Hello. Please sign in!

Reynoldson, Pixley, Whedbee v. City of Seattle - Class Action Complaint Regarding the Pedestrian Right of Way

This document, portion of document or clip from legal proceedings may not represent all of the facts, documents, opinions, judgments or other information that is pertinent to this case. The entire case, including all court records, expert reports, etc. should be reviewed together and a qualified attorney consulted before any interpretation is made about how to apply this information to any specific circumstances.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

Washington Law Against Discrimination

Revised Code of Washington §§ 49.60.010-49.60.505

86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every allegation contained in the foregoing paragraphs.

87. Section 49.60.030(1) of the Revised Code of Washington provides in pertinent part:

The right to be free from discrimination because of . . . the presence of any sensory, mental, or physical disability . . . is recognized as and declared to be a civil right. This right shall include, but not be limited to: . . . (b) The right to the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges of any place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement . . . .

88. The City's pedestrian right of way is a "place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement" within the meaning of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040.

89. Other examples of a "place of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement" within the meaning of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.040, include but are not limited to courthouses, businesses, and transportation terminals.

90. Many places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement within the City are adjacent to or otherwise joined with the pedestrian right of way, such that equal access to those places depends on equal access to the pedestrian right of way.

91. Plaintiffs are individuals with disabilities within the scope of the Washington Law Against Discrimination.

92. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendant and its agents and employees have violated and continue to violate sections 49.60.010 et seq. of the Revised Code of Washington by unlawfully denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to the City's pedestrian right of way comparable to the access that it offers to others and for the reasons set forth above, including violating the ADA.

93. Furthermore, Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that Defendant and its agents and employees have violated and continue to violate sections 49.60.010 et seq. of the Revised Code of Washington by unlawfully denying Plaintiffs full and equal access to other places of public resort, accommodation, assemblage, or amusement, including but not limited to courthouses, businesses, and transportation terminals, equal access to which depends on access to the pedestrian right of way.

94. Defendant's actions constitute discrimination against persons with disabilities and violate the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Revised Code of Washington §§ 49.60.010 et seq., in that persons with mobility disabilities have been and are denied full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, privileges, and services that Defendant provides to non-disabled persons.

95. As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned acts, Plaintiffs have suffered and continue to suffer difficulty, hardship anxiety, and danger due to Defendant's failure to remediate missing, defective, Inaccessible curb ramps throughout the City's pedestrian right of way. These failures have denied Plaintiffs the full and equal enjoyment of the pedestrian right of way that the Washington Law Against Discrimination requires.

96. Because Plaintiffs have a clear legal right to access the pedestrian right of way and the places of public accommodation it serves; have a well-grounded fear of immediate invasion of that right; and have ben actually injured as a result of Defendant's conduct as alleged herein, declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate remedies. See Kucera v. Dep't of Transp., 140 Wash. 2d 200, 209 (2000).

97. Pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.030(2), Plaintiffs are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief and to recover from Defendant the reasonable attorneys' fees and costs incurred in bringing this action.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below.

[MORE INFO...]

*You must sign in to view [MORE INFO...]