ILNews

Indiana disability rights group files complaint against Amtrak

Marilyn Odendahl
December 13, 2013
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission has filed a disability discrimination complaint against Amtrak for non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

IPAS surveyed all 11 Amtrak stations in Indiana and found accessibility problems at every one.

As a result, the organization announced Dec. 12 it has filed a complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice, the federal agency responsible for enforcement of the ADA. IPAS is requesting that the Justice Department investigate the compliance issues and ensure Amtrak makes the necessary changes to the Hoosier stations to become fully accessible for individuals with disabilities.

The survey of stations conducted by IPAS was part of a national review done in coordination with the National Disability Rights Network and 24 other organizations to inspect Amtrak train stations for accessibility compliance. After passage of the ADA in 1990, Amtrak was given 20 years to update its system to meet the new standards.

The National Disability Rights Network released a report in October 2013, detailing the results of the review. It concluded that 23 years after the ADA was signed into law, 95 percent of all surveyed stations had barriers to accessibility.   

IPAS surveyed the stations in Indiana located in Connersville, Crawfordsville, Dyer, Elkhart, Hammond, Indianapolis, Lafayette, Michigan City, Rensselaer, South Bend, and Waterloo.

It found ticket counters were too high for people in wheelchairs, restroom doors were heavy and the stalls were too narrow for a wheelchair, and parking lots did not have accessible spaces marked. In South Bend, passengers had to cross the tracks with large gaps to get to the platform and there was no sign of an elevator to the platform.

“People with disabilities have been very patient with Amtrak and IPAS believes that enough is enough; 23 years is a long time for individuals with disabilities to wait for equal access,” said Gary Richter, IPAS executive director.   
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT