## Facts

- Disabled in Action of Pennsylvania (DIA), a disability-rights organization whose members use wheelchairs, challenged SEPTA’s renovation work at two Philadelphia transit facilities: the 15th Street Station courtyard entrance area and City Hall Station.
- SEPTA undertook construction at the 15th Street Courtyard entrance (serving access to the Market–Frankford Line and Suburban Station) using federal grant funding for entrance-area renovations that included demolition and installation of new stairs and related improvements.
- Neither the pre-renovation courtyard entrance nor the renovated entrance included an elevator; DIA contended the completed project left the altered access route unusable by many wheelchair users.
- DIA also challenged construction at City Hall Station, including replacement of stairways, which likewise did not include installation of an elevator for wheelchair access.
- DIA sued under Title II of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging SEPTA’s work constituted “alterations” that required the altered portions to be made accessible.
- SEPTA sought summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred because DIA learned during the planning stage that SEPTA did not intend to add elevators.
- The district court agreed with SEPTA and held the claims accrued when DIA discovered the planned lack of elevators, granting summary judgment for SEPTA.

## Issues

1. When do ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act claims alleging failure to make altered public transit facilities accessible accrue for statute-of-limitations purposes: when plaintiffs learn of a noncompliant plan, or upon completion of the alterations?
2. Whether the challenged construction work constituted “alterations” triggering accessibility obligations (as opposed to non-triggering maintenance).

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s summary judgment for SEPTA.
- The court held that, in alteration-based ADA/RA accessibility claims, accrual occurs upon completion of the alterations, not when a plaintiff learns that plans may produce an inaccessible result.
- Because DIA sued after completion of the projects, the claims were not time-barred on the record presented.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- For ADA Title II and Rehabilitation Act claims premised on alterations to existing facilities, accrual is governed by federal law even when the limitations period is borrowed from state law.
- A federal claim generally accrues when the plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action; in alteration cases, that point is when alterations are completed and the altered portions are not readily accessible to individuals with disabilities.
- Knowledge that planned work may be noncompliant does not start the limitations clock because compliance is assessed based on the facility’s condition as completed, and plans can change during construction.
- A completion-based accrual rule avoids requiring pre-completion litigation over speculative or incomplete project outcomes and provides an administrable accrual date tied to the finished facility.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that alteration-based ADA and Rehabilitation Act claims against a public transportation authority accrue when the alteration is completed and the facility is delivered in an inaccessible condition, reversing summary judgment that had treated pre-completion knowledge of a noncompliant plan as the accrual trigger.


Disabled in Action of Pa. v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 539 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2008)