IN	THE	UNITED	STATES	DISTRICT	COURT	

FOR	THE	EASTERN	DISTRICT	OF	MICHIGAN		

SOUTHERN	DIVISION	

MICHAEL	HARRIS	&	KARLA	HUDSON,	 )	

	 	 	 	 	 	 )	

	 	 Plaintiffs,	 	 	 )	

	 	 	 	 	 	 )	 2:14‐cv‐13630	

	 v.	 	 	 	 	 )	 								

	 	 	 	 	 	 )	 		

WAYNE	COUNTY	AIRPORT	AUTHORITY,)	

	 	 	 	 	 	 )	

	 	 Defendant.	 	 	 )	

	 	 	 	 	 	 )	

_______________________________________________/	

NYMAN	TURKISH	PC	

Jason	M.	Turkish	(P76310)	

Melissa	M.	Nyman	(293207)	

20700	Civic	Center	Drive,	Suite	115	

Southfield,	Michigan	48076	

Phone:	(248)	284‐2480	

Jason.Turkish@NymanTurkish.com	

Melissa.Nyman@NymanTurkish.com	

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

______________________________________________________________________________________________________/	

VERIFIED COMPLAINT 

Plaintiffs, Michael Harris and Karla Hudson, hereby sue the Wayne County Airport Authority, 

and state as follows: 

INTRODUCTION 

1. Plaintiffs bring this action to prevent Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority’s 

imminent plan to relocate public transportation services from the Arrivals Level of the 

McNamura Terminal to the Ground Transportation Center (“GTC”) at Detroit Metro 

Airport (“DTW”), a location posing numerous accessibility issues in violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”). 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.1 Page 1 of 13
2. Defendant’s planned move of public transit services, which is to take place on Monday, 

September 22, 2014 discriminates against Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, by 

forcing the public transportation companies to load and unload their passengers in an 

inaccessible area with numerous violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

3. By ignoring the needs and dignity of Plaintiffs, and other disabled persons similarly 

situated, while traveling to and from the airport, Defendant treats them as second-class 

citizens, unjustly disregards their basic rights to equality and dignity, and causes 

embarrassment, humiliation, harassment, and emotional distress. Additionally, by 

moving transit access to an inaccessible area, Defendant’s plans will needlessly subject 

the Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, to unnecessary risk of bodily injury and 

death. Therefore, Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief stating the Defendant’s announced 

course of conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act and injunctive relief 

preventing Defendant from moving the current transit facilities to an inaccessible 

location to those passengers with disabilities. 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

4. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because 

Plaintiff’s claims arise under federal statutes, specifically the Americans with 

Disabilities Act. In addition, this Court has jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims for 

declaratory relief, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

claims for injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116. 

5. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, because the 

Defendant is situated within the district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391, and because the 

events, acts, and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district. 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.2 Page 2 of 13
PARTIES 

6. Plaintiff, Michael Harris, presently the Executive Director of the Michigan Paralyzed 

Veterans of America, is an individual who uses a wheelchair, living in Westland, 

Michigan. 

7. Plaintiff, Karla Hudson, is a totally blind individual who lives in East Lansing Michigan. 

8. Plaintiffs have standing to bring the present cause of action. 

a. Plaintiffs are physically disabled according to the definition provided by the ADA 

as they are either “legally blind” or “substantially impaired in the major life 

activity of walking.” 

b. Both Plaintiffs have traveled through DTW in the past and plan to visit the facility 

in the future and wish to have equal access to public transit facilities. 

c. Defendant’s announced course of conduct will result in Plaintiffs being denied 

proper access and mobility when using Detroit Metro Airport, where they both 

travel to and from, and thus deny their rights as provided to them by the ADA. 

9. Wayne County Airport Authority is a public, government entity within the meaning and 

definition of the ADA as it was chartered by the Michigan Legislature in 2002. 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

10. The Wayne County Airport Authority is the government chartered entity that oversees 

Detroit Metro Airport (“DTW”). 

11. Plaintiffs currently have access to and from DTW via public transportation companies, 

such as SMART and AirRide, and wish to continue to have access in the future. 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.3 Page 3 of 13
12. The current drop-off location for SMART and AirRide is at the International Arrivals 

Level of the McNamura Terminal of DTW, which is an accessible and ADA-compliant 

location. 

13. Effective Monday, September 22, 2014, SMART and AirRide transportation services 

will be relocated to the Ground Transportation Center. 

14. Defendant announced its plan to relocate SMART and AirRide transportation services 

on its website, made available to the general public and to the Plaintiffs at: 

http://www.metroairport.com/GroundTransportation.aspx 

15. Defendant claims the relocation of SMART and AirRide is due to safety and congestion 

concerns, however Great Lakes Bus, the shuttle for airport employees that makes 

approximately 168 roundtrips per day as compared to the 13 roundtrips by AirRide, 

will not be relocated from the same current location. 

16. The new location at the GTC presents serious accessibility problems, and thus is in 

violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the potential violations of the ADA 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

a. The traffic at the GTC is heavily congested as it also serves cabs, charter buses, 

and shuttle services for hotels, parking lots and rental cars, and fails to provide 

safe pedestrian access to persons with disabilities. 

b. The proposed area for buses to stop takes place in three spots in two side-byside lanes, one lane along the curb, and the other the middle lane with an active 

traffic lane on its other side. 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.4 Page 4 of 13
c. If a bus is parked in each of the lanes, the bus in the curb-side lane blocks the 

bus in the middle lane from deploying its wheel chair lift as there is simply not 

enough room. 

d. When all three unloading spots are occupied, passengers loading and unloading 

from a bus in the middle lane are forced to exit between vehicles and cross over 

a lane of traffic, an action which could result in severe bodily harm and/or 

death, especially if this person is blind and unable to see the potential dangers. 

e. The new location at the GTC is approximately 100 yards from the nearest 

indoor area of the airport, as opposed to 50 feet in the McNamura Terminal at 

the present location, thus forcing people to either wait outside for their bus or 

run quickly once it arrives. Disabled persons, especially those with mobility 

limitations, who cannot “run” quickly enough are thus forced to wait outside, 

even in harsh weather conditions. 

f. The GTC severely limits a disabled person’s access to and communication with 

Prospect Airport Services, a service used by disabled persons to assist them in 

getting around at the Airport, thereby leaving them stranded, and without access 

to reasonable accommodations. 

g. The obscure location of the elevators in the GTC is unclearly marked and 

difficult to find, creating further hurdles and frustration for disabled persons 

seeking to use them. 

h. The covered shelters at the GTC are not large enough for someone who uses a 

wheelchair to maneuver inside without blocking entrances and other people, 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.5 Page 5 of 13
which could result in embarrassment, frustration, and being forced to wait 

outside in treacherous weather. 

i. Unlike the current location inside the McNamura Terminal, the GTC does not 

have a service animal relief area, which could result in frustration and hardship 

for the disabled person and his or her service animal alike. 

j. Passengers traveling from the McNamara Terminal to the new transit pickup 

location outside of the GTC must either choose to travel directly out “side 

doors” that exit to active lanes of traffic, or go through a revolving door, which 

when often broken is inaccessible to those with mobility impairments. To wit, 

the Detroit Free Press in 2009 reported that the door had broken 33 times from 

April 1, 2008 to March 22, 2009. 

17. Upon information and belief, Defendant is aware of the significant issues posed to the 

disabled should they move SMART and AirRide to the GTC, yet they are insistent in 

moving forward with their announced plan. 

18. After numerous pleas to not move SMART and AirRide to the GTC went unanswered 

by the Defendant, their Board met one final time on September 18, 2014 and failed to 

take action to prevent the impending relocation from occurring. 

19. Kirk Studley, Director of Michigan Department of Transportation, at a public hearing 

on September 18, 2014 before the Michigan Transportation Commission, stated he was 

going to request delay of the impending relocation due to unresolved issues related to 

accessibility for persons with disabilities. This statement was made in the presence of 

Plaintiff Hudson. 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.6 Page 6 of 13
20. Michigan Governor Rick Snyder communicated his support in “maintaining the 

integrity of the current stop locations” in a letter to Mr. Tom Naughton, CEO of the 

Wayne County Airport Authority and to Mr. Michael Ford, CEO of the Ann Arbor 

Area Transportation Authority dated June 11, 2014. (Exhibit-A, Letter from Governor 

Snyder). 

21. Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, wish to continue using transportation services 

to and from the airport, such as SMART and AirRide, but they will be effectively 

barred due to the inaccessibility of the location for disabled persons. 

22. In short, the current transportation stop at the International Arrivals Level of the 

McNamura Terminal is accessible to disabled individuals, and the impending action 

announced by Defendant to move that transportation stop to the GTC is not accessible 

to disabled individuals, needlessly and recklessly subjects them to bodily injury, and is 

patently in violation of the ADA. 

COUNT I

VIOLATION OF TITLE II OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. 

23. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 22, 

inclusive. 

24. In enacting the ADA, Congress expressly determined that society tends to isolate and 

segregate people with disabilities; that individuals with disabilities continually 

encounter prejudice and discrimination, including outright exclusion and the failure to 

eliminate exclusionary criteria; that this nation should assure equality of opportunity for 

all participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency to individuals with 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.7 Page 7 of 13
disabilities; and that continuing discrimination impedes them from competing on an 

equal basis and pursuing opportunities available to other citizens. 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a) 

25. The express purpose of the ADA is “to provide a clear and comprehensive national 

mandate for eliminating discrimination against individuals with disabilities; to provide 

clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination against 

individuals with disabilities; and to ensure that the federal government plays a central 

role in enforcing the standards established in the Act on behalf of individuals with 

disabilities.” 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b). 

26. The Plaintiffs are individuals who constitute “qualified individual(s) with a disability” 

under the ADA. 

27. The Defendant, to the extent that it is a government chartered entity, is subject to Title 

II of the ADA. 

28. Title II of the ADA states “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of 

such disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the 

services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or subjected to discrimination by any 

such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 

29. Through the acts set to take place on September 22, 2014, Defendant has acted in 

disregard of Plaintiffs’ disabilities, effectively planning to subject them to 

discrimination by forcing them to use an inaccessible area, in violation of the ADA. 

30. Moving public transportation service locations to the GTC denies Plaintiff’s the right to 

equal access, in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

31. Defendants’ announced course of conduct is in violation of the equal access and 

nondiscrimination requirements set forth in Title II of the ADA, and will result in injury 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.8 Page 8 of 13
to Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, if the Defendant is not prevented from 

implementing its plan 

32. Unless enjoined from doing so, Defendant’s actions will inflict irreparable injuries for 

which Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 

COUNT II

VIOLATION OF TITLE V OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. 

33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations set forth in paragraphs 1 through 32, 

inclusively. 

34. Title V of the Americans with Disabilities Act states in pertinent part that “It shall be 

unlawful to coerce, intimidate, threaten, or interfere with any individual in the exercise 

or enjoyment of, or on account of his or her having exercised or enjoyed, or on account 

of his or her having aided or encouraged any other individual in the exercise or 

enjoyment of, any right granted or protected by this chapter.” 42 U.S.C. 12203(b). 

35. Through the acts and omissions alleged herein, Defendant has acted to interfere with 

Plaintiff’s exercise or enjoyment of rights granted or protected by the ADA, specifically 

by interfering with Plaintiff’s right to equal access and nondiscrimination, in utilizing 

public transportation services at DTW. 

36. The Defendant, by implementing their planned move of public transit services on 

September, 22, 2014 to in an inaccessible location, will have “interfered” with the 

Plaintiff’s federally protected rights to access public transportation in violation of the 

ADA, as Smartbus and AirRide will be forced by the Defendant to pick up the 

Plaintiffs, and others similarly situated, in a dangerous manner, and in an environment 

devoid of adherence to the ADA. 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.9 Page 9 of 13
37. Plaintiffs hereby allege that in knowingly forcing them, and those similarly situated, to 

access public transportation services through an inaccessible and dangerous location, 

the Defendant has acted with “discriminatory animus,” needlessly subjecting the 

persons with disabilities to the potential for loss of life and limb. 

 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests the relief set forth below. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: 

38. A declaration that Defendant Wayne County Airport Authority’s announced course of 

action unlawfully violates Plaintiff’s rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act 

of 1990. 

39. A temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction enjoining the Wayne 

County Airport Authority’s relocation of public transportation to the Ground 

Transportation Center, until such time as the GTC, or an alternative location, can be 

made accessible to qualified individuals with disabilities requesting reasonable 

accommodations. 

40. A permanent injunction preventing Defendant from implementing their announced plan 

to move SMART and AirRide from the current location at the Arrivals Level of the 

McNamura Terminal to the Ground Transportation Center. 

41. Reasonable Attorneys fees and costs for the prosecution of this matter. 

42. Although the Plaintiff seeks no compensatory damages at this time, Plaintiff wishes to 

reserve the right to amend and request compensatory damages should it come necessary 

to encourage Defendant to comply with federal law. 

43. All other relief that this Court deems just and proper. 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.10 Page 10 of 13
Respectfully submitted, 

NYMAN TURKISH PC 

/s/ Jason M. Turkish 

By: Jason M. Turkish, Michigan Bar #P76310 

20700 Civic Center Drive, Suite 115 

Southfield, Michigan 48076 

Phone: (248) 284-2480 

Fax: (248) 262-5024 

Jason.Turkish@NymanTurkish.com 

Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

By: Melissa M. Nyman, California Bar #293207 

5800 Stanford Ranch Road, Suite 720 

Rocklin, California 95765 

Phone: (916) 218-4340 

Fax: (916) 218-4341 

Melissa.Nyman@NymanTurkish.com 

Dated: September 19, 2014 Co-Counsel for Plaintiffs 

 

Case 2:14-cv-13630-DML-RSW ECF No. 1 filed 09/19/14 PageID.11 Page 11 of 13