ILNews

Suit claims courthouse violates ADA

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Four defendants in cases pending before the St. Joseph Superior Court have filed a lawsuit claiming that county's courthouse is inaccessible for people with disabilities.

Filed Monday in the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, South Bend Division, the plaintiffs in Victoria Means, Tonia Matney, and Stephen and Margaret Hummel v. St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners, et al., No. 3:10-cv-00003, allege the St. Joseph County Courthouse and Mishawaka County Services Building don't comply with federal rules and standards to ensure access to public facilities for people using wheelchairs and those with visual impairments. The plaintiffs claim the buildings violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, and the federal and state constitutions.

Means and Matney use wheelchairs and the Hummels have limited mobility because of health issues. The four are parties in two separate cases that have been or are in the process of coming before the St. Joseph Superior Court. The plaintiffs' attorney, Kent Hull, also has a disability that requires him to use a wheelchair.

The plaintiffs claim the courthouse and services building lack accessibility in the restrooms, elevator, witness stands, counters used by the clerks, water fountains, and in other areas. They also claim parking is an issue at these buildings.

The suit alleges the St. Joseph County Board of Commissioners, St. Joseph Superior Court, and the city of South Bend have been notified of the problems but haven't done anything to remedy them.

Means and the others are seeking preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing further violations, compensatory damages, and the appointment of a special master to oversee implementation of changes to make the buildings and parking lot compliant with regulations.

Attorney Greg Fehribach, of the Fehribach Group in Indianapolis, often works on issues dealing with the ADA. He is not involved with the case against the St. Joseph County Courthouse but has mediated cases like this in the past and said this type of case is nothing new in Indiana or around the country.

"As a lawyer who's been practicing since 1986 and a wheelchair user, I've seen quite a change in physical access to courthouses and government buildings. It has absolutely improved," Fehribach said. "The interesting thing, the part that's most concerning is any time there's a case regarding a courthouse ... if someone feels that they have been denied access to a government building or courthouse in 2010, I find that very disturbing."

He said the ADA will be 20 years old soon and there are still buildings that aren't up to date, which he said is far too long for nothing to be done.

There's no grandfather clause for older buildings not to comply with the ADA, and Fehribach said limited resources are often cited as the reason why they aren't up to date. Other issues like security often are in the forefront of people's minds when updating the courthouses, but Fehribach doesn't want officials to "hide behind the veil when you don't want to accept the issue that all men and women are created equal."

"That means access to government," he said.

He's not looked at this Northern District case, but he said if the judge rules in favor of the plaintiffs, the judge could order a timeline in which to remedy the inaccessibility, order it done immediately by an outside contractor and have the county pay, or other outcomes.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT