Kinney v. Yerusalim (1993)

By: Maia Challapalli

Overview

The City of Philadelphia was completing street reconstructions when the plaintiffs, twelve individuals and Disabled in Action, filed a lawsuit against the city because of a lack of accessible curb cuts and streets. The main purpose of the court case was to decide whether resurfacing city streets constitutes an "alteration" under the ADA, thereby requiring installation of curb ramps. The district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, meaning all reconstructed streets as of January 1992, the effective date of the ADA, should include ramps at intersections. The City of Philadelphia continued to fight this case and appealed the decision, arguing that, if resurfacing were considered an alteration, it should be allowed to raise an undue burden defense to avoid the cost of installing curb ramps. The court rejected this argument, stating that the undue burden defense does not apply in this context.

Summary

The plaintiffs sought legal action against the City of Philadelphia with the intention to make the city more inclusive for individuals with disabilities and to improve the regulations of the ADA for street reconstruction across the country. 

The City of Philadelphia argued that the resurfacing of the streets did not qualify as an “alteration,” as defined in the ADA. The court reasoned that resurfacing the streets was making a conscious decision to improve street usability, therefore is categorized under the definitions of an alteration. Additionally, the court emphasized that the ADA was enacted to foster participation and inclusion for all individuals, including wheelchair users. Adding curb ramps allows for wheelchairs to use streets and sidewalks independently and be included in the city. 

The court ruled against the appeal from the City of Philadelphia to claim undue burden for implementing curb ramps. Undue burden is a section of the ADA that means an accommodation may not be completed due to financial hardship, administrative, and technical feasibility. The court informed the City that when a public institution decides to modify a facility, there must be maximum effort and feasibility to making it accessible without defense of undue financial or administrative burden. 

The court ruled in agreement with the plaintiffs, and curb ramps were included in the reconstruction of the streets in Philadelphia. The City’s alteration was compliant with the ADA and the mandate to enhance maximum accessibility. 

Impact

This case established an important precedent that resurfacing streets constitutes an alteration under Title II of the ADA, mandating that all new street alterations include curb ramps for accessibility, and the City cannot rely on its transition plan to delay compliance. The court highlighted that one of the main objectives of the ADA is to eliminate architectural barriers that prohibit all members of our society from using public spaces. Therefore, public streets must be accessible for individuals with disabilities. Under Title II of the ADA, all state and local governments must follow the ADA regardless of size, meaning all street alterations across the United States require curb ramps as well. 

Court Documents

Kinney v. Yerusalim, 812 F. Supp. 547 (E.D. Pa. 1993), Justia. 

Citations

Kinney v. Yerusalim - United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. studicata.com. (n.d.-a). https://www.studicata.com/case-briefs/case/kinney-v-yerusalim