Martin, et al v. Metro Atlanta Rapid, et al
Filing
120
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING 102 Motion to Order the Defendants to Show Cause Why They Should Not be Held in Contempt. After a reasonable time for discovery, the Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing on the contempt motion. Signed by Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr on 11/16/2015. (adg) Modified on 11/16/2015 (adg).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
VINCENT MARTIN, et al., on behalf
of themselves and all other disabled
persons similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
CIVIL ACTION FILE
v.
NO. 1:01-CV-3255-TWT
METROPOLITAN ATLANTA
RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITY, et
al.,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This is an action under the Americans With Disabilities Act. It is before the
Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order the Defendants to Show Cause Why They
Should Not be Held in Contempt [Doc. 102]. For the reasons set forth below, the
Motion is GRANTED.
I. Background
On November 28, 2001, the Plaintiffs brought an action for injunctive and
declaratory relief against the Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
(“MARTA”). They brought their claims pursuant to the American with Disabilities
Act (“ADA”) and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Rehabilitation Act”), alleging a
system-wide pattern and practice of discrimination against people with disabilities by
the Defendants. On December 24, 2002, this Court entered an Order granting a
preliminary injunction against MARTA.1 That Order required MARTA to take a
variety of actions to bring its services in compliance with the ADA and the
Rehabilitation Act. With regard to its Paratransit services, the Order required, inter
alia, that MARTA make every effort to achieve and maintain an on-time performance
rate of 100 percent, and that MARTA provide a sufficient number of Paratransit
vehicles and operators so that all eligible persons requesting Paratransit services can
receive it on a “next day” basis.2 The Order also established that MARTA must
attempt to answer all Paratransit customers’ telephone calls within three minutes and
avoid placing a customer’s call on “hold.”3
The Court’s initial Order has since been modified with the consent of the parties
three times. On March 30, 2005, the Order’s Disciplinary Guidelines were amended.4
Then, on July 19, 2007, the Order was modified to address MARTA Paratransit’s ontime performance.5 That amendment required that MARTA follow the
1
Order Granting Preliminary Injunction [45].
2
Id. at 14, 16.
3
Id. at 16.
4
Order of March 30, 2005 [75].
5
Order of July 19, 2007 [95].
-2-
recommendations of a third-party consultant, TranSystems.6 Based on TranSystems’s
finding that MARTA Paratransit’s on-time performance rate had continued to decline
despite the 2002 Preliminary Injunction, MARTA agreed to add a provision to the
Order that specified a certain number of Paratransit vehicles and operators that were
to be made available in 2007 and 2008.7 Finally, on June 25, 2014, upon an
understanding that the Defendants had put in place certain procedures and processes
that brought them in compliance with several of the injunction’s provisions, the Order
was amended to release the Defendants from certain requirements.8 However,
MARTA’s obligations with regard to its Paratransit services remained largely the
same. Importantly, the current Order still requires that MARTA make every effort to
achieve and maintain an on-time performance rate of 100 percent, and that MARTA
must provide a sufficient number of Paratransit vehicles and operators.
On May 13, 2015, the Plaintiffs moved for an order requiring the Defendants
to show cause why they should not be held in contempt. The Plaintiffs allege that the
Defendants are violating the Paratransit provisions of the Order. The Defendants,
however, argue that MARTA has made substantial progress to remedy deficiencies
6
Id. at 4-5.
7
Id.
8
Order of June 25, 2014 [101], at 1-2.
-3-
in its Paratransit system, and that this effort is sufficient to be in compliance with the
Order.
II. Discussion
“Injunctions, including consent decrees, . . . are enforced through the trial
court’s civil contempt power.”9 To succeed, a petitioner “must [first] establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the alleged contemnor violated [a] court’s order.”10 Once
this prima facie showing of a violation is made, the burden shifts to the respondent “to
produce evidence explaining his noncompliance” at a “show cause” hearing.11 At the
show cause hearing, the respondent is allowed to show either that he did not violate
the court order or that he was excused from complying.12 The respondent may be
excused because of an “inability” to comply with the terms of the order.13 To satisfy
this burden, the respondent must “offer proof beyond the mere assertion of an
9
Reynolds v. Roberts, 207 F.3d 1288, 1298 (11th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted).
10
United States v. Roberts, 858 F.2d 698, 700 (11th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
11
Citronelle-Mobile Gathering, Inc. v. Watkins, 943 F.2d 1297, 1301 (11th Cir. 1991).
12
Chairs v. Burgess, 143 F.3d 1432, 1436 (11th Cir. 1998).
13
Id.
-4-
inability.”14 Instead, the respondent “demonstrate[s] an inability to comply only by
showing that [he has] made ‘in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply.’”15
Here, the Plaintiffs have clearly stated a case of non-compliance. First, they
have cited provisions in the Preliminary Injunction that require, inter alia, that
MARTA Paratransit make every effort to achieve and maintain an on-time
performance rate of 100 percent, that MARTA Paratransit attempt to answer all
customer telephone calls within three minutes and avoid placing a customer’s call on
“hold,” and that MARTA provide a sufficient number of prepared Paratransit vehicles
and operators so that all eligible persons requesting the Paratransit service can receive
it on a “next day” basis. Next, they have provided sufficient evidence that MARTA
Paratransit’s on-time performance rate has actually decreased since 2002, that, in the
first two quarters of 2015, MARTA’s average delay in answering mobility reservation
telephone calls was over four minutes, and that MARTA has failed to provide an
adequate number of Paratransit vehicles and operators, despite an increase in MARTA
Paratransit’s ridership.
In response, the Defendants initially contend that, under the June 24, 2014
modification of the Preliminary Injunction, the Plaintiffs agreed to first attempt to
14
Id. (quoting Watkins, 943 F.2d at 1301).
15
Id. (quoting Watkins, 943 F.2d at 1301).
-5-
resolve any disputes with the Defendants by informally meeting. And, according to
the Defendants, if the parties were unable to resolve the dispute through meetings,
then the parties were to use an alternative dispute resolution method. They argue that
the Plaintiffs have failed to adhere to this informal resolution process by filing the
instant motion. This Court disagrees. According to the Plaintiffs, the parties have met
several times prior to filing this Motion in an attempt to resolve the present dispute.16
And, more importantly, the 2014 Order modifying the Preliminary Injunction
specifically stated that “the parties may choose to submit the complaint to mediation
or arbitration . . . .”17 Thus, the Plaintiffs were not obligated to seek an alternative
dispute resolution method prior to filing their Motion.
Next, the Defendants argue that MARTA has met the Preliminary Injunction’s
requirements. They first point to the fact that MARTA has increased its number of
Paratransit vehicles and operators since 2007. Specifically, the Defendants note that
as of June 2015, 217 Paratransit vehicles were available for service and 320
Paratransit operators were working for MARTA.18 But, as the Plaintiffs note in their
Reply Brief, MARTA’s quarterly ADA Compliance Reports for the first three quarters
16
Pls.’ Reply Br., at 2-3.
17
Order of June 25, 2014 [101], at 21.
18
Defs.’ Resp. Br., at 13.
-6-
of 2015 demonstrate the actual average number of operators and vehicles in service
are much lower. For example, in the first quarter of 2015, the average number of
Paratransit vehicles in service for weekdays was 154 and the average number of
operators who worked daily was 173.19 Moreover, when using the Federal Transit
Administration’s definition of a trip denial, MARTA’s trip denial percentage in 2014
was 9.37%.20 Thus, while MARTA may have increased its number of Paratransit
vehicles and operators, this increase is not sufficient to demonstrate that the
Defendants are complying with this Court’s Order that MARTA provide a sufficient
number of Paratransit vehicles and operators so that all eligible persons requesting the
Paratransit service can receive it on a “next day” basis.
The Defendants then contend that MARTA has actually provided
accommodations to Paratransit riders that are not required by the ADA, and that these
accommodations have adversely affected MARTA’s on-time performance rate. They
note that these additional accommodations include allowing customers to request a
Paratransit trip with less than 24 hours’ notice and providing its Paratransit service
beyond the boundaries of the corridors defined by a Department of Transportation’s
regulation. While these are helpful accommodations, they do not excuse MARTA
19
Pls.’ Reply Br., Ex. C-6.
20
Ates Decl. ¶ 21.
-7-
Paratransit’s declining on-time performance rate. The Defendants must still make their
best efforts to increase their on-time performance rate to 100 percent. An 81.5 percent
on-time performance rate for first quarter of 201521 is sufficient evidence that
MARTA is not complying with this instruction.
Finally, the Defendants contend that because MARTA is currently exploring
proposals to outsource its Paratransit service to a third-party, the Court should deny
the present Motion, as it might have a chilling effect on third-party bidders or
adversely affect the proposal process in general. This Court disagrees for several
reasons. First, the recent request for proposals does not mean that MARTA will
ultimately outsource its Paratransit service. In the meantime, MARTA must still make
efforts to comply with the Preliminary Injunction. Second, even if the Paratransit
service is outsourced, the Plaintiffs contend that MARTA will continue to operate its
telephone reservation system, which, based on the evidence presented, is not currently
functioning at the standard laid out in the Order.22 Third, at this stage, the Plaintiffs
must only show that the Preliminary Injunction has been violated. Once this showing
of non-compliance has been made, the burden shifts to the Defendants to produce
evidence explaining their non-compliance at a show cause hearing. Consequently, the
21
Pls.’ Mot. to Show Cause, Ex. A-6, at 5.
22
See id. at 3 (noting the average answer delay for MARTA mobility reservation was over
four minutes in the first quarter of 2015).
-8-
Defendants’ argument concerning the potential outsourcing of MARTA’s Paratransit
service is more appropriate for a show cause hearing than for the instant Motion.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, this Court GRANTS the Plaintiffs’ Motion to Order the
Defendants to Show Cause Why They Should Not be Held in Contempt [Doc. 102].
After a reasonable time for discovery, the Court will schedule an evidentiary hearing
on the contempt motion.
SO ORDERED, this 16 day of November, 2015.
/s/Thomas W. Thrash
THOMAS W. THRASH, JR.
United States District Judge
-9-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?