UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
AMERICAN COUCIL OF THE BLIND OF
METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH,
MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY
CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,
-against-

[CASE NUMBER]
COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs,

CITY OF CHICAGO, CHICAGO
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
LORI LIGHTFOOT, in her official capacity as
Mayor of the City of Chicago, and THOMAS
CARNEY, in his official capacity as Acting
Commissioner of the Chicago Department of
Transportation,
Defendants.
INTRODUCTION
1.

This class action lawsuit challenges the City of Chicago’s (“Chicago” or the

“City”) practice of systemically discriminating against blind 1 residents and visitors by failing to
equip signalized street intersections with accessible pedestrian signals (“APSs”).
2.

APSs convey traffic and warning information (i.e., “Walk” and “Don’t Walk”) by

making sounds and vibrating a tactile button. By listening for the sounds generated by the APS,
blind pedestrians receive the same information about traffic safety that sighted pedestrians can
obtain by looking at the pedestrian signals.

1

Plaintiffs use the terms “blind” and “deaf-blind” to describe individuals who have low or no use of vision , as well
as low or no use of hearing alongside vision. For purposes of this complaint, the term “blind” should be understood
to include people who are either legally or completely blind.

 3.

Yet Chicago regularly installs and upgrades pedestrian traffic signals without

including an APS device, thereby denying blind pedestrians access to information that is
provided to sighted pedestrians to promote their safety.
4.

Indeed, abysmally few of Chicago’s signalized intersections have pedestrian

signals that are usable by blind pedestrians: Out of about 2,672 signalized traffic intersections in
Chicago, only 11—less than half of one percent—offer signals that convey any information at all
to people with vision-related disabilities. Such systemic failure dangerously diminishes blind
pedestrians’ ability to navigate street crossings safely and independently.
5.

To cope with the chronic lack of APS devices, which are missing even at noisy,

busy, or complex street intersections, blind pedestrians are forced to resort to a number of
workarounds that are demeaning and potentially unsafe. Some of these workarounds include
seeking assistance from complete strangers and attempting to follow sighted pedestrians, who
may cross against lights. At times, blind pedestrians must wait alone at an intersection for
several cycles until another pedestrian appears to help them navigate the crossing. In a worstcase scenario, a blind pedestrian risks being hit by a car because they are forced to cross the
street without knowing whether it is safe for them to do so.
6.

If a blind pedestrian accidentally crosses against the light, sighted pedestrians,

when present, will often grab or shout at them, an experience that is frightening and humiliating.
7.

The difficulties of crossing noisy, busy, or complex streets without APSs are

indeed so severe that some blind pedestirans attempt to avoid risky intersections altogether by
using indirect, longer routes, or by taking paratransit, even though parantransit must be arranged
for twenty-four hours in advance.

2

 8.

These challenges are additionally compounded by Chicago’s high vehicle and

population density. Chicago has approximately 11,000 inhabitants per square mile, making it
one of the most population-dense cities in the entire country. High levels of background noise—
such as construction, garbage collection, street music, or passing subways on elevated tracks—
make safe and independent navigation of street crossings that much more challenging for blind
pedestrians who, in the absence of accessible pedestrian signalling, often must rely on the ear
alone to know when to cross streets.
9.

Collectively, these obstacles severely compromise blind pedestrians’ ability to

move about the City like their sighted counterparts do: Safely, independently, expeditiously, and
without fear. The exclusion of APSs from Chicago’s pedestrian signal program is thus severly
harmful to Plaintiffs and members of the class.
10.

The City’s long-standing systemic failure to ensure that its pedestrian signals are

accessible to blind pedestrians constitutes a violation of both Title II of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
11.

Plaintiffs sue on behalf of themselves and all people with vision-related

disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in Chicago. Because Defendants have
imposed on these individuals unnecessary risks to their safety and independence each time they
navigate signalized intersections without APS devices, swift and comprehensive injunctive relief
is warranted.
JURISDICTION
12.

This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief, brought pursuant to Title II

of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq. and Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504”), 29 U.S.C. § 794.

3

 13.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C.

§§ 1331 and 1343 for claims arising under the ADA and Section 504.
VENUE
14.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), venue is proper in this District. The Defendants

are located within this District and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the
claims alleged herein occurred in this District.
PARTIES
15.

Plaintiff Ann Brash is blind and has used a white cane to navigate since 1971.

She has worked in Chicago since 1975 and travels on city streets each weekday. She is a
member of the American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago (“ACBMC”).
Accordingly, Ms. Brash is a qualified individual with a disability within the meaning of all
applicable statutes.
16.

Plaintiff Maureen Heneghan is blind and uses a white cane to navigate the

sidewalks. She has lived in Chicago her entire life and travels across city streets every day. She
is a member of the ACBMC. Accordingly, Ms. Heneghan is a qualified individual with a
disability within the meaning of all applicable statutes.
17.

Plaintiff Ray Campbell is blind and has used a white cane to navigate the

sidewalks for over 40 years. He has worked in Chicago in his current job since 2015 and travels
on city streets each weekday. He is the Second Vice President of the national American Council
of the Blind. Accordingly, Mr. Campbell is a qualified individual with a disability within the
meaning of all applicable statutes.
18.

Plaintiff ACBMC is a consumer-based, non-profit independent organization that

advocates on behalf of, and seeks to the improve the quality of life for, all blind and visually
impaired residents in Chicago, Illinois. It is an affiliate of the Illinois Council of the Blind,
4

 which is a state affiliate of the national American Council of the Blind. ACBMC’s officers and
membership, around 38 people in total, overwhelmingly consist of people who are blind or lowvision.
19.

Full access to basic services enabling safe and independent street navigation for

people with vision-related disabilities is a core component of ACBMC’s mission. ACBMC has
sent letters and feedback to the Mayor and various aldermen of Chicago, as well as attended
meetings of the Department of Transportation and Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities, to
advocate for the rights of blind pedestrians.
20.

In addition, ACBMC’s officers and board members navigate City streets on a

daily basis. The problems they have faced due to the systemic lack APSs have included being
forced to rely on strangers, following other pedestrians who are crossing against lights, being
grabbed without their consent by other pedestrians, and near-misses by cars when unwittingly
attempting to cross streets in the face of oncoming traffic. Defendants’ discriminatory actions
and failures to act have thus created injuries, providing members with standing to bring a suit in
their own right.
21.

In sum, the pervasive lack of APS devices is an issue of significant concern for

ACBMC and its members. Unless the issue is remediated, ACBMC will continue to be forced to
divert its resources away from the programs that seek to alleviate its constituents’ numerous
other needs into addressing this continued barrier to blind pedestrians’ ability to move about
safely and independently.
22.

Defendant City of Chicago is a “public entity” within the meaning of Title II of

the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1) and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Moreover,

5

 this Defendant is also the recipient of federal funds, including funds from the federal Department
of Transportation, and therefore subject to the accessibility requirements of Section 504.
23.

Defendant Chicago Department of Transportation is likewise a “public entity”

within the meaning of Title II of the ADA, as that term is defined under 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1)
and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104. Moreover, this Defendant is also the recipient of federal funds,
including funds from the federal Department of Transportation, and therefore subject to the
accessibility requirements of Section 504.
24.

Defendant Lori Lightfoot, sued in her official capacity, is the Mayor of the City of

Chicago.
25.

Defendant Thomas Carney, sued in his official capacity, is the Acting

Commissioner of the Chicago Department of Transportation.
FACTS COMMON TO ALL PLAINTIFFS
A. APS Technology is Indispensable for Securing the Safety and Independence of Blind
Pedestrians at Signalized Street Intersections.
26.

A modern APS device contains a pedestrian pushbutton with a raised arrow that

points at the pedestrian street crossing about which it provides signaling information. To signal
its location to blind pedestrians, the device continuously emits a sound about once per second.
Once a pedestrian presses the button to cross the street, this sound changes and the arrow
vibrates to communicate that the button has been successfully activated. When traffic has
stopped and the walk signal begins, the sound and vibration change again to signal to blind
pedestrians that the “walk” light is on.
27.

The first APS devices were marketed in the 1970s and consisted of just a chirping

speaker. An example of such an older device still in use in Chicago can be found at Roosevelt
Road and South Wood Street. This APS is located at the intersection immediately between the
6

 Chicago Lighthouse for the Blind and the Illinois State Center for Rehabilitation and Education.
Unlike a modern APS device, it does not have a vibrating button indicating to Deaf-blind
pedestrians when to cross the street, even though nearby street signs warn of “BLIND AND
DEAF” pedestrians in the area.
28.

Because of its importance to the safety and independence of blind pedestrians,

installation of APS technology is recognized as a best practice in federal accessibility guidance.
APS installation is indeed necessary to ensure that the City’s pedestrian signal program is readily
accessible to blind pedestrians.
B. The City Has Expended Substantial Resources to Improve Pedestrian Safety
Without Providing for APS Devices to Ensure that the Information Pedestrian
Signals Convey is Accessible to Blind Pedestrians.
29.

In recent years, the City has adopted several initiatives to improve pedestrian

safety generally. In its perhaps most ambitious effort, undertaken in 2012, the City committed to
implementing over 250 recommendations aimed at eliminating pedestrian fatalities. Those
recommendations included traffic-calming measures like pedestrian islands, chicanes, and
midblock curb bumpouts; identification and remediation of no less than two high-collision
corridors and four dangerous intersections annually; implementation of tougher safety mandates
for taxi drivers; and a variety of street infrastructure treatments such as road diets, roundabouts,
speed humps and pedestrian scrambles.
30.

Further, under Defendant CDOT’s Chicago Pedestrian Plan, the City has

ostensibly committed to investing in a variety of projects aimed at reducing serious pedestrian
injuries by 50 percent every five years. Some of these projects include development of a Zero in
Ten pedestrian crash program; implementation of the so-called Safety Zone, which aims to bring
about citywide crosswalk policy and safety improvements for seniors; development of
neighborhood streets for slow, local traffic; improvement of crash data collection and sharing;
7

 modification of driver education programs; and incentives to encourage taxi drivers to drive
more safely.
31.

Yet none of these ambitious commitments encompasses a serious effort to equip

signalized intersections with signals accessible to blind pedestrians.
32.

Instead, Defendants have suggested that they will install up to 100 APSs in the

next two years and 15-25 APSs per year after that. At that rate, Chicago’s street crossings will
not be accessible for another hundred years.
33.

Further compounding the problem, it is at best unclear whether the City will

actually follow through even on this modest promise since it has reneged on similar promises in
the past. For instance, in 2015, Chicago applied for and received a grant from the Chicago
Regional Transit Authority to install APSs at Clinton Street, Canal Street, Washington Street,
and Madison Street in the Loop. These APSs have not yet been installed, and the timeline for
their installation remains unclear.
34.

Collectively, these investments demonstrate that the City of Chicago has the

financial capacity to equip its signalized intersections with APS devices and simply chooses not
to do so.
C. Making Matters Worse: Leading Pedestrian Intervals Further Aggravate Problems
Caused by the Systemic Lack of APS Devices.
35.

The City has attempted to increase traffic safety for sighted pedestrians by

introducting pedestrian “signal phases” which instruct pedestrians to enter an intersection at a
different time than vehicular traffic. However, due to its failure to include APS devices at these
intersections, the City’s efforts have paradoxically made the streets even less safe for blind
pedestrians.

8

 36.

One such signal phase is a “leading pedestrian interval” (“LPI”). In an LPI, the

pedestrian traffic signal instructs pedestrians to enter the intersection three to ten seconds before
the traffic signal that directs vehicular traffic heading in the same direction does the same. This
permits pedestrians to have a head start getting across the intersection against turning vehicular
traffic, and is a proven safety measure for sighted individuals.
37.

However, if a traffic signal uses an LPI but has no APS, it does not inform blind

pedestrians when they should start crossing. At best, blind pedestrians lose the benefit of the LPI
because they are listening and waiting for the cue of vehicular traffic noises to know when to
cross, and thus simply wait through the LPI without receiving the benefit of the extra time to
cross the street. In fact, they may be left without adequate time to cross the street. At worst, an
LPI without an APS causes blind pedestrians to start crossing just as vehicular traffic starts
turning into their path, when drivers do not expect them.
38.

