CHOUDHARY M. AZAM v. DC TAXICAB COMMISSION - Motion For TRO

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
CivilDivision
CHOUDHARYM.AZAM,et.al.
v.
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIATAXICAB
COMMISSION
CivilActionNumber:
And
RONALDLINTON,CHAIRMAN
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIATAXICAB :
COMMISSION
And
COUNCILOFTHEDISTRICT
OFCOLUMBIA
And
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
.
.
Defendants.
==========================
MOTIONFORATEMPORARYRESTRAINING .
ORDERANDAPRELIMINARYINJUNCTION
Choudhary M. Azam, Tariq Mahmood, Waleed A. Mohammed, Ahmed Djebbour and
Mohammed Akram ("Plaintiffs"), by andthrough undersigned counsel, Billy L. Ponds, ofThe
PondsLawFirm,pursuanttoFed.R. Civ. P. 65 andLCvR65.1,respectfullysubmitsthisMotion
foraTemporaryRestrainingOrderandaPreliminaryInjunctionandrespectfullyrequestthatthis
CourtholdahearingonthisMotionandissueaTemporaryRestrainingOrderandaPreliminary
Injunctiontopreventenforcementofthesubjectrulespendingfinaljudgment. Insupportofthis
motion,theplaintiffsstateasfollows:
1
Case 1:13-cv-01558-ESH Document 2 Filed 10/09/13 Page 1 of 66
INTRODUCTION
Thisaction arises from the DistrictofColumbiaTaxicab Commission's ("Commission")
enactment ofthe Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations And The New Standardized Dome
Light Regulations, which makes it mandatory for all District of Columbia taxicab drivers
("taxicab driver") to replace theircurrentdome lights! and creditcard machines.
2
The plaintiffs
are District of Columbia taxicab drivers who allege that the Emergency and Proposed
Rulemaking violates the Fourth Amendment right against invasion of privacy, their Fifth
Amendment right to procedural and substantive due process and violates Title II of the
AmericansWithDisabilitiesAct.
FACTUALBACKGROUND
The Commission's enabling statute, The District of Columbia Taxicab Commission
Establishment Act of1985 ("EstablishmentAct"), effective March 25, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-97),
empowers the Commissionto establish: reasonablerates for taxicab service; methodologies for
thedeterminationofreasonablefares fortaxicabservice;criteria,standardsandrequirementsfor
taxicab vehicle licensing and licensing of taxicab owners, operators, taxicab companies,
associations, andfleets to includethesettingofreasonablelicensefees;standardsfor driverand
passenger safety; and standards and requirements relating to equipment and equipment design.
D.C. Official Code 50-307 (2012). The Commission Chairperson has been delegated the
Mayor's authority to amend or increase taxi fare rates and charges. Mayor's Order 2011-116,
datedJuly 11,2011.SeealsoD.C. OfficialCode50-305(a)and(d) (2012).
The Establishment Act was passed "[t]o promote the public interest in taxicab
transportationby insuringthat all rules, regulations, and laws specificallyrelatingto taxicabsbe
1 The new meter system was required to be installed no later than September 30, 2013.
2 The dome light must be installed no later than November 1, 2013.
2
vigorously and fairly enforced; that discrimination in taxicab passenger service be strictly
proscribedandpenalized; andthatadequate andhigh qualitytaxi passengerservicebeprovided
toall quadrantsandneighborhoods oftheDistrict; ...[andt]omaintainataxicabtransportation
systemwhichprovides owners and operators oftaxicabswithreasonable andjustcompensation
for their services ..." D.C. Code 50-302 (2010). Additionally, the Act aims to assure the
meaningfulparticipationofminorities,healthycompetitionbetweencompaniesandassociations,
andaccesstotheownershipoftaxicabsbytaxicaboperators.Id.
OnApril29,2011,theCommission'sNoticeofProposedRulemakingto AmendChapter
6 (Taxicab Parts and Equipment) ofTitle 31 (Taxicab and Public Vehicles for Hire) ofthe
DistrictofColumbiaMunicipal Regulations was publishedintheDistrictofColumbiaRegister
("Register"). On August 12, 2011 and June 22, 2012, the Commission's republished Proposed
Amendment to Chapter 6 was published in the Register. On July 20, 2012, the Commission
published its Final Rule on Taxicab Parts and Equipment which was adopted and became
effectiveontheafore-mentioneddate.
On July 18, 2012, the Commission adopted theEmergency and Proposed Rulemaking
andtookeffectiveonJuly25,2012. It waslaterpublishedonJuly27,2012intheRegister,at59
DCR 8851. The Commission held a public hearing to receive comments on the proposed
amendment to "establish a new dome light mandate" and "update penalties and fines" from
August 22, 2012 to August 25, 2012. On October 2, 2012, the Emergency and Proposed
Rulemakingwas adoptedandpublishedforasecondtimeonOctober5,2012,at59 DCR11594.
The comment period for the Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking expired on Novermber 3,
2012. On October5, 2012, the Commission's Second Emergency and ProposedRulemaking to
3
amend 31 DCMR 600 was published. On November 14, 2012, the Commission adopted the
aforementionedrulemakingasfinal.
On May 17, 2013, the Commission's amendments to Chapter 6 were published in the
Register which was adopted and became effective on the above-noted date. The amendments
included adjustments in the parts and equipment for taxicab service consistent with the
ofthe Modern Taximeter System ("MTS"). The public hearings were held on
February 15 andApril 17,2013.OnJuly 12,2013,theCommissionpublishedit'sthirdproposed
regulation pertaining to the digital payment system (DPS). On July 13, 2013, the Commission
adopted A Second Notice ofEmergency and Proposed Rulemaking and was laterpublishedon
July26,2013,at60DCR11007.
Thefinal ruleconsistsof thefollowingcomponents:
A new Section 604, TAXI SMART METER SYSTEM, is added to read as follows:
604.1 Effective ,2013,alllicensedtaxicabsintheDistrictofColumbia
shallbeequippedwithaCommissionapprovedTaxiSmartMeterSystem
(TSMS)thatmeetsallofthespecificationslistedbelow:3
(a) HardwareSpecifications:
(1) DriverInformationModule(DIM):
(A) 7" DIM:
(i) Configuredto DCTCspecifications;
(ii) Screen: 7"highresolutioncolortouchscreen;
(iii) Maximumpowerdrawof6WfromPowerControl
Module; .
(iv) IntegratedwithDCTC'sBackOfficeManagement
InformationSystem(BOMIS);and
(v) InterfacewiththeDomeLight
3The new meter system was required to be installed no later than September 30, 2013
4
(B) MountingBrackets:
(i) DIMequipmentismadeto accommodateallvehicle
typesbyprovidingvariouscustomizedmounting
b,rackets; and
(ii) Mountingbracketsareinstalledonthedashboard
basedonthedashboardtype. Auniversalmounting
bracketcanalsobeintegratedtofitwithany
vehicle.
(2) PassengerInformationModule(PIM):
. (A) 10"PIM:
(i) ConfiguredtoCommissionspecifications;
(ii) Screen: 10"highresolutioncolortouchscreen;
(iii) MaximumpowerdrawoflOWfrom PowerControl
Module;and .
(iv) Integrated with the Commission's Back Office
ManagementInformationSystem(BOMIS);
(B) MountingBrackets:
(i) PIMequipmentis madetoaccommodateallvehicle
types by providing various customized mounting
brackets;and
(U) Mounting brackets to install the PIM in the rear of
thecar,dependingonthevehicletype;
(3) CommunicationsDevice.
Wireless3GorbetterCDMAModemcellularnetworkconnection
card;
(4) GPS.
HighSensitivityGPSreceiverwith48channelsofparallel
tracking;
(5) Antenna.
3dBGainantennamountedonthetaxicabroofformaximumsky
view;
(6) . PassengerSafetyButton.
IntegratedintoPIM;
5
(7) DriverSafetyButton.
IntegratedintoDIM;and
(8) ReceiptPrinter.
IntegratedwiththePIM.
(b). IntegrationSpecifications:
(1) Authentication.
Forthemetertoturnon,theDIMmustvalidatethecurrentstatus
. (valid,revoked,orsuspended)ofthedriverandensurethatthe
driverisavalidtaxicabdriverviareal-timechecksagainstthe
Commission'sBOMIS.
(2) ElectronicTrip-SheetDataCollection:
(A) TheDIMmustelectronicallycollecttrip-sheetdatathat
meetstherequirementsof thistitle. Thetrip-sheet
reportingshallmakeuseofGlobalPositioningSatellite
(GPS)technologiesto geospatiallymarkpick-up,drop-off
andcurrenttaxilocationinformation. TheTSMSshall
collectandrecordtrip-sheetdataaccordingtochapter8of
thistitle. AlldatacollectedthroughtheDIM.shallnotbe
accessedorutilizedbyanyoneonarealtimebasisother
thantheDCUnifiedCommunicationsCenter,law
enforcementpersonnelorDCTCenforcementpersonnelas
maybenecessarytoaddressanemergencyinitiatedbythe
SafetyButtonlocatedontheDIMorthePIM. TheDCTC
shallnothaveaccesstodatacollectedthroughtheDIM
untiltwenty-four(24)hoursaftersuchdataiscollectedand
submittedtotheDCBOMIS. Thefollowingdataelements
shallbecapturedandtransmittedtotheDCTCBOMIS:
(i) Thedate,operator'snameandidentificationcard
number(i.e.,HackLicenseNumber),taxicab
company,vehiclenumber,andlicenseplate
number;
(ii) Thetimeatbeginningof tourofduty;
(iii) Thetimeandmileageof eachtrip;
(iv) Thetimeandgeospatiallyrecordedplaceof origin
andtimeandgeospatiallyrecordedplaceof
destinationofeachtrip;
6
(v) Thenumberofpassengersandfare chargedforeach
trip;
(vi) Thetimeattheendofeachtourofduty;
(vii) Tripnumber;
(viii) Taxicabnumber;
(ix) Itemizedfare: tolls,surcharges,andtipamountfor
credit/debitpurchases;and
(x) Paymenttype(cash,creditpayments,creditcard
brand,ordebit).
(B) TheTSMS shallprintallrelevantfare generatingtrip
informationonthepassengertaxireceiptwhichshould
printfromthefrontofthecabafteracceptanceofalltrip
andfareinformationbythepassengerthroughthePIM.
Thetaxireceiptshallinclude,ataminimum,thefollowing
tripinformation:
(i) Thedate;
(ii) Thetimeandmileageofeachtrip;
(iii) Tripnumber;
(iv) Taxicabnumber;
(v) Drivernumber;
(vi) Itemizedfare: tolls,surcharges,andtipamount
(credit/debitonly);and
(vii) Numberofpassengers;
(3) DriverInformationMonitor(DIM)withTextMessaging:
(A) TheDriverInformationModule(DIM)mustintegratewith
theCommission'sBOMISandreceiveandsendmessages
intextformat.
(i) TheDistrictshallbeabletocommunicatewith
taxicabsintheeventofanemergency;and
7
(ii) TheDistrictshallbeabletostreamlinetheprocess
forlostpropertyclaimsbycommunicatingrequests
tolocatelostpropertydirectlytotaxicaboperators..
(B) TheCommissionshallbeableto sendshortalphanumeric
messagesfromtheBOMIStotaxicabDIMsandreceive
pre-programmedresponsesfromdrivers.
(C) TheDIMshallintegratewiththeCommission'sBOMISto
receiveanddistributedirected(to individualtaxicabs)and
global(toalltaxicabs)alphanumerictextmessages.
Messagescanbeinformational(one-directional)orrequire
driverstorespond. Response-orientedmessagesshallbe
accompaniedbycorresponding"Yes/No"orcustom
responsechoices. The DIMshallenableresponsesby
allowingdriversto cyclethroughandselectresponse
choicesthroughasinglebuttonontheDIMscreenor
hardwareinterface. Driversshallonlybeabletorespondto
messageswhenthevehicleisstationary.
(D) ThedriverSafetyButtonmustintegratewiththe
Commission'sBOMISallowingthedriverto senda
distresssignaltotheUnifiedCommunicationsCentertobe
passedtolawenforcementofficialswiththecurrentand
updatedlocationofthevehicle.
(4) CreditlDebitCardAcceptance.
The PIM shall be enabled to acceptfare payments from all major
credit/debitcards, includingVisa, MasterCard, AmericanExpress,
andDiscovercards.
(5) PassengerInformationMonitor(PIM)
(A) The PIM is theinteractivedevice usedto completeall fare
transactions. Atthe end ofeachfare, the PIM shalldisplay
, the total fare (itemizing fare, tolls, and surcharges) and
include an option to pay with a credit/debit card or with
cash. Forcredit/debitcardpaymentsthePIMshall include
acontactandoptionalcontact-lessreaderwiththeabilityto
addatiptotheelectronicpayment. Forcashpayments,the
PIM shalldisplaytheitemizedcharges (excludingtip) and
allow the passenger to confirm and complete the cash
transaction.
8
(13) The PIM is the primary mechanism to supply passengers
with information and content. The Commission shall be
responsible for supplying programming to the PIM. The
PIM shall be integrated withthe Commission'sBOMIS to
receive programming content which may include: news,
announcements, advertisements, taxicab rules and
regulations, fare information, public service
announcements (PSA), television and movie clips and
interactivemaps.
(C) The PIM shall display the driver's name, photo, and hack
licensenumberaccordingtoCommissionspecifications..
(D) The PIM shall integrate with a Safety Button that allows
the passenger to send a distress signal to the District's
Unified Communications Center with the current location
ofthevehicle.
(E) ThePIMshallbeinstalledintherearpassengerareaofthe
taxicab and be easily viewable by non-visually impaired
passengers and accessible to and fully functional for all
passengers, includingindividuals with disabilities covered
by Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(d)) and Title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et
seq.). The PIM and other equipment that is installed
exclusivelyfor passengeruse must incorporateadaptive or
assistive technology that will allow for use by all
passengers, including individuals with disabilities covered
by Section508 ofthe Rehabilitation Actof1973 and Title
II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shall
include the ability for all passengers, including those with
visual and physical impairments, to independently
completeacreditordebitcardtransactionthatpays forthe
fare. The PIM shall be simple to use; shall incorporate
large keys, equipment markings, and the ability to select
largefontsizes;andshallprovideanaudiblenarrativeofall
keyprocessingactions.
(6) AccommodationsforFutureEnhancements.
Exceptasotherwiseprovidedforherein,allvehicleownersare
.responsibleforinstallinganyfuturehardwareorsoftwareupgrades
andenhancementsthatareproposedtobeprovidedbyanapproved
9
TSMSvendorandapprovedbytheCommission;provided,
however,thatthecostsofsuchupgrades,iI,!.cludingallequipment,
software,andinstallationshallbebornebytheTSMSvendor.
(7) UseofTSMSforDispatchService.
(A) NovendorprovidingTSMSequipmentorsoftwareshall
utilizetheTSMSSystemtoadvertiseorsolicitthe
availabilityofdispatchserviceto vehicleownersor
operatorswithoutthepriorwrittenapprovalofthe
Commission.
(B) NovendorprovidingTSMSequipmentorsoftwareshall
offeracentralizeddispatchserviceofanykindtovehicle
ownersoroperatorsataratethatislessthanthatchargedto
non-TSMScustomers.
(C) NovendorprovidingTSMSequipmentorsoftwareshall
prohibitorexcludeadispatchservicefromintegratingits
servicewiththevendor'sTSMSequipmentandsoftware,
norshallsuchvendorassessanunreasonablefeeforsuch
integration.
(D) AllcostsforintegrationshallbefiledwiththeCorhmission
andpublishedbytheTSMSvendoronitswebsite.
(c) OperationalSpecifications.
(1 ) . Installation:
(A) TheTaxiSmartMeterSystemshallbeinstalledataDistrict
of Columbia Authorized Taxi Smart Meter System
InstallationBusiness.
(B) It is the Taxi Smart Meter System owner's technical and
financial responsibility to integrate other services such as
dispatchintotheTSMS;provided,thatnovendorproviding
TSMS equipment or software shall prohibit or exclude a
centralized dispatch service from integrating its service
with the TSMS equipment and software, nor shall such
vendorassess an unreasonable fee for such integration; all
costsforintegrationshallbefiledwiththeCommissionand
publishedbythe.vendoronitswebsite.
10
(C) The Commission shall provide at no cost to the
owner/operator all equipment and software for the TSMS
throughtheequipmentvendorundercontracttotheDistrict
of Columbia and shall pay for all costs of TSMS
installationsfortheTSMS equipmentprovidedbyavendor
.under contract to the District of Columbia for the
provisions ofsuch equipment and that is scheduled for
installationthrough ,2013. The costofall
equipment and software for the TSMS obtained from an
approved TSMS vendor that is not under contract to the
DistrictofColumbia,includingallinstallationcosts,arethe
responsibilityof theowner/operator.
(D) After 2013, the taxicab owner/operator will
be responsible for payment ofthe installation fee at the
timeof TSMS installation.
(E) If a scheduled installation appointment is missed, the
vehiclewillberescheduledfor installationattheendofthe
installation process schedule, unless the vehicle owner
requests and is granted an earlier date that is mutually
agreeable. If the appointment is missed due to the
intentional misconduct of or willful disregard by the
taxicab owner orthe company, association, orfleet owner
to which it is affiliated and either (i) the owner or, if
relevant,the affiliatedcompany, association,orfleetowner
does notprovidethe Commissionwithwritten evidence of
alegitimate reason for missingthe appointment, or (ii) the
taxicab owner removes the taxicab from service and
relinquishestothe Commissionthe vehicleregistrationand
all other indicia ofregistration as a District ofColumbia
taxicab, the vehicle owner or, if relevant, the taxicab
company, association, or fleet owner shall be fined a
penaltyof$500permissedappointment.
(2) .Maintenance.
Each Taxi Smart Meter System owner shall fUlly maintain all
hardware, software, and otherequipmentrelatedtothe TaxiSmart
Meter System. The Taxi Smart Meter System owner shall be
responsible for replacing all hardware/equipment that
malfunctions, is vandalized, or otherwise fails to operate. The
Taxi Smart Meter System owner shall be responsible for
maintainingall softwareincluding,butnotlimitedto,upgradesand
security patches and shall operate a Maintenance and
11
Troubleshooting Operation with a single point of contact for
maintenance of all Taxi Smart Meter System equipment and
associated software. The Taxi Smart Meter System owner shall
maintainatwenty-four(24) hour, seven(7) daysaweekhelpdesk
for assistancewithTSMS relatedquestions andrequests for repair
and shall have available on an on-call basis seven (7) days per
week a facility thatis capable ofrepairing an9/or replacing all or
partofamalfunctioningTSMS withineight(8)hoursofreceiving
notificationfromataxicabowner/operatorofsuchmalfunction.
(3) Insurance.
. EachTaxiSmartMeterSystemownershall offerreplacementcost
insurance for all hardware, software, and other equipment that is
lost, stolen, destroyed, vandalized, abused, altered, or otherwise
made inoperable for the purpose for which it was purchased and
installed,whileinstalledinapublicvehicleforhire.
604.2 The foregoing notwithstanding, any licensed taxicab company, association, or
fleet of at least one hundred (l00) vehicles that provides a< central dispatch
service as ofJuly 18, 2012 and that is utilizingaTaxi SmartMeterSystemthat
substantially meets the requirements of 604.1 may be authorized by the
Commissionto continueto utilize suchsystem, providedthatthe systemisable
toprovidethefollowing:
(a) The system mustbe able to process and provide to the Commissionthe
authorizedpassengersurcharge.
(b) The system must be able to authenticate the driver and only function
when the driver possesses a currently valid license issued by the
Commission.
(c) The system must be able to provide for cashless payment from a
passengerandareceiptthatisgeneratedfromthetaxicabmeter.
(d) The system must contain a safety button for both the driver and the
passenger that can be activated in the event ofa driver- or passenger-
perceived emergency and that will provide for instant communication
withtheUnifiedCommunicationsCenter.
(e) The system must electronically collect trip-sheet (manifest) data that
meets the requirements of this chapter and that is capable of being
electronicallytransmittedonareal-timebasistotheDCTCBOMIS.
(f) The system must be capable ofreceiving and distributing directed (to
individual taxicabs) and global (to all taxicabs) alphanumeric text
12
messages from DCTC through its BOMIS. Messages can be
informational(one-directional)orrequiredriverstorespond.
(g) The systemmustbe capableofbeingintegratedwithDCTC'sBOMIS to
receive programming content whichmay include news, announcements,
advertisements, taxicab rules and regulations, fare information, public
serviceannouncements(PSA), televisionandmovieclips,andinteractive
maps.
(h) ThePIMshallbeinstalledintherearpassengerareaofthetaxicabandbe
easily viewable by non-visually impaired passengers and accessible to
and fully functional for all passengers, including individuals with
disabilities covered by Section 508 ofthe Rehabilitation Actof1973, as
amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(d)) and Title II ofthe Americans with
DisabilitiesAct(42U.S.G. Sec. 12101 et seq.).
604.3 EachOwner/Operatorshall, uponcommencementofcontractperformancebythe
TSMSvendorundercontractto theDistrictofColumbia:
(a) Execute into a Bi-Party Agreement with the Taxi Smart Meter System
vendorlbusinesswhichshallsetforththe rights and responsibilities ofeach
party withregardto the installationand operationofthe Taxi Smart Meter
System; and
(b) Establisha standing account with an initial depositofonehundred dollars
($100.00) with the Taxi Smart Meter System vendorlbusiness which shall
provide for the payment to the Commission ofthe passenger surcharge
required to be collected by each owner/operator from each payable fare
pursuantto these regulations. The a'ccount will be debited for the amount
ofthe surchargefor each cashfare that is collected by the owner/operator.
A cash fare shall be any fare collected by the owner/operator that is not
processed through the Taxi Smart Meter vendorlbusiness. The
owner/operator shall ensure that there is a minimum of fifty dollars
($50.00) inthe accountatall times. Any balanceremaininginthe account
shallberefundedto the owner/operatorwhenthe owner/operatorno longer
operatesataxicab. .
604.4 Until such timethe TSMS vendor under contract to the District ofColumbia
commences performance under the contract, each owner/operator shall, if
authorizedbytheCommission:
(a) Establishwiththe Commissionastandingaccountwithaninitial depositof
twohUJ?dred dollars($200.00)foreachpublicvehicleforhireownedbythe
owner, regardless ofwhether the vehicle is driven by an employee ofthe
ownerorrentedbytheownertoalicensedpublicvehicleforhiredriverand
theaccountshall:
13
(1) Provide for the payment to the Commission of the passenger
surchargerequiredto becollectedbyeachlicenseddriverfromeach
payablefarepursuanttothistitle.
(2) Bedebitedfortheamountofthesurchargeforeachfarerequiredto
bepaidbyabonafidepassengerforatripinapublicvehiclefor
hire.
(b) Attheowner'soption,haveinstalledineachtaximeteracomputerchipthat
willallowforthewirelesstransmissionofallmeterdatatoanotherpersonal
electronic device, so as to allow the Commissionto "read"the meter and
reconciletheactualpayingtripdatawiththeautomaticwithdrawalfrom the
individual standing accounts. The actual trip informationshall beutilized
by the Commission to reconcile the automatic withdrawals from each
account. Each account will then be credited or debited based upon the
actual meter data. Ifthe account is further debited, the owner shall be
requiredtoaddadditional funds to theaccountso thattheaccountcontains
theminimumamountsetforthinthissubsection.
604.5 For purposes ofthis section, the Commission will assume that each owner's
publicvehicle forhirewillrecordtwohundred(200) fare payingtripspermonth
and will deduct from eachaccountthe sumofone hundreddollars at the end of
each month. Each owner shall ensure that there is a minimum one hundred
dollars($100.00)ineachof theowner/operator'saccountsatalltimes.
604.6 For convenience,' each owner may provide the Commission with a valid
credit/debit card or account information from a bona fide checking/savings
account from whichthe monthlyamountshallbedebited. Eachownerproviding
a credit/debit card number or a checking/savings account number shall be
responsiblefor ensuringthattheCommissionhas,atall times,avalidcredit/debit
cardnumberoravalidsavings/checkingaccountnumber.
604.7 Any balance remaining in an account shall be refunded to the owner/operator
whenthevehicleis no longerregisteredas apublicvehicle forhireintheDistrict
ofColumbia; provided, however, that an owner who replaces a licensed vehicle
with another licensed vehicle may transferthe account ofthe old vehicle to the
newvehicle.
604.8 Before any owner/operator, including any newly licensed operator, is authorized
to operate ataxicab withthe Taxi SmartMeter System, the owner/operatorshall
complete requiredtraining onthe Taxi SmartMeterSystemeitherfrom theTaxi
Smart Meter System owner or from the Taxi Smart Meter System certified
installer.
14
604.9
604.10
604.11
604.12
604.13
604.14
604.15
604.16
ATaXi SmartMeterSystem shall onlybeacquiredfrom and installedbya Taxi
Smart Meter System vendorlbusiness authorized by the Commission to provide
andinstallt ~ TaxiSmartMeterSystem.
No taxicab shall beequippedwithmorethanonetaximeteror Taxi SmartMeter
System,exceptwherespecificallyapprovedbyCommissioninwriting.
At the option, and cost, ofthe Taxi Smart Meter System vendor, the taximeter
previouslyinstalledinataximaybeintegratedintotheTaxiSmartMeterSystem
where thevendor determines thattheexisting meteris compatiblewiththe Taxi
SmartMeterSysteminstallation.
IftheTaxiSmartMeterSystemvendordeterminesthattheexistingmeterinataxi
isincompatiblewiththeTaxiSmartMeterSysteminstallation,theowner/operator
must accept the replacement meter for integration into the Taxi Smart Meter
Systemandtheowner/operatorshallretainpossessionof hisorheroriginalmeter.
Each Taxi Smart Meter System shall be tested once per year by a Taxi Smart
Meter Systell1 business licensedby the Commission. The annual inspectionshall
beidenticaltotheinspectionprocessidentifiedin1324.1 ofthisTitle.
Each new Taxi Smart Meter System unit submitted for approval to the
Commission by the manufacturer, its licensed representative, or the taximeter
businessshallbesubjecttoatestingperiod.
Driversshallcomplywiththefollowingrequirements:
(a) A taxicab shall not be considered "ForHire"unless the Taxi SmartMeter
Systemisingoodworkingcondition;
(b) A driver shall not pick up ortransport a passengerunless the Taxi Smart
MeterSystemiscapableof printingfarereceiptsforpassengers;and
(c) AdriverwhileondutyshallnotoperateataxicabunlesstheLEDportionof
thedomelightdisplays"TaxiForHire"whentheTaxiSmartMeterSystem
is not in use and the driver is available to transport a passenger, and the
LED portionoftheDomeLightdisplaying"TaxiForHire"is"Dark"when
theTaxiSmartMeterSystemisinusetransportingapassenger.
Tamperingwiththetaximeter,TaxiSmartMeterSystem,ordomelightis
prohibited.
(a) Adrivershall notoperateataxicab inwhichtheTaxi SmartMeterSystem
hasbeentamperedwith,broken,oralteredinanymanner. Theoperationof
a taxicab with a broken Taxi Smart Meter System shall give rise to a
rebuttable presumption that the driverknew ofthe tampering oralteration
andoperatedthetaxicabwithsuchknowledge.
15
(b) A driver shall not tamper with, repair or attempt to repair, orconnect any
unauthorized device to the Taxi SmartMeter System, cable connection, or
electricalwiringthereof,ormakeanychangeinthevehicle'smechanismor
its tires whichwouldaffectthe operationofthe Taxi SmartMeterSystem.
Notwithstandingtheforegoing, adrivermayutilizeadevicethatallowsfor
digitaldispatchfromanauthorizeddispatchservice.
(c) Adrivershallnottamperwiththedome lightoranyoftheintr::rior lightsor
connectionsexceptto replaceadefectivebulborfuse. Thedomelightofa
taxicab.shallbeautomaticallycontrolledbytheoperationoftheTaxiSmart
MeterSystemsothattheLEDportionofthedomelightdisplays "TaxiFor
Hire"whentheTaxiSmartMeterSystemisnotinuseandavailableto pick
uppassengers, andtheLEDportionofthedomelightshallgo "dark"when
the Taxi Smart Meter System is in use transporting a passenger. The
operation ofataxicab withan unauthorized dome lightshall giveriseto a
rebuttablepresumptionthatthedriverknewoftheunauthorizeddome light
andoperatedthetaxicabwithsuchknowledge.
(d) Ataxicabdriver/owner/operatorshallnotplacetiresorwheelsofadifferent
size, or "off-size" t i n ~ s on the taxicab without reinspection and
recalibrationofthe Taxi Smart Meter System. A taxicab driver, owner, or
operator shall not operate a taxicab with tires inflated outside the
manufacturer'srecommendedlevel,whether"under"or"overinflated",
(e) Except as is otherwise the responsibility ofthe Taxi Smart Meter System
owner, vendor, or manufacturer, a taxicab owner/operator shall be held
responsible for replacement or replacement cost for Taxi Smart Meter
System equipment which is lost, stolen, destroyed, abused, altered, or
otherwisemade inoperablefor thepurposeforwhichitwas purchased and
installed, while in the owner/operator's possession. The owner/operator
must replace, at its expense, the Taxi Smart Meter System and shallbe
suspended from operating until the Taxi Smart Meter System is fully
operational.
604.17 TheTaxi SmartMeterSystemmustbeimmediatelysurrenderedto theauthorized
Taxi SmartMeterSysteminstallerwhenthevehicle is removedfrom serviceas a
licensed taxi in the District ofColumbia, whetherthe removal is voluntary or
involuntary. However, ifthe vehicle being removed from service as alicensed
taxicab is being immediately replaced witha newvehicle by the vehicle owner,
the vehicle owneris authorized to have an authorized Taxi SmartMeter System
installerreinstall theSysteminthe replacementvehicle; provided, however, that
suchvehicleownerimmediatelynotifiestheCommissionofsuchactiononaform
providedbytheCommission.
16
604.18 TheTaxi SmartMeterSysteminstallermustimmediatelynotifytheCommission
inwritingwhenaTaxiSmartMeterSystemissurrenderedtotheauthorizedTaxi
Smart Meter System installer when the vehicle is removed from service as a
licensed taxi in the District of Columbia, whether the removal is voluntary or
involuntary.
604.19 Effective ,2013,anylicensedtaxicabintheDistrictof Columbiathat
hasnotbeenequippedwithaCommissionapprovedTaxiSmartMeterSystemis
notauthorizedtobeoperatedas alicensedpublicvehicleforhireintheDistrictof
Columbiaandwillbeticketedandtowedoff of thepublicstreetsas anunlicensed
vehicle.
604.20 Effective ,2013,anytaxivehicleaddedtothetaxifleetintheDistrict
ofColumbia shall be equippedwith a Commission approved Taxi Smart Meter
System that meets the specifications listed in 604.1. Further, effective
____-'2013,thecostsof theTSMS,includinginstallationof themeterand
TSMS,shallbetheresponsibilityof eachowner/operator.
604.2116 Effective , 2013, all coststo install, transfer, orreplace (except
wherecoveredundervendorwarrantyorinsuranceorundertheDistrict'scontract
with a TSMS vendor) Taxi SmartMeter Systemequipmentwillbethe financial
responsibilityoftheowner/operator.
Section605,CRUISINGLIGHTS,is amendedasfollows:
Thesectionheadingis amendedto readas follows:
605 DOMELIGHTSANDTAXINUMBERINGSYSTEM
Subsections605.1 through605.10areamendedto readasfollows:
605.1 Effective , 2013, all licensed taxicabs in the District of
Columbia shall be equipped with the Commission-approved Dome Lights and
TaxiNumber.Systemthatmeetsthespecificationslistedbelow:
4
(a) The Dome Light shall display the public vehicle identification number
("PVIN") assignedbytheCommissionontheleftsideoftheDomeLight
when viewed from the front and the right side ofthe Dome Light when
viewedfromtherearof thedomelight;
(b) The Dome Light shall be connectedto the engine and thatportionofthe
DomeLightthatdisplays the PVIN shallremain onat alltimeswhenthe
car'sengineinon; provided, however,thattheDomeLightmaycontaina
driver activated switch located on the side ofthe Dome Light that will
4 The dome light must be installed no later than November 1, 2013.
17
allowthe completeDomeLightto remaindarkwhenthevehicleis either
Off-dutyorisbeingutilizedforpersonaluse;
(c) RoofLightHousingshallbealuminumorsilvercoloredacrylic: H- 8.0"
xD- 6"slopingto 87"xW48"; Thickness I";
(d) The leftpartofthe Dome Light shall be H - 8" x W- 12", silverincolor
with the PVIN etched in white plastic acrylic letters that are H-5" and
housingabulbtoilluminatethePVIN;
(e) Therightportionofthe Dome Lightshall be H- 8" x W- 36", silver in
color with a clear acrylic cover that shall contain a single line LED
programmable moving display that scrolls "TAXI FOR HIRE" in
charactersthatareH-4";
(f) Thebaseshallbeconstructedofaluminumwithacontinuousneoprene
basethatsurroundstheentirebasewithseveralrubbergasketstoallowfor
drainageofwaterandcondensation.
(g) Avisualdepictionofthedomelightisshownbelow:
18
OPTION 1 ELEVATION DIGITAL FONT A
OPTION 1 ELEVATION D!GITAL FONT B
605.2 The required, dome light shall only be installed by Dome Light Installation
businessesauthorizedbytheCommissiontoinstalltheapproveddomelight.
605.3 The Dome Light shall be fully visible to a person ofaverage height at all times
when the vehicle is cruising. Vehicles ofgreater length or height shall be
required to have two (2) fully functioning dome lights. Vehicles that contain
advertisingsignsontheroofshallhaveafully functioningdomelightonthefront
andrearoftheadvertisingsign.
605.3 Each new Dome Light will identify the newly assigned taxicab vehicle
identification number assigned by the Commission to that specific taxicab
vehicle.
605.4 The PVIN does notreplace ataxicabcompany's, association's, orfleet's taxicab
fleetnumberingsystemprovidedin 503.10ofthistitle. However,thePVINon
theDomeLightwillreplacethecurrentvehicleidentificationnumbersassignedto
independentlyoperatedtaxicabspursuantto 505.7of thistitle.
605.5 The LED portion ofthe Dome Light shall display "Taxi For Hire" at all times
when the taxicab is available for hire and the LED portion ofthe Dome Light
shall go "dark":when the taxicab is not available for hire because the taxicab is
carryingapassenger, isoncall, oris offdutynotintendingtotakeonpassengers.
The Dome Light may containa driver activated switch onthe side ofthe Dome
19
LightthatwillallowthecompleteDomeLightto remaindarkwhenthevehicleis
eitheroff-dutyorisbeingutilizedforpersonaluse
605.6 Whenever a taxicab operator removes his or her vehicle from service and is
proceeding to a place of his or her choosing without intending to take on
passengers,the"TaxiForHire"lightshallgo"dark."
605.7 Whenever a .taxicab is responding to a dispatch call or proceeding to a prior
arrangedtransport,the"TaxiForHire"lightshaHgo"dark."
605.8 No taxicab shall be operated unless its Dome Light is in proper working
condition. TheoperationofataxicabwithabrokenDome Lightshall giveriseto
arebuttable presumption that the driver knew ofthe condition and operatedthe
taxicabwithsuchknowledge. .
ARGUMENT
The plaintiffs are entitled to atemporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction
enjoining the District ofColumbia, District ofColumbia Taxicab Commission from enforcing
the Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations and the New Standardized Dome Light
Regulations..Theplaintiffsarelikelytoprevailonthemerits, and are certainto sufferirreparable
injuryifthismotionis notgranted. This Courtmustactnowto preventirreparableinjuryto the
plaintiffsandthepUblic. Thereisno prospectof harmtothedefendantsifthemotionisgranted,
andthepublicintereststronglyfavorstheplaintiffs'motion.
h ~ plaintiffs seekatemporaryrestrainingorderand apreliminaryinjunction. Thesame
standard applies to both temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions." Hall v.
Johnson, 599F.Supp.2d 1,6(D.D.C. 2009); accord Sterling Commercial Credit-Michigan, LLC
v. Phoenix Industries L LLC, 762 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011); Coalition for Parity, Inc. v.
Sebelius, 709F.Supp.2d6(D.D.C. 2010).
In order to obtain injunctive relief, "a moving party must show: (1) a substantial
likelihood ofsuccess on the merits, (2) ~ h a t it would suffer irreparable harm ifthe injunction
were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties,
20
and (4) that the public interest would be furthered by the injunction. Baumann v. Dist. Of
Columbia, 655 F.Supp.2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v.
England, 454 F.3d290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006)); accord National Wildlife Federation v. Burford,
835 F.2d305 (D.C. Cir. 1987);Cabell v. Norton, 391 F.3d251,258(D.C. Cir.2004).
Whenagency actionis involved, the Courtshouldbalancethe actual irreparableharmto
the plaintiff and the potential harm to the government. Gonzales v. 0. Centro Espirita
Benejicente Uniao Do Vegetal, 126 S.Ct. 1211, 1219(2006).
The Plaintiffs Are Entitled to a Temporary Restraining Order and a
Preliminary Injunction to Enjoin the Defendants From Enforcing the
Modern Taximeters Systems Regulations and the New Standardized Dome
LightRegulations
TheSubstantialLikelihoodOf SuccessOnTheMerits
The District Court must balance the likelihood ofsuccess against the equities on the
,
sliding scales.See Heinz, 246 F.3dat 727; FTC v. Elder Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d901,903 (7th Cir.
