Kathleen) (Entered: 06/29/2017)