Today, the City has approximately 231 intersections that use LPIs but only 2 of

those intersections have APS devices. This scarcity appears to be the direct result of the fact that
the City does not require even considering APS installation when incorporating LPIs even
though both federal guidance and Chicago internal guidance recognize that such consideration is
warranted whenever an intersection uses signal phasing. Indeed, the City’s most recent policy on
the subject, issued in April 2019, explicitly provides that its engineers should not consider
installing APSs when signal phases are being added, unless the pedestrian signal is being newly
installed or completely replaced. The City is thus consistently ignoring the needs of blind
pedestrians even while taking actions to improve the safety of sighted pedestrians generally.

9

 INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES
A.
39.

Harm to Plaintiff Brash

Plaintiff Ann Brash is blind. She lives in La Grange, Illinois and commutes to

Chicago every weekday to her job.
40.

Ms. Brash uses Chicago street crossings virtually every weekday of her life.

Among other things, she navigates them to commute to her job, to do errands in the area around
her workplace, and to attend social appointments and organizational meetings.
41.

In 2017, Ms. Brash’s office moved to a new location, and she sought six weeks of

orientation and mobility training from Second Sense, a 70-year-old organization that provides
services, including mobility training, to people with vision-related disabilities, in order to ensure
that she could navigate safely and independently to the new location. Nonetheless, in November
2017, on her way home from one of her first few days on the job, she was nearly hit by a bus at
the intersection of West Madison Street and North Jefferson Street. As she was stepping off the
curb, a bus passed through the intersection in front of her. A fellow pedestrian grabbed her back
to keep her from moving forward, and her cane was split apart by the bus. She still crosses at
this intersection twice every work day, even though she does not feel safe navigating it, since its
location makes it virtually impossible to avoid.
42.

The intersection is exceptionally challenging because West Madison Street is a

one-way street with parking lanes, a right-hand turn lane, and two traffic lanes, while North
Jefferson Street is one-way with parking on one side and three lanes of traffic. The complexity
of the configuration makes it difficult for Ms. Brash to know where she should expect traffic
sounds to come from.
43.

Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their

design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Ms. Brash must deal with such
10

 intersections throughout Chicago without the aid of APSs when going to various daily
destinations.
44.

In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex streets safely without APSs, Ms. Brash

relies on a number of methods, all of which are time-consuming and inconvenient. Sometimes
she waits for other pedestrians to appear so that she can cross with them. She also sometimes
walks several blocks out of her way in order to avoid intersections that are confusing and unsafe.
Ms. Brash even avoids leaving her office for lunch so that she does not have to deal with street
crossings. The lack of APSs thus constrains Ms. Brash from moving about Chicago safely and
independently in a number of ways that affect her every single day, denying her equal
opportunity to participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, City resources to the same extent as her
sighted counterparts.
45.

Taken together, these experiences attest to Ms. Brash’s longstanding struggle with

access barriers resulting from the systemic lack of APS devices in the City. Because Ms. Brash
will continue to require APSs at noisy, busy, or complex intersections in order to navigate the
City safely and independently, the lack of them will keep affecting her in her daily life.
B.
46.

Harm to Plaintiff Heneghan

Plaintiff Heneghan lives in the Edison Park neighborhood of Chicago and is

legally blind.
47.

As a City resident, Ms. Heneghan uses Chicago street crossings virtually every

day of her life. Among other things, Ms. Heneghan navigates them to commute to her volunteer
commitments, to do errands, to attend medical appointments, and to socialize with friends and
family.
48.

In the course of all these activities, Ms. Heneghan regularly struggles with the

lack of APSs. In particular:
11

 a) Ms. Heneghan volunteers weekly at Second Sense. Second Sense has been
located at 65 East Wacker Place, between North Wabash Avenue and North
Michigan Avenue, for the past seven years. Despite the high volume of blind
people who travel to Second Sense, and who receive mobility training there, and
despite the huge intersections nearby, there are currently no APSs in the
immediate vicinity of the organizaiton’s office. Ms. Heneghan is thus forced to
navigate a number of highly busy intersections—including Clark/Lake,
Lake/Dearborn, Lake/State, Wabash/Lake and Wabash/Wacker Place—after
getting off the Blue Line without the benefit of the information that the pedestrian
crossing signals convey to sighted pedestrians. While each of these intersections
poses a significant challenge due to complex traffic patterns and noise, Ms.
Heneghan is especially frustrated by the Clark/Lake intersection because the noise
of the trains passing through the station directly above makes it difficult for her to
hear oncoming vehicular traffic and figure out when it is safe to cross.
b) In 2004, Ms. Heneghan was hit by a car at the intersection of North Milwaukee
Avenue and North Austin Avenue, near North Ardmore Avenue. Because North
Ardmore Avenue is a side street from which cars pour onto busy Milwaukee
Avenue, crossing it against the lights is exceptionally dangerous. In the absence
of an APS, Ms. Heneghan inadvertently did just that, and was hit by a car. In the
aftermath of the accident, Ms. Heneghan was forced to get eight staples in the
back of her head and needed weeks to fully recover.
49.

Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their

design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Ms. Heneghan must deal with such

12

 intersections throughout Chicago without the aid of APSs when navigating her way to various
daily destinations.
50.

In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex streets safely without APSs,

Ms.Heneghan relies on a number of methods, none of which she is comfortable or happy with.
These methods include crossing in packs of people, a strategy that can require waiting on other
pedestrians to show up; getting off buses and subways one or two stops early or late in order to
avoid unsafe intersections; taking paratransit, even though it must be arranged 24 hours in
advance; and asking other pedestrians for help.
51.

Requesting help from pedestrians in particular can be tricky and result in

additional difficulties. On one occasion, two pedestrians offered to help Ms. Heneghan cross,
and Ms. Heneghan asked them to tell her when the light changed. Instead, they physically pulled
her into the street when she was not expecting it. Her cane got stuck in a gap in the street, and
she lost her balance and fell. Ms. Heneghan was sore for days after the incident.
52.

Taken together, these experiences attest to Ms.Heneghan’s longstanding struggle

with access barriers resulting from the systemic lack of APS devices in the City. Because Ms.
Heneghan will continue to require APSs in order to navigate the City safely and independently,
this lack is bound to keep affecting her in her daily life.
C.

Harm to Plaintiff Campbell

53.

Plaintiff Ray Campbell is blind. He has worked in Chicago’s Inner Loop since

54.

Because he works in Chicago, Mr. Campbell uses its street crossings every

2015.

weekday. Among other things, Mr. Campbell navigates them to commute to his job, to go to
lunch in the area around his workplace, to socialize with friends, and to attend meetings and
other events.
13

 55.

In the course of all these activities, the lack of APSs causes difficulties for Mr.

Campbell. These difficulties are particularly aggravated at specific intersections near his office,
including:
a) Clark and Lake. The elevated train runs above this intersection, and because the
station there is a major transfer point, it is difficult to hear oncoming traffic to
figure out when it is safe to cross. Discerning oncoming traffic is additionally
made challenging by the fact that the traffic pattern is complex; Clark Street has
three lanes heading in one direction, including a turn lane, while Lake Street has
parking on both sides, two active straight lanes, and a turn lane. The use of an
LPI on both streets tops off these difficulties. Just recently, Mr. Campbell
struggled to cross this intersection when an Orange Line train got held up at the
station right above the intersection. Unable to hear the vehicular traffic thanks to
the noise from the train, he was forced to wait through numerous light cycles until
another pedestrian eventually approached and offered to help. Mr. Campbell
found the experience equally frustrating and terrifying, especially given that he
cannot feasibly avoid the intersection on his daily commute.
b) North Clark Street and West Washington Street. Clark Street has three lanes in
one direction including a turn lane, while Washington has a bike lane, a bus lane,
a car lane, and a turn lane. There is also an LPI on Clark Street. The many
different-use lanes make it difficult for Mr. Campbell to know where to listen for
vehicular traffic or to know when he has finished crossing the street; additionally,
the LPI makes it difficult to know when he should start trying to cross the street.

14

 Because of all these difficulties, Mr. Campbell finds the intersection confusing
and dangerous, and avoids it whenever possible.
c) Madison and Wells. Like the intersection at North Clark and East Lake, this
crossing is challenging due to the El trains running directly overhead, making it
difficult for Mr. Campbell to figure out when the traffic is coming. Indeed, just
recently Mr. Campbell nearly got hit by a bus at this intersection because he was
unable to hear the traffic due to the high volume of street noise. At the last
minute, a sighted pedestrian told Mr. Campbell he should wait.
56.

