Court: District Court, D. Minnesota; March 19, 2014; Federal District Court
Steve Sawczyn, a legally blind individual, claims that the automated teller machines (ATMs) operated by BMO Harris Bank National Association (BMO) are not accessible, violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). BMO seeks dismissal of the case, arguing that Sawczyn lacks standing and that the issue is moot since the ATMs are now compliant with ADA standards. The ADA mandates public accommodations to be accessible to disabled individuals, with specific regulations for ATMs outlined in the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. Sawczyn visited two BMO ATMs after the compliance deadline of March 15, 2012, and found them lacking required features, such as voice guidance and proper tactile symbols. He asserts he remains unable to use these ATMs and has identified over fifteen noncompliant ATMs. Sawczyn initiated this action in August 2013, seeking injunctive relief. The court will consider external affidavits regarding BMO's ADA compliance in deciding BMO's motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, under Rule 12(b)(1).
The Court accepts Sawczyn's allegations as true due to the limited record before discovery. At the pleading stage, general allegations of injury are sufficient for a claim, and the Court must dismiss a case if it lacks jurisdiction at any point. BMO questions Sawczyn's standing, which requires proving an "injury in fact" that is concrete, actual or imminent, causally linked to the defendant’s conduct, and likely to be remedied by a favorable ruling. For injunctive relief under the ADA, Sawczyn must show a real and immediate threat of future injury. He claims past visits to noncompliant ATMs located three and eleven miles from his home and intends to use them again to enhance ATM accessibility for the blind community. BMO challenges his future intent, but the Court will consider factors such as proximity, travel frequency, past use, and plans to return. Sawczyn's proximity to the ATMs and his described travel patterns favor his standing, as confirmed by BMO's investigation.
Sawczyn is not required to prove that BMO’s ATM is the closest or most convenient one to his home; he only needs to allege that the ATMs he visited are reasonably accessible enough for him to return. BMO’s statistics on other ATMs' proximity are irrelevant, as Sawczyn lives under twelve miles from the ATMs and regularly visits the surrounding areas, supporting his claim of likely future visits. Although BMO argues that Sawczyn's limited history of using the ATMs and his vague plans to return weaken his standing, the Court finds these factors to be largely inapplicable. The Court emphasizes that in ADA cases, requiring a history of patronage is inappropriate and that plaintiffs should not be forced to attempt using noncompliant facilities to establish standing. Additionally, the Court rejects the need for Sawczyn to specify when he will return, noting that spontaneous ATM visits do not necessitate concrete plans unlike more complicated trips requiring advance preparation. Ultimately, the Court considers Sawczyn's intent to return credible without a specific timeline.
Sawczyn's previous use of BMO’s local ATMs and his intent to use them again establish a concrete, imminent threat of future harm, giving him standing to pursue his claim. A plaintiff must maintain standing throughout the case for it to qualify as a justiciable 'case or controversy' under Article III; otherwise, the case may become moot. BMO argues the case is moot, claiming its ADA violations have been resolved, leaving Sawczyn without grounds for injunctive relief. However, the voluntary cessation of a challenged practice does not eliminate a federal court's authority to assess its legality, as established in Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. TOC, Inc.
BMO bears a heavy burden to prove that it has ceased the offending conduct and that it is "absolutely clear" such conduct will not recur. The Court finds that BMO has not met this burden, as there is insufficient evidence to confirm that its ATMs are currently ADA compliant. BMO's compliance claim is based on a declaration from Vice President Brenda Pino, who noted deficiencies in the ATMs and the steps taken to correct them, such as replacing non-functioning headphone jacks. However, Pino does not address other potential ADA violations, such as the lack of proper tactile symbols on the France Avenue ATM, leaving the Court uncertain about overall compliance. While Pino implies that the ATMs are compliant, she does not explicitly state this. Furthermore, even if BMO's ATMs are currently compliant, the Court is not convinced they will remain so, given the unclear status of compliance prior to the litigation and the lack of assurances regarding future adherence to ADA standards.
BMO's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) appears to be influenced by the threat of litigation rather than genuine voluntary action. The courts must scrutinize claims of compliance that coincide with impending legal action, as established in previous cases. BMO's failure to address alleged ADA violations for eighteen months raises questions about the effectiveness of its compliance procedures, undermining its assertion of future adherence to ADA standards. The absence of a formal corporate policy for ensuring compliance further weakens BMO's position, as does the lack of detailed information about the testing of ATMs conducted by its employee, Pino. BMO has only acknowledged some violations, which prevents the court from determining that it has voluntarily complied with the ADA. The court cannot conclude that future compliance issues are unlikely to recur. Therefore, BMO's Motion to Dismiss is denied. Standing is based on the case's facts at the time of filing, and the court finds that Sawczyn has provided sufficient evidence of intent to use a BMO ATM, negating the need to evaluate his alternative claim of ongoing injury due to BMO's noncompliance.
