Speedway agreement pledges ADA compliance

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Motor Speedway announced Thursday it will pursue full compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act in what an attorney involved in the matter said could be the largest settlement agreement under the 1990 law.

IMS has signed a settlement agreement in which it will be fully ADA compliant within 30 months, Joe Hogsett, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana, said at a news conference. “This has been no small feat,” he said, noting the nature and size of the more than century-old venue.

Attorney Greg Fehribach of Doninger Tuohy & Bailey LLP represented Dan Ward, a disabled patron who filed a complaint against the Speedway in 1999 after being denied access to the pit area during a practice session, even though he held a pit pass. Ward was prevented from entering the pits because he was in a wheelchair.

“We appreciate everyone’s hard work in accomplishing this agreement,” Fehribach said, praising the efforts of Hogsett’s office and the Speedway to reach a resolution. Fehribach said he was aware of no other ADA compliance settlement agreement for such a large facility. Indianapolis Motor Speedway has the largest seating capacity of any sporting venue in the world.

Hogsett said there were more than 360 features that had been identified where corrective action was needed to assure accessibility. “Most of those identified issues have already been addressed,” he said.

Items on the list include projects to redesign or refurbish IMS corporate headquarters, three major parking areas, vista and grandstand areas, concession stands, restrooms and other facilities.

By mid-2015, Hogsett said, the accessibility project checklist included in the agreement will be completed. Debra Richards has been the lead U.S. attorney working on the agreement, and IMS officials will provide her quarterly updates on progress.

“We believe the settlement agreement is something that’s going to set a standard for the nation,” Richards said.

IMS Director of Engineering Kevin Forbes said the agreement takes into consideration the size, historic landmark status and unique nature of the Speedway, whose grandstands and other facilities were constructed long before accessibility was a consideration.

Forbes said the experience was bittersweet but renewed the Speedway’s commitment to accessibility. “This was a great opportunity for us to shine,” he said. He did not provide estimates about the cost of improvements.

“Today’s announcement serves as a reminder that the march toward equality continues, and the office remains dedicated to defending the civil rights of all Indiana residents,” Hogsett said in a statement. “For more than a century, the Indianapolis Motor Speedway has been a treasured symbol for all Hoosiers, and this agreement ensures that it will be now accessible to all Hoosiers.”


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit