University named in discrimination suit

These laws require that all public and some residential buildings afford equal access to all individuals and meet certain architectural standards for ease of access. They also prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability.

The complaint, filed last December and served on the University on May 22, asserts that Princeton’s campus does not meet these requirements. The plaintiffs’ “ability to utilize [the University’s] services has been impaired as a result of the lack of access to the disabled,” causing the plaintiffs to sustain “emotional distress and anger,” the complaint states.

“The campus is poorly accessible,” Anthony Brady, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said in an interview. Brady pointed to the slope of some of the paths around campus, the size of curbs, the use of brick in path construction, a lack of signage and problems with accessibility at Princeton Stadium as examples of violations.

According to the complaint, “there is improper parking, improper access routes, improper access to buildings, sports stadiums, library, museums, etc.”

Brady said that the University “has the worst reputation among people who are disabled.”

But David Rapuano, who is representing the University in this case, explained in an interview that few specific details about violations have emerged. For example, he said, there is not much “information about what the particular allegations are … We know they are alleging that there are access issues. But as you know, it’s a pretty big campus.”

Rapuano, an attorney at Archer & Greiner in Haddonfield, N.J., has represented the University in previous discrimination lawsuits.

University spokeswoman Emily Aronson said in an e-mail that “the University is attentive to our obligations under federal and state law to ensure equal access to our programs and activities.”

“The historic nature of a campus like ours may, on rare occasion, require us to relocate a program but programmatic access is a priority and is always made possible for our students,” Eve Woodman Tominey, director of the University’s Office of Disability Services, said in an e-mail. The office was formed in fall 2006 to provide resources to students and to build awareness about disability issues.

Aronson added that the University will provide individual accommodations upon request but was never contacted by any of the plaintiffs regarding difficulty accessing facilities.

Gregory Lasky, one of the plaintiffs who is a paraplegic and a member of AFDA, said that the organization had fielded complaints about the University’s handicapped access in the past, especially with regard to the football stadium. His own visit to the campus, he said, confirmed those criticisms and led him to join in legal action.

“It’s a beautiful, beautiful facility, but you play Russian roulette when you don’t follow the rules,” he said. The plaintiffs are seeking both damages and injunctive relief.

Get the best of the ‘Prince’ delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe now »

It is currently unclear if any of the plaintiffs have a direct connection to the University. It is not unusual, however, for ADA cases to be filed by individuals “with very tenuous connections to a business or facility,” Rapuano said.

“If you look at many of these ADA cases, the same plaintiff brings the same or similar case with the same lawyer and same non-profit or interest group,” Rapuano explained, adding that he is also representing Monmouth University in a similar case by Brady and AFDA.

In addition to Lasky, the individual plaintiffs are Sandy Hanebrink, Carmena Stoney and Linda Vandeusen. Of the plaintiffs, only Stoney lives in New Jersey. Hanebrink and Vandeusen reside in South Carolina, and Lasky lives in Florida.

The plaintiffs have visited Princeton’s campus both for personal reasons and as testers “for the purposes of discovering, encountering, and engaging discrimination,” according to the complaint. At the University, the complaint states, the plaintiffs “encountered barriers to access at the University, and engaged or tested the barriers [and] suffered legal harm and injury.”

David Lazarus, director of litigation at the Community Health Law Project (CHLP) said that if construction done after the legislation was passed is found to be in violation, then “[the University] may have to go back and update the buildings … build it back into compliance.” CHLP is a program that provides legal support for New Jersey residents with disabilities.

Some students with disabilities have not found the University grounds especially difficult to get around. While Kelly Matula ’09, who sometimes uses an electric scooter to travel around campus, identified the lack of signs pointing to stair-free paths as a problem, she said in an e-mail that “Princeton does a very good job working to make its buildings accessible.”

Matula added that the University is eager to accommodate students with different needs. “Princeton is more than willing to work with people with disabilities about accessibility on campus, which I think is a great thing,” she said.

Andrea Wilson ’08, who uses a wheelchair, attended both the University of South Dakota and Princeton and said she found the Princeton campus much more accessible. She echoed Matula’s characterization of the administration’s responses to student concerns.

“They were quick to make accommodations for any problems that I did encounter,” Wilson said in an e-mail.

The suit was originally filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, but the University removed the case to U.S. District Court in Camden in June. Removal refers to the right of the defendant to transfer a case from state to federal court when both courts have jurisdiction.

Brady said that the case may take more than a year to resolve, though plaintiffs and defendants often settle out of court.

No hearings have yet been scheduled, Rapuano said.

Figueroa v. Princeton

A separate discrimination lawsuit was decided in Princeton’s favor in July, when the New Jersey Appellate Division affirmed a trial court decision granting summary judgment to the University dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff alleged discrimination on the basis of his Puerto Rican heritage and a disabling pituitary tumor, in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.

David Figueroa ’92, the former associate director of the Program in Latin American Studies (PLAS), filed the lawsuit in 2004 after being fired in June 2002 due to alleged “job performance issues,” according to the decision.

Figueroa claimed that he was subjected to a hostile work environment and eventually terminated because of his Puerto Rican origin based on four statements made by his former supervisor, then-PLAS Director Kenneth Mills.

Both Mills and history professor Jeremy Adelman, the PLAS director at the time of Figueroa’s hiring, had significant problems with his job performance throughout his tenure as associate director, the decision states.

Adelman was quoted in the decision as saying that Figueroa “[D]id not have the communication skills that were necessary to conduct the business that PLAS conducts routinely,” adding that his work was characterized by “Grammatical, spelling, basic organizational mistakes, and a process that was really not up to the standard of Princeton communications.”

Figueroa also alleged that he was “subjected to demeaning treatment” and a “devastatingly negative performance review” upon informing his employer in April 2002 that he had a pituitary tumor that would require immediate surgery.

His announcement, however, came just after a PLAS Executive Committee meeting at which it was decided that Figueroa’s position would be eliminated during a reorganization of the program that summer.

“Plaintiff was not terminated because of his national origin or disability,” the appellate court ruled. “The evidence here is so one-sided that no rational fact-finder could conclude that plaintiff was terminated for anything other than his longstanding poor job performance.”

The court also rejected Figueroa’s claim that referring to Princeton as an “elite institution” implies a culture of ethnic elitism “that allows discrimination to flourish,” stating that the claim was “without sufficient merit to warrant further discussion.”