Segal v. Metropolitan Council, No. 20-3728 (8th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseThe Eighth Circuit reversed the district court's adverse grant of summary judgment in favor of Metro Transit in an action brought by plaintiff, who is blind and deaf, alleging claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA). In this case, plaintiff's claims stemmed from 150 complaints he made regarding bus operators' failure to stop at T-Signs and announce the bus route. The court concluded that the record contains evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Metro Transit provided meaningful access to disabled bus riders. The court stated that, at trial, the DOT regulations cited by plaintiff are admissible as evidence that the jury may consider and weigh when determining whether he has met his burden of demonstrating that he was denied meaningful access to Metro Transit's services.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Americans with Disabilities Act. Plaintiff, who is blind and deaf, filed at least 150 complaints that defendant's bus drivers failed to properly stop at designated bus stops, and he brought this action under the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and the Minnesota Human Rights Act for denial of service; a violation of a Department of Transportation regulation is not a per se violation of the ADA; however, the district court erred in granting defendant's motion for summary judgment as the record contained evidence sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant provided plaintiff meaningful access to bus service; at trial the DOT regulations cited by plaintiff requiring drivers to "stop and announce" and requiring defendant to provide training for drivers are admissible as evidence that the jury may consider when determining whether plaintiff met his burden of showing he was denied meaningful access to the defendant's bus services.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.