Introduction

The case of Disabled in Action and United Spinal Association v. Board of Elections in the City of New York, decided by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on May 14, 2014, marks a significant development in the enforcement of accessibility standards in public polling places. The plaintiffs, representing individuals with mobility and vision disabilities, alleged that the Board of Elections (BOE) failed to provide accessible polling sites in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).

Summary of the Judgment

The Second Circuit affirmed the district court's decision to grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs, concluding that the BOE had systematically failed to ensure accessible polling locations for individuals with disabilities. The court upheld the district court's remedial order, which mandated a structured plan for the BOE to enhance accessibility. This plan included designating on-site ADA coordinators, developing accessibility checklists, and collaborating with a third-party expert to survey and recommend modifications for polling sites.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively referenced several key cases and statutory provisions that underscored the obligations of public entities under disability law. Notable among these are:

• Lederman v. New York City Dept. of Parks & Recreation: Established the standard for reviewing summary judgment motions de novo, ensuring that all plausible defenses are considered.
• HENRIETTA D. v. BLOOMBERG: Clarified the standards for awarding injunctive relief, emphasizing the need for tailored remedies that respect local governmental functions.
• ALEXANDER v. CHOATE and Lane v. Tennessee: Highlighted the necessity of eliminating architectural barriers and providing reasonable accommodations without imposing undue burdens.
• Regulations like 28 C.F.R. § 35.150, which detail the requirements for public entities to provide accessible services.

Legal Reasoning

The court's analysis hinged on demonstrating that the BOE's actions constituted a failure to provide "meaningful access" as mandated by both Section 504 and Title II of the ADA. The key points included:

• Pervasive Barriers: Evidence showed that over 80% of designated polling sites had physical barriers, such as inadequate ramps, blocked entryways, and malfunctioning Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs), which effectively denied individuals with disabilities equal access to voting.
• Inadequate Accommodations: The BOE's reliance on ad hoc measures, like transferring voters or attempting temporary fixes on election day, was insufficient to ensure compliance with federal accessibility standards.
• Reasonableness of Remedial Measures: The district court's remedial order was deemed reasonable as it provided a structured framework for the BOE to address accessibility issues without imposing excessive burdens, aligning with the principles of federalism and institutional respect.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the obligations of public entities to proactively ensure accessibility in their services, particularly in critical areas like voting. Future cases can reference this precedent to challenge systemic accessibility failures, expecting courts to uphold strong remedial measures that mandate comprehensive compliance. Additionally, the case underscores the importance of collaboration with experts and the iterative process of enhancing accessibility standards.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Meaningful Access

"Meaningful access" refers to the practical ability of individuals with disabilities to participate fully in programs and activities provided by public entities. It's not just about having facilities that are technically accessible but also ensuring that these facilities are usable and that individuals can effectively engage without undue barriers.

Summary Judgment

A summary judgment is a legal decision made by a court without a full trial. It is granted when there is no dispute over the essential facts of the case, allowing the court to decide based on the law alone. In this case, the court found that the facts overwhelmingly supported the plaintiffs' claims, warranting summary judgment in their favor.

Injunctive Relief

Injunctive relief is a court-ordered act or prohibition against certain actions to prevent harm or rectify a situation. Here, the court ordered the BOE to implement specific measures to make polling sites accessible, aiming to prevent ongoing discrimination and ensure compliance with disability laws.

Conclusion

The Second Circuit's affirmation in Disabled in Action v. Board of Elections underscores the legal imperative for public entities to ensure accessible and equitable access to essential services like voting for individuals with disabilities. By mandating comprehensive remedial measures, the court not only upheld the rights of disabled voters but also set a precedent for future enforcement of accessibility standards under the Rehabilitation Act and the ADA. This decision serves as a critical reminder of the ongoing need to eliminate systemic barriers and promote inclusivity within public institutions.