City of Chicago Violates the Americans With Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act

On March 31, 2023, United States District Judge Elaine E. Bucklo, for the Northern District of Illinois, entered a Memorandum Opinion and Order. Therein, Judge Bucklo found the City of Chicago did not provide meaningful access to pedestrian signals to blind and low-vision individuals.¹ The underlying complaint was brought by Plaintiffs, the American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago and several of its individual members. The Defendant is the City of Chicago (“City”).

The Plaintiffs sought class certification pursuant to Federal Rule 23. In doing so, the Plaintiffs identified over 60,000 (and pursuant to a later Order over 65,000) Chicagoans as blind or visually impaired. This went undisputed by the City. Plaintiffs argued class certification was appropriate, in part, because it was a type of class action brought to vindicate members’ civil rights. In a separate Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 4, 2022, Judge Bucklo granted Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification.²

The Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Plaintiffs sought meaningful access to blind and low-vision individuals through the installation of Accessible Pedestrian Signals (“APS”). Blind and low-vision individuals cannot rely on the visual cues provided by traditional traffic signals and crosswalks.³ As such, crossing the street and locating the street are more difficult and hazardous for blind and low-vision individuals.

APS allows blind and low-vision individuals to navigate the city more safely through (1) a locator tone emitted, (2) a raised arrow on the pushbutton to indicate the direction of travel, and (3) a percussive audio cue that indicates the start and duration of the walk.⁴ Judge Bucklo noted, at the time briefing concluded, no more than 30 of the City’s roughly 2,800 signalized intersections had been equipped with APS despite 15 years of planning and assurances.⁵

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides “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 be subjected to discrimination by any such entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act provides “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability…shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, 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.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).⁶ Judge Bucklo found the City is required to ensure it operates signalized intersections in a manner that is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.⁷

An analysis of “meaningful access” followed with Judge Bucklo noting “[t]he core purpose of the Rehabilitation Act is to ensure that disabled individuals have ‘meaningful access’ to public benefits.”⁸ (internal citation omitted). Judge Bucklo found the City’s liability is “…based on its past and present failure to provide ‘meaningful access’ to its network of existing facilities and to ensure that newly constructed signals are designed and constructed in such a manner as to be ‘readily accessible’ by blind individuals.”⁹ Judge Bucklo granted Plaintiff’s Motions for Summary Judgment on the issue of the City’s liability.¹⁰

Theresa Lechner is a partner with the family law firm of Dussias Wittenberg Koenigsberger LLP and is based in Chicago, Illinois.