Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 1 of 24 PageID #:1
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND OF
`METROPOLITAN CHICAGO, ANN BRASH,
`MAUREEN HENEGHAN, and RAY
`CAMPBELL, on behalf of themselves and all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`
`-against-
`
`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.
`
`
`
`Case No. 19-cv-6322
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This class action lawsuit challenges the City of Chicago’s (“Chicago” or the
`
`“City”) practice of systemically discriminating against blind1 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.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 2 of 24 PageID #:2
`
`
`
`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 worst-
`
`case 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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 3 of 24 PageID #:3
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 4 of 24 PageID #:4
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 5 of 24 PageID #:5
`
`
`
`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 low-
`
`vision.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 6 of 24 PageID #:6
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 7 of 24 PageID #:7
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 8 of 24 PageID #:8
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 9 of 24 PageID #:9
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 10 of 24 PageID #:10
`
`
`
`INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS’ EXPERIENCES
`
`A.
`
`Harm to Plaintiff Brash
`
`39.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 11 of 24 PageID #:11
`
`
`
`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.
`
`Harm to Plaintiff Heneghan
`
`46.
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 12 of 24 PageID #:12
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 13 of 24 PageID #:13
`
`
`
`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
`
`2015.
`
`54.
`
`Because he works in Chicago, Mr. Campbell uses its street crossings every
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 14 of 24 PageID #:14
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 15 of 24 PageID #:15
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 16 of 24 PageID #:16
`
`
`
`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
`
`

`

`Case: 1:19-cv-06322 Document #: 1 Filed: 09/23/19 Page 17 of 24 PageID #:17
`
`
`
`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