Opinion ID: 164972
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: introduction

Text: 1 Plaintiffs-appellants Betty Allen, Victor Beltz, Jo Ann Donnell, Jeff Farney, 1 Ron Garnett, Mike Goupil, and Carolyn Jeffries (collectively appellants) sued, alongside Sylvia Tandy, Naomi Passman, and Joel Goertz (collectively cross-appellees), defendant-appellee City of Wichita (Wichita) in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. Wichita operates the Wichita Metropolitan Transit Authority (Wichita Transit). Appellants alleged violations of 29 U.S.C. § 794 (Rehabilitation Act) and of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Almost all of the appellants were testing Wichita Transit's compliance with the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA and did not reside in the Wichita area. Appellants alleged that Wichita Transit's fixed-route bus system was intentionally inaccessible to and unusable by people with disabilities. 2 They claimed that Wichita's conduct caused them humiliation, mental anguish, and frustration. 2 Each appellant sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, compensatory damages, punitive damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court concluded that the cross-appellees have standing to pursue their claims. The district court, however, dismissed appellants' claims on the grounds that they each lacked standing to seek any form of relief. Appellants argue that the district court erred by analyzing their standing in gross, and should instead have separately analyzed their standing in relation to each claim for relief. They further argue that the district court erred in concluding that they lack standing to sue for damages, injunctive relief, and declaratory relief. 3 The district court partially granted cross-appellee Tandy's motion for summary judgment. It issued an injunction against Wichita Transit's continued use of its policy of giving drivers the discretion to deny wheelchair-bound passengers access to an accessible bus on an inaccessible route, reasoning that this policy violates the ADA. Wichita cross-appeals the grant of the injunction, arguing that the injunction was unnecessary and is now moot because Wichita Transit's fixed-routes were scheduled to become, and have become, fully accessible to wheelchair users as of April 2002. Wichita does not appeal the district court's conclusion that its driver-discretion policy violated the ADA. 4 This court exercises jurisdiction over these appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In appeal No. 02-3329, this court DISMISSES in part for lack of Article III jurisdiction, AFFIRMS in part and REVERSES in part the district court's dismissal of appellants' claims for a lack of standing, and REMANDS for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. In appeal No. 02-3340, this court DISMISSES Wichita's cross-appeal for lack of Article III jurisdiction.