Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 1 of 79 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 1:02CV00864 JR ) JOHN W. SNOW, Secretary of the Treasury, ) ) Defendant. ) ) PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Pursuant to Rule 56 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs move for summary judgment on the basis that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The reasons for this motion are fully set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Plaintiff further requests an opportunity to present oral argument in this matter. A proposed Order is attached. Respectfully submitted, ____________________ JEFFREY A. LOVITKY D.C. Bar No. 404834 Law Office of Jeffrey A. Lovitky 1735 New York Ave., NW, Ste. 500 Washington, DC 20006 (202)429-3393 Attorney for Plaintiffs Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 2 of 79 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AMERICAN COUNCIL OF THE BLIND, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION NO. v. ) 1:02CV00864 JR ) JOHN W. SNOW, Secretary of the Treasury, ) ) Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 3 of 79 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND…………………. 1 II. THE BURDEN IS UPON DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED ARE UNDULY BURDENSOME…………………………………………... 2 III. DEFENDANT HAS NOT MADE A REASONABLE EFFORT TO ACCOMMODATE THE DISABLED IN DESIGNING BANKNOTES……... 3 A. Recommendations Made by the 1983 and 1995 Currency Studies …………………………………….…… 4 1. NAS Panel Recommendations on Varying Banknote Size by Denomination……….. 5 2. Recommendations of the NAS Panel on Use Of Large High Contrast Numerals……….. 6 3. NAS Panel Findings on Use of Different Colors for each Denomination…………………….6 4. Recommendations of the NAS Panel for Future Research…………………………… 7 B. Defendant’s Failure to Implement the Recommendations Contained in the 1983 and 1995 Studies ……………………………………………….…….. 7 ii Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 4 of 79 1. The Current Use of Color Is Inconsistent With the Recommendations of the NAS Panel……………………………………….. 8 2. Design of the Large Denomination Numeral Is Inconsistent With the Recommendations of the NAS Panel…….. 9 3. Defendant Has Not Undertaken Reasonable Efforts to Develop a Portable Electronic Device Capable Of Rapid And Accurate Denomination…………………… 11 4. Defendant Has Not Undertaken Any of The Research and Testing Recommended By the NAS Panel………………………….. 15 C. Currency Features In Use Worldwide Demonstrate The Feasibility of Accommodating the Visually Disabled……………………………………………………. 21 D. The Costs of Providing Accommodations to the Visually Disabled are not Unduly Burdensome….……… 23 1. The 1983 BEP and 1995 NAS Panel Analysis of Cost Impacts………………….. 24 2. Defendant’s Current Analysis of Cost Impacts…………………………………….. 25 3. Defendant’s Current Cost Estimates are iii Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 5 of 79 Either Inflated or Unsubstantiated………. 27 4. Defendant’s Asserted Cost Impacts Do Not Impose an Undue Burden, Even Assuming Their Accuracy………………… 30 IV. THE DESIGN OF CURRENCY IMPOSES A SIGNIFICANT BURDEN UPON THE VISUALLY DISABLED………………………………………………… 35 V. THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY PLAINTIFFS……………... 38 A. Currency Redesign………………………………………... 38 B. External Devices…………………………………………… 40 VI. CONCLUSION……………………………………………. 43 iv Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 6 of 79 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES American Council of the Blind v. Snow, 311 F.Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C 2004)...................................................... 2, 24 Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 (1984) …….......................................................... 3 J.D. ex rel. J.D. v. Pawlet School Dist., 224 F.3d 60, 70 (2nd Cir. 2000) ........................................................ 14 Nathanson v. Medical College of Pennsylvania, 926 F.2d 1368, 1385 (3rd Cir. 1991)................................................. 3 FEDERAL STATUTES 12 U.S.C. § 418.............................................................................................. 1 29 U.S.C. § 701(b)......................................................................................... 14 29 U.S.C. § 794.............................................................................................. 1, 38 42 U.S.C. § 416(i)(1)(B)……………………………………………………. 36, 43 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 20 C.F.R. §404.1581……………………………………….………………36, 43 31 C.F.R. §17.103(c)…………………………………………………….. 9, 41 31 C.F.R. § 17.130(d)…………………………………………………..... 14, 42 31 C.F.R. § 17.150…………………………………………….…………. 2, 3, 14, 34, 42 31 C.F.R. §17.160(a)(1)…………………………………………………... 9, 41 v Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 7 of 79 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND On May 6, 2002, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under the provisions of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794. Pursuant to this provision, individuals with disabilities may not be excluded from or denied the benefits of participation in any program or activity conducted by the United States government. See 29 U.S.C. § 794(a). The Complaint asserted that U.S. banknotes are identical in size and feel, and virtually identical in color. The banknotes provide no basis whatsoever for denominating by blind persons. Moreover, banknotes contain minimal cues to assist persons with low vision in distinguishing between denominations. Disabled Americans experience considerable difficulty in conducting commercial transactions, and purchasing goods and services, as a result of the design of U.S. banknotes. On August 29, 2002, Defendant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant asserted that the design of currency was subject to the sole discretion of the Secretary pursuant to 12 U.S.C. § 418, and also that modifying U.S. currency to accommodate the needs of the disabled would be unduly burdensome. The Court denied this motion by Memorandum Order dated April 1, 2003. The Court held that the record was insufficient to determine whether the modifications sought by Plaintiffs would impose an undue burden upon Defendant, and further that Defendant had failed to support its argument that the design of currency was not subject to the provisions of the Rehabilitation Act. Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 8 of 79 On May 28, 2003, Defendant submitted a Motion to Dismiss under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendant argued that the Secretary’s responsibility under the Federal Reserve Act to design currency in the best manner to guard against counterfeiting overrides the general anti-discrimination provisions of the Rehabilitation Act. Defendant also argued that no actionable discrimination existed because the visually disabled have meaningful ability to use currency. Additionally, Defendant asserted that the complaint should be dismissed under the doctrine of failure to exhaust administrative remedies. On March 31, 2004, the Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. American Council of the Blind v. Snow, 311 F.Supp. 2d 86 (D.D.C 2004). The Court ruled that there is no apparent conflict between the Secretary’s responsibilities under Section 504, and the Secretary's responsibilities under the Federal Reserve Act. Id at 87. The Court further ruled that the Complaint sufficiently alleges that the Plaintiffs are “disproportionately burdened by the current form of the currency and that this burden may constitute denial of meaningful access.” Id. at 89. The Court held that the inquiry beyond this point demands an “examination of the relative burdens of the handicapped and the entity administering the program.” Id. Finally, the Court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile and therefore not be required. Id. at 90. II. THE BURDEN IS UPON DEFENDANT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ACCOMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED ARE UNDULY BURDENSOME - 2 - Case 1:02-cv-00864-JR Document 35-1 Filed 08/31/2005 Page 9 of 79 The burden is upon the agency to prove that compliance with the requirements of Section 504 would result in an undue burden upon the agency. The Department of Treasury regulations implementing Section 504 state in pertinent part as follows: In those circumstances where agency personnel believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the program or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, the agency has the burden of proving that compliance with the § 17.150(a) would result in such alteration or burdens. This determination may be made only after the agency considers all of the resources which it has available to operate the program or activity. See 31 C.F.R. § 17.150(a)(2). The Supreme Court has held that agency regulations implementing Section 504 are a particularly important source of guidance in interpreting the Act. Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone, 465 U.S. 624, 634 (1984) (noting that the responsible congressional committees participated in the formulation and adoption of these regulations). Therefore, appropriate deference to agency regulations mandates that