Judge ends consent decree over access
Trending
A federal judge Thursday ruled in favor of the City of Williamsport's request to terminate a consent decree in place from 2020 governing disability access to city buildings, programs and services.
U.S. Middle District Judge Matthew W. Brann issued the order in the case of the Center for Independent Living North Central Pennsylvania (CIL) et al versus the city. The courtroom at the Herman T. Schneebeli Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 240 W. Third St. brought out CIL members, families, and supporters.
The consent decree is a federal court order requiring the city to bring its facilities, programs, and services into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). It originated in order to ensure compliance at the former City Hall, 245 W. Fourth St.
The hearing included a decision on a joint motion to approve consent judgment (related to attorney fees) and a motion to enforce the consent decree and a motion to terminate the consent decree. The judge's order was expected to be released in written form in short order.
On the city side, solicitor Nicholas Grimes was joined by Stephen Yonkin, city Bureau of Fire inspector and Scott Williams, assistant director of the city's department of community and economic development and a city planner.
According to a news release from CIL, the city and the organization spent about eight months negotiating a compliance plan, which both parties asked the court to approve. "Just over two months after that plan was submitted, the city asked the court to terminate the consent decree in its entirety, including the newly agreed-upon plan," the release stated.
Grimes argued that the city accomplished the task of meeting the requirements (which he listed) that were in the consent decree.
David Ferleger, CIL attorney, argued that what the city was attempting to do was to terminate instead of reaching compliance.
"What the city seeks is not a measured recognition of progress, but a sweeping release from implementation and enforcement before the agreed conditions for termination have occurred," Ferleger's brief stated. "Adoption of a transition plan is the bridge to end the litigation," it stated. Essentially, he added, the consent decree and its supplements are the agreed path of this litigation.
However, it was deemed the transition plan and consent decree were separate and the transition plan was not part of the litigation.
Brann made it clear that the litigation in this matter could not go on and on and the city would always be subject to the ADA by a matter of law.