article: On June 27, 2002, Barrier Busters (a disability advocacy group) and a class of disabled individuals filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania against the City of Erie, PA. The Plaintiffs alleged that the city of Erie had frequently failed to install mandatory curb cuts and to otherwise comply with the accessibility mandates of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., when it performed road and sidewalk construction and alterations since the ADA was passed in 1992. The parties entered a court-approved Partial Consent Decree on March 18, 2003. On September 16, 2003, the parties entered a Second Partial Consent Decree and Partial Settlement; a third consent decree was entered on April 1, 2004, and a fourth on February 2, 2005. The Clearinghouse has not obtained these consent decrees, but it is clear from later documents that Erie made substantial commitments to both ensure adherence to the ADA curb cut requirements for new roads and future resurfacing projects, and to retrofit with curb cuts all areas where roads were built or resurfaced after the January 26, 1992 effective date of the ADA. Erie committed to make annual reports showing where new road work had taken place and where new curb cuts were built. The consent agreements also recognized that Erie was not responsible for the non-compliance of state roads and highways in Erie that were resurfaced by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. In 2006, a separate case was filed against PennDOT, addressing the issues of ADA compliance and curb cuts on state roads in Erie. See <i>Voices for Independence v. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation</i> in related cases. The plaintiffs in <i>Voices for Independence</i> were represented by the same attorneys as the plaintiffs in this case. In 2010, the Plaintiffs observed that the City of Erie's street resurfacing in 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 should have triggered the construction of ADA-compliant curb cuts, but none were built, contrary to the earlier agreements. On September 27, 2011, the court entered a stipulated order under which Erie agreed to retrofit these sites with curb cuts and to pay Plaintiffs $31,000 in attorneys' fees and costs for the period from March 11, 2011, to August 26, 2011. This stipulated order did not abrogate the earlier Consent Agreements. Nevertheless, Erie failed to install curb cuts. In an attempt to correct the problem, the parties agreed to a second stipulated order on August 31, 2012. The city promised to take remedial action to install these curb cuts and agreed to pay an unspecified amount to the plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs. On April 18, 2013, the Third Stipulated Order was entered, which changed Erie's reporting obligations to the plaintiffs to make the process more efficient. Erie agreed to pay an unspecified amount to the Plaintiffs for attorneys' fees and costs. The Third Stipulated Order was amended on May 22, 2014, to mandate that construction work performed on or before August 5 must include curb ramps within the same construction season. The City also committed to use “best efforts” to complete 70% of curb ramps within the same calendar year for construction performed after August 5; plaintiffs agreed that, when necessary, construction could be delayed until June 30 of the next calendar year. On March 11, 2015, plaintiffs moved to enforce the consent decrees. They alleged that the City violated the consent decrees for “an unspecified number of years” by installing fewer than six curb ramps at “T”-shaped intersections and fewer than eight curb ramps at “+”-shaped intersections. After discussions between the parties, Judge Baxter approved a fifth consent decree on May 27, 2015. The Fifth Consent Decree required the City to install 6 or 8 ramps, as appropriate, in all future construction. It also required the City to add ramps across the “leg” of the T in “T”-shaped intersections missing them at a rate of at least 75 ramps per year and included associated reporting requirements. Three years later, a new disagreement emerged about what kinds of intersections had to be retrofitted with curb ramps. Plaintiffs asserted that adding a thin layer of asphalt to a concrete intersection was an “alteration” under the ADA that required installation curb ramps. Erie disagreed. It argued that it is only required to add curb ramps when replacing old asphalt with new asphalt at asphalt intersections. On September 26, 2018, the court entered the Fourth Stipulated Order, which adopted plaintiffs’ view based on June, 2013 U.S. Department of Transportation guidelines. The Order required: <ul> <li>Installation of curb ramps at previously altered asphalt intersections at a rate of at least 125 ramps per year, estimated to finish by the end of 2024. <li> Installation of at least 125 curb ramps at previously altered concrete intersections by the end of 2025. </ul> However, the parties could not reach an agreement on whether there was a legal requirement to install curb ramps at concrete intersections altered prior to July, 2013. Erie preserved its right to litigate this issue in the Fourth Stipulated Order. As of March 29, 2021, the consent decrees and stipulated orders remain in effect. The defendants continue to file annual status reports. The most recent status report was filed on February 2, 2021 and the case is ongoing.
summary: On January 27, 2002, Barrier Busters, a disability advocacy group, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the City of Erie, PA. The Plaintiffs alleged that Erie's road resurfacing from 1992 onward lacked curb cuts mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The parties entered a series of consent decrees, in which Erie committed to retrofit the roads and intersections and to comply with ADA requirements on all future resurfacing projects.