Many other intersections in Chicago are similarly noisy and complex in their

design, featuring multiple traffic lanes and directions. Mr. Campbell must deal with such
intersections throughout downtown Chicago without the aid of APSs. Since Mr. Campbell is an
extremely savvy and safe white cane user, the fact that he has difficulty at many Chicago
intersections is not indicative of any lack of travel ability, but rather illustrates the negative
impact of the systemic lack of APSs on blind pedestrians.
57.

In order to cross noisy, busy, or complex intersections safely and independently

without APSs, Mr. Campbell generally relies on a number of methods, none of which he is
comfortable or happy with. These methods include listening for traffic, a strategy made difficult
by the background noise, especially the trains; waiting for other pedestrians, an approach that can
require waiting on other pedestrians to show up for as long as ten minutes at a time; and avoiding
certain streets and intersections altogether, a method that can require him to take circuitous
routes in order to arrive at his destination.
58.

Taken together, the systemic lack of APS devices in the City presents a daily

challenge for Mr. Campbell. Because Mr. Campbell will continue to require APSs at noisy,

15

 busy, or complex intersections in order to navigate the City safely and independently, this lack
will keep affecting him in his daily life.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
59.

Pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs bring

this action, for injunctive and declaratory relief purposes only, on their own behalf and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated. The class that Plaintiffs seek to represent consists of all persons
with vision-related disabilities who use, or seek to use, pedestrian signals in the City of Chicago.
The claims asserted herein are solely for injunctive and declaratory relief for the class; Plaintiffs
seek no money damages.
60.

The persons in the class are so numerous that joinder of all such persons is

impracticable. In particular, over 60,000 Chicago residents have visual disabilities, and many
more people with visual disabilities visit or commute into the City annually. The disposition of
their claims in a class action is accordingly a benefit to the parties and to the Court.
61.

Proposed class members share a well-defined community of interest with respect

to both questions of law and fact involved because they are all being denied, or will be denied,
access to the City’s pedestrian signals and thereby their right to navigate Chicago’s street
crossings safely and independently, on equivalent terms with their sighted counterparts.
62.

One of the key common questions of law and fact involves Plaintiffs’ allegations

that Defendants have violated the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act by failing to provide access to
their pedestrian signals to persons with vision-related disabilities. Common questions also
include whether failure to include APS devices during replacement and upgrade activities
violates those laws, as well as which remedial scheme is appropriate to rectify the current lack of
access. Each of these questions is capable of class-wide resolution.

16

 63.

Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole because all

Plaintiffs are similarly affected by Defendants’ failure to safeguard access to their pedestrian
signals program for pedestrians with vision-related disabilities.
64.

Plaintiffs are adequate class representatives because they, or the persons they

serve, are directly impacted by Defendants’ failure to provide access to their pedestrian signals.
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the class as a whole because Plaintiffs
are similarly affected by the systemic lack of APSs.
65.

Plaintiffs’ interests are not antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the interests of the

class as a whole. The attorneys representing the class are highly trained, duly qualified, and very
experienced in civil rights class actions for injunctive relief, including actions challenging
barriers to access involving pedestrian rights-of-way.
66.

By failing to secure accessibility of its pedestrian signals consistent with federal

disability access laws, Defendants have acted and/or failed to act on grounds generally applicable
to the class as a whole. Accordingly, an award of appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief
with respect to the class as a whole is warranted in this case.
67.

References to Plaintiffs shall include each Plaintiff and each member of the class,

unless otherwise indicated.
CAUSES OF ACTION
Count I
Discrimination in Violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act,
42 U.S.C. § 12131 et seq.
68.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate herein all previously alleged paragraphs of the

Complaint.
69.

Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, prohibits a

public entity from excluding a person with a disability from participating in, or otherwise
17

 benefitting from, a program of the public entity, or otherwise discriminating against a person on
the basis of disability: “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.”
70.

The term “disability” includes physical and mental impairments that substantially

limit one or more major life activities. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(2). Further, a “ ‘qualified individual
with a disability’ means an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable
modifications to rules, policies, or practices, the removal of architectural, communication, or
transportation barriers, or the provision of auxiliary aids and services, meets the essential
eligibility requirements for the receipt of services or the participation in programs or activities
provided by a public entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12131(2).
71.

Because they have impairments which substantially limit the major life activity of

seeing, each individual Plaintiff and members of the organizational Plaintiff are qualified
individuals within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102 and 12131; see also 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
Additionally, they are qualified in that they are located, or work, in Chicago and therefore
continuously navigate its street crossings, an activity that requires access to pedestrian signals to
ensure safety and independence.
72.

A “public entity” includes state and local governments, their agencies, and their

instrumentalities. 42 U.S.C. § 12131(1). Because they constitute units of local government,
Defendants are public entities within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 12131 and 28 C.F.R. § 35.104.
73.

As part of their non-discrimination duties, public entities like the City and

Department must operate each of their programs, services or activities “so that, when viewed in
its entirety, [that program, service or activity] is readily accessible to and useable by individuals

18

 with disabilities.” See 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 28 C.F.R. § 35.150; see also 28 C.F.R. §§ 35.149 &
35.151. There is no doubt that Defendants’ management of their pedestrian street crossing
signals constitutes a program, service or activity under Title II. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.149
(requiring that a “service, program, or activity” of a public entity must be “readily accessible to
and usable by individuals with disabilities”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.151 (requiring that any newly
constructed or altered “facility or part of a facility” be “readily accessible to and usable by
individuals with disabilities”); 28 C.F.R. § 35.104 (defining “facility” to include “all or any
portion of [...] structures, […] equipment, rolling stock, or other conveyances, roads, walks,
passageways, […] including the site where the building, property, structure, or equipment is
located.”) Defendants therefore have an obligation under the ADA to ensure that their pedestrian
signals are readily accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
74.

The pervasiveness of the inaccessible pedestrian signals, as demonstrated by the

shockingly low percentage of corners equipped with APS devices, shows that Defendants have
failed in their duty to operate this program in a non-discriminatory manner, consistent with the
above-cited provisions. In particular, they have failed to ensure that the pedestrian signals
program is readily accessible and usable by pedestrians with vision-related disabilities when
viewed in its entirety.
75.

Defendants additionally violate a number of provisions of the implementing

regulations of Title II, which were promulgated by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to
implement Title II’s prohibition against discrimination. See 42 U.S.C. § 12134; 28 C.F.R. §
35.101 et seq.
76.

First, Defendants violate their duty to design and construct all new facilities

(dating from 1992 onward) in such a way as to ensure that “[e]ach [such] facility or part of a

19

 facility . . . is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. §
35.151(a)(1). Pedestrian signals constitute facilities. See Scharff v. Cnty. of Nassau, No. 10 CV
4208, 2014 WL 2454639 (E.D.N.Y. June 2, 2014). Defendants thus have a duty to ensure that
all newly installed pedestrian signals are readily accessible to and usable by people with
disabilities to the maximum extent feasible. The inaccessibility of any signals installed after
1992 runs afoul of Defendants’ duties under 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(a)(1).
77.

Second, Defendants violate their obligations with respect to alterations of any

existing facilities that are conducted in a manner that affects or could affect the usability of that
facility. In particular, by failing to install APS devices each time they replace or rehabilitate
existing pedestrian signals, Defendants fail to ensure that such alterations are accomplished “to
the maximum extent feasible . . . in such manner that the altered portion of the facility is readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.151(b)(1).
78.

Third, Defendants’ actions deny qualified individuals with disabilities the

opportunity to participate in or benefit from pedestrian signals; deprives those individuals of an
opportunity to participate in the benefits offered by the signals on the same terms as sighted
pedestrians; and/or provides individuals with disabilities with an aid, benefit, or service that is
not as effective in affording equal opportunity to obtain the same result or to gain the same
benefit from the information pedestrian signals convey as that provided to others. All these
omissions and failures to act violate 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(1)(i)–(iii).
79.

Fourth, Defendants, directly and/or through contractual or other arrangements,

utilize criteria and/or methods of administration that have the effect of subjecting qualified
individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of their disability and defeat or

20

 substantially impair the accomplishment of the objectives of their pedestrian signals program
with respect to individuals with disabilities, in violation of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i)–(ii).
80.

