Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Proskauer Secures Class Certification for Visually Impaired Chicagoans

By Nigel F. Telman & Edward Young on March 17, 2022
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Earlier this month, Proskauer – along with co-counsel Disability Rights Advocates (“DRA”), a nationwide nonprofit disability rights legal center – obtained class certification in an important litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, brought on behalf of pedestrians with visual disabilities in the metropolitan Chicago area.

Proskauer and DRA filed their complaint in September 2019 on behalf of three individual plaintiffs and the American Council of the Blind of Metropolitan Chicago (“ACBMC”).  The suit challenges the City of Chicago’s systemic failure to provide accessible crosswalk signals (known as accessible or audible pedestrian signals, or “APS”) for people who have vision impairments – a failure which violates both Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) and Section 504 of the federal Rehabilitation Act.  As of February 2022, only about 20 of the City’s approximately 2,800 signalized intersections were accessible to pedestrians with visual disabilities.  In other words, of the intersections that the City deemed unsafe for pedestrians absent a crossing signal, only about half of one percent are accessible for visually-disabled persons.

In September 2021, Plaintiffs moved to certify a class composed of individuals who are (a) blind or who have low-vision within the meaning of the ADA and Section 504, and (b) use the City’s signalized pedestrian intersections.  On March 4, 2022, District Court Judge Elaine E. Bucklo granted the motion and certified the class as defined.  In a memorandum opinion issued in connection with that order, Judge Bucklo considered and rejected the City’s chief arguments in opposition to class certification—that ACBMC is an inadequate class representative for various reasons, and that plaintiffs failed to establish the element of commonality necessary for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

As to adequacy, the Court rejected the City’s assertions that ACBMC “lacks the capabilities and organization necessary to serve as a class representative,” has an “inconsistent and minimal history of APS advocacy prior to this lawsuit,” and improperly filed this suit without first obtaining its membership’s approval by means of a vote.  The Court noted that “none of these arguments articulates a legally relevant basis for denying class certification,” given that the adequacy inquiry “focuses on whether the named plaintiffs: 1) have interests that conflict with the class as a whole, 2) are sufficiently interested in the case outcome to ensure vigorous advocacy, and 3) have class counsel that is competent and willing to vigorously litigate the case.”

With respect to commonality, the Court held that “[t]he City offered no authority or compelling argument to suggest that Plaintiffs’ claims are inappropriate for class certification because the common questions they identify are insufficiently specific.”  The Court further noted that the common questions Plaintiffs highlight in this case are defined at levels of generality similar to those in other cases where class certification has been granted.

Accordingly, Judge Bucklo concluded that the Plaintiffs had met their burden under Rule 23 for class certification.

This determination is an important first step toward obtaining much-needed relief for all blind or low-vision pedestrians who use the City of Chicago’s signalized pedestrian intersections.  Proskauer is proud to work alongside DRA to represent visually-impaired pedestrians of Chicago to promote equal access throughout the City.

[This is a follow-up to our September 26, 2019 blog post.]

Photo of Nigel F. Telman Nigel F. Telman

Nigel F. Telman leads the employment practice in the Chicago office and is co-head of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Nigel’s practice is concentrated in litigating single and class action disputes arising out of claims of workplace harassment and employment discrimination. He…

Nigel F. Telman leads the employment practice in the Chicago office and is co-head of the Employment Litigation & Arbitration Group.

Nigel’s practice is concentrated in litigating single and class action disputes arising out of claims of workplace harassment and employment discrimination. He also represents employers in collective and class actions involving allegations of wage and hour violations under federal and state law. In addition, Nigel has significant experience defending and enforcing Restrictive Covenant Agreements, as well as protecting employers’ trade secrets and other confidential information from misappropriation by former employees through the institution of emergency litigation seeking temporary and permanent injunctive relief. Nigel utilizes his experience litigating employment-related disputes to counsel clients on effective ways to avoid such litigation. His counseling practice focuses on training and advising clients on ways to improve all aspects of the employment relationship, including techniques on how to make effective hiring decisions; reviewing and revising employment policies, practices and procedures; and advising on employee disciplinary matters, reductions in force and termination decisions.

Read more about Nigel F. TelmanEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Edward Young Edward Young

Edward “Eddie” C. Young is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Firm’s Whistleblowing & Retaliation and the Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Groups.

Eddie’s practice focuses on defending companies in all aspects of employment litigation, including…

Edward “Eddie” C. Young is an associate in the Labor & Employment Law Department and a member of the Firm’s Whistleblowing & Retaliation and the Non-Compete & Trade Secrets Groups.

Eddie’s practice focuses on defending companies in all aspects of employment litigation, including claims of discrimination, harassment and retaliation, breach of restrictive covenants (e.g., noncompetition and nonsolicitation), and whistleblower retaliation. He has handled such cases before state and federal courts throughout the country, as well as before the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Illinois Department of Human Rights, the American Arbitration Association and the Department of Labor.

Read more about Edward YoungEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Law Firm Marketing & Management
  • Blog:
    Proskauer For Good
  • Organization:
    Proskauer Rose LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • Internet, IT & e-Discovery
  • P3 For Texas
  • DSE Advisors
  • Innocelf Knowledge
  • Labor & Employment Blog
Copyright © 2023, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo