DAVID L. SCHWALM (Harrisburg) - In 2004, the United States Supreme Court, by a narrow majority, upheld the applicability of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) in a dispute involving access to courthouses in the State of Tennessee in the case of Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004). In part, that civil action arose out of claims by a paraplegic that he had to crawl up the steps of the Polk County courthouse in order to appear in court for his criminal hearing. Since the issues revolved around the constitutional right of access to the courts, the Supreme Court declared that “ordinary considerations of cost and convenience alone cannot justify a state’s failure to provide individuals with a meaningful right of access to the courts.” Accordingly, the Supreme Court permitted the case to go to trial for a determination whether the plaintiffs’ rights were violated and whether they sustained any compensatory damages. Pennsylvania counties need to be aware of the possible ramifications of this decision to protect themselves from potential liability in similar instances.
I. Facts of the Case
This case was brought on behalf of two individuals who were both paraplegics and used wheelchairs for mobility. Lane alleged that he was required to appear on criminal charges on the second floor of a county courthouse that had no elevator. On his first appearance, he crawled up two flights of stairs to get to the courtroom. At his second appearance, he refused to crawl up the stairs and also refused an offer to be carried by officers to the courtroom. Subsequent offers to move the hearings to a nearby handicapped accessible courthouse were also rejected. Jones was a certified court reporter who claimed that she was unable to gain access to a number of county courthouses and lost work as a result of her inability to participate in the judicial process.
II. Legal Issues
This case involved Title II of the ADA which guarantees access to government services by disabled persons. Although the decision turned on the narrow question of whether Congress had the power under Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to enforce the provisions of the ADA against states, the outcome could have far reaching consequences. One of the disputes between the justices involved a question of whether sufficient evidence of discrimination existed against handicapped persons in obtaining access to judicial proceedings. The majority decision cited to the “sheer volume of evidence demonstrating the nature and extent of unconstitutional discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of public services.” The dissent, however, stated that “Congress utterly failed to identify any evidence that disabled persons were denied constitutionally protected access to judicial proceedings.” The dissent also expressed concerns that the ruling would open the door to additional lawsuits with respect to access to courthouses other than for judicial proceedings.
Based upon the history and pattern of unequal treatment, the Supreme Court held that Title II of the ADA was an appropriate response. In complying with the law, the Court pointed out that states were not required to employ any and all means to make judicial services accessible to persons with disabilities. Instead, the Act only required “reasonable modifications” that would not fundamentally alter the nature of the service provided. Although newer facilities would require compliance with specific architectural accessibility standards, older facilities could be brought into compliance by less costly measures including “relocating services to alternative, accessible sites and assigning aides to assist persons with disabilities in accessing services.” These requirements to accommodate a disabled person were consistent with obligations to provide “all individuals a meaningful opportunity to be heard” in the courts. Accordingly, the Supreme Court permitted the plaintiffs to proceed seeking not only injunctive relief to correct the alleged problems but also compensatory damages.
While the dissenting opinions attack the majority decision because of the failure to “identify a pattern of actual constitutional violations by the States.” The dissent further pointed to the absence of a pattern of constitutional violations to the fact that only two reported cases found that a disabled person’s federal constitutional rights of access to the court were violated. The dissent further pointed out that Lane was able to attend his initial hearing and that he failed to appear for the second hearing only after he refused assistance from officers to help him to the courtroom. Lane also rejected offers to move the proceedings to a handicapped-accessible courthouse in a nearby town. Under those circumstances, the dissent contended that Lane’s constitutional right of access to the court was not violated.
III. Conclusion
In light of the Tennessee v. Lane decision, Pennsylvania counties must continue to be cognizant of the need for handicap accessibility to their buildings. Although the Tennessee decision only involved a claim of access to judicial proceedings, counties should be concerned with the pervasive nature of the Americans With Disabilities Act and its potential applicability to other county services. Counties can attempt to avoid litigation in these areas and the legal costs related to such civil actions by reviewing their policies to ensure that they satisfy ADArequirements by making reasonable accommodations, training and educating personnel about these issues through organizations like the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania, and also ensuring that county employees demonstrate respect for disabled individuals. While people will continue to file suits regardless of what actions may taken, counties should can attempt to limit them by following these steps.
Dave Schwalm is a partner in the law firm of Thomas, Thomas & Hafer LLP. He has represented PCoRP members for more than 15 years. If you have any questions concerning these or related issues, please contact him at (717) 255-7643 or dschwalm@tthlaw.com.