Fifth, Defendants have failed to make reasonable modifications in their policies,

practices, or procedures necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, in violation
of 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7).
81.

Finally, Defendants have failed to make their communications via their pedestrian

signals as effective for people with sensory disabilities as they have for others, and have failed to
provide necessary auxiliary aids and services to enable blind pedestrians an equal opportunity to
participate in, and enjoy the benefits of, their pedestrian signals program. In doing so,
Defendants have violated 28 C.F.R. § 35.160.
82.

As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have been

and continue to be injured.
83.

Defendants’ conduct constitutes an ongoing and continuous violation of Title II of

the ADA. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as well as
reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
Count II
Discrimination in Violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
84.

Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate all previously alleged paragraphs.

85.

Section 504 mandates that “[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).
86.

An “individual with a disability” is defined, in pertinent part, as an “individual

who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life
21

 activities of such individual.” 29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102). In
addition, a “qualified” person with a disability is a person who meets the essential eligibility
requirements for participation in, or receipt of benefits from, that program or activity. 28 C.F.R.
§ 39.103.
87.

The individual Plaintiffs, the board members and constituents of the

organizational Plaintiff, and the class are all qualified individuals with disabilities under the
above-described definition in that they have disabilities which substantially limit one or more
major life activities, such as seeing. They are also qualified in that they have sought, and will
continue to seek, to navigate pedestrian crossings and therefore require access to pedestrian street
crossing signals to do so safely and independently at noisy, busy, or complex intersections. See
29 U.S.C. § 705(2)(B) (referencing 42 U.S.C. § 12102); see also 28 C.F.R. § 39.103.
88.

Defendants are recipients of federal financial assistance sufficient to invoke the

coverage of Section 504. Moreover, Defendants have received such federal financial assistance
at all times relevant to the claims asserted in this Complaint.
89.

Defendants and their agents and employees have violated, and continue to violate,

Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder by excluding Plaintiffs from
participation in, denying Plaintiffs the benefits of, and subjecting Plaintiffs based solely by
reason of their disabilities, to discrimination in access to the pedestrian signals that they
otherwise make available for sighted residents of the City.
90.

Defendants’ acts and omissions described herein violate the equal access and

nondiscrimination provisions of Section 504 and the regulations promulgated thereunder, and
have resulted in injury to Plaintiffs.

22

 91.

This conduct, unless enjoined, will continue to inflict injuries for which Plaintiffs

have no adequate remedy at law.
92.

Plaintiffs are thus entitled to injunctive relief and reasonable attorneys’ fees,

expenses, and costs, pursuant to 29 U.S.C § 794(a).
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court:
93.

Declare that the actions and inactions described herein violate the rights of

Plaintiffs under the ADA and Section 504.
94.

Issue an order requiring that Defendants take the necessary steps to remedy the

City’s pedestrian signals so that street crossings are equipped with APS devices to ensure
systemic accessibility for people who are blind consistent with the ADA and Section 504;
95.

Issue an order enjoining Defendants from continuing to engage in the unlawful

conduct of installing and/or altering pedestrian signals without providing for APS technology;
96.

Issue an order requiring that Defendants maintain any existing APS devices at the

signalized intersections where they were previously installed;
97.

Award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; and

98.

Grant such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.

23

 Dated: September 23, 2019
Chicago, Illinois

Respectfully submitted,

JELENA KOLIC
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
10 South LaSalle Street, 18th Floor
Chicago, IL 60613
Tel: (312) 559-4600
Fax: (212) 644-8636
jkolic@dralegal.org
Nigel F. Telman
Edward C. Young
Ren Morris
PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
70 West Madison
Suite 3800
Chicago, Illinois 60602
Phone: (312) 962-3548
Fax: (312) 962-3551
ntelman@proskauer.com
eyoung@proskauer.com
hmorris@proskauer.com
Christina Brandt-Young (pro hac vice pending)
Michelle Caiola (pro hac vice pending)
DISABILITY RIGHTS ADVOCATES
655 Third Ave., 14th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Tel.: (212) 644-8644
Fax: (212) 644-8636
cbrandt-young@dralegal.org
mcaiola@dralegal.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

24