1989); FTC. v. Whole Food Markets, Inc., 548 F.3d1028, 1035 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
The plaintiff and other class members submit that the new regulation violates the
Americans With Disabilities Act, specific to 35.140. The new regulation creates an undue
financial burdenondisabledtaxicab drivers. Furthermore, thenewdomelightregulationcreates
a work environment that is towards disabled taxicab drivers and creates amore
hazardousworkenvironment. Consequently, the likelihoodofsuccessonthemeritsis high. The
plaintiffs and its classmembers are likelyto prevail onthe merits. The meter systemmandated
by the Commission violates the taxicab drivers and passengers Fourth Amendment right to
privacy. The meter system in the taxicabs prior to the mandate did not have the GPS tracking
system. The SupremeCourtinJones v. United States foundthatthistype oftrackingdevicewas
an invasion ofprivacy in violation ofthe Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the likelihood of
21
success onthemeritsis high. Finally,thetwentyfive cent($.25) automaticdeductionfrom each
financialtransactionisaviolationoftheEqualProtectionClauseandtheFifthAmendment.
The New Standardized Dome Light Regulations violate the Age Discrimination In
EmploymentAct. There are'numeroustaxicab drivers inthe DistrictofColumbiawho are over
the age offorty. The New Standardized Dome LightRegulations gives an unfair advantage to
taxicabdriverswhoareundertheageofforty,whileitcreatesanundueburdentotaxicabdrivers
over forty. Based on the totality ofthe circumstances and on the action ofthe Commission,
licensed taxicab drivers, for the purpose ofthe definition ofthe AEDA, are employees ofthe
District.
Irreparable Damage Absent a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary
Injunction
Irreparable injury"mustbe bothcertainand great; itmustbeactual andnottheoretical."
Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England, 454 F.3d 290, 297 (D.C. Cir. 2006)(quoting
Wisc. Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985)(per curiam)). The moving party
must show "aclear and present need for equitable relief," that is "beyondremediation." Nat'l
Ass'n ofMortg. Brokers v. Bd. Of Governors ofFed. Reserve Sys., 773 F.Supp.2d 151, 179-80
(D.D.C. 2011). Whenaplaintifffaces "certainimtninent"irtiurywithnowaytorecovertheloss,
itweighsinfavorof finding"irreparableinjury. Ia.
Irreparable injurymay bepresumed inan unfair competitionaction. See Krause Intern.,
Inc. v. Reed Elsevier, Inc. 866 F.Supp. 585, 587 (D.D.C. 1994)(trademark infringement and
unfair competition are, by their very nature, activities that cause irreparable harrn.")(quoting
Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Sears Financial Network, 576 F.Supp. 857, 864 (D.D.C. 1983); See
also, Paschall v. Kansas City Star Co., 441 F.Supp. 349, 359 (W.D. Mo. 1977)(citing Foremost
International Tours, Inc. v. Qantas Airways, Ltd., 379 F.Supp. 88, 97 (D. Hawaii 1974), aff'd
22
(9
th
525 F.2d 281 Cir.1975)). Furthennore, it is well established that injunctive relief is
appropriateto preventhanntoprivacyinterestssuchas misappropriation.See Raymen v. United
States Senior Ass'n, Inc. No. 05-486, 2005 WL 607916 at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 16, 2005)(citing
Factors Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 579 F.2d 215, 220 (2nd Cir. 1978); Ryan v. Volpone Stamp
Co., 107 F.Supp.2d 369, 404 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)1 Ali v. Playgirl, Inc. 447 F.Supp. 723, 729
(S.D.N.Y. 1978)). Cases inwhichinjunctivereliefhas been soughtto "protectprivacyinterest"
have held that "proofofdamages orunjust enrichment may be extremely difficult," and thus
injunctivereliefisoftenappropriate.Id. (citing Ali, 447F.Supp. at729).
Ifa temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction is absent, the taxicab
drivers andpassengers will continueto havetheirFourthAmendmentrights againstinvasion of
privacyviolatedthroughthe. governmentalactionofthesmartchip. Thetwenty five cent($.25)
automaticdeductionwill continuetoviolatetheplaintiffsFifthAmendmentrightsifthisconduct
is notenjoined. Taxicab drivers and citizenswill beexposed to amoredangerous environment
due to the proposed changes. Furthennore, disabled drivers will continue to be discriminated
against in the workplace.. The new standardized Dome Light Regulations take effect on
November 1, 2013 and will cause irreparable damage to taxicab drivers over the age offorty.
TheNewStandardizedDomeLightRegulationsgivesanunfairadvantagetotaxicabdriverswho
areunderthe ageofforty, whileitcreates anundueburdento taxicabdrivers overforty. Based
on the totality ofthe circU111stances and on the action ofthe Commission, licensed taxicab
drivers,forthepurposeofthedefinitionoftheAEDA, areemployeesoftheDistrict. Irreparable
damagehas accruedandwillcontinueto accrueabsentthisCourtgrantingthismotion.
23
There Is Little Possibility of Harm to the Respondents if Relief is Granted
In orderto sustain a motion for temporary injunctive relief, a moving party must show
thatthe injunction"wouldnot substantially injure otherinterested parties." FTC v. Mallett, No.
11-01664CKK,2011 WL4852228, *3 (D.D.C. Oct. 13,2011).
The respondents will suffer no harm orbe prejudiced ifthe requested reliefis granted.
PriortotheenactmentoftheModemTaximeters SystemRegulations and theNewStandardized
Dome Regulations, taxicabs operated efficiently and afforded the drivers and passengers more
safety. Moreover, the rates were less expensive for passengers and there were no invasion of
privacyissues. TheModemTaximeters SystemRegulations was enactedas amechanismforthe
Commissionto automatically deductthe twenty five ($.25) centtax from eachtransaction. The
previous system neither encompassed any regulation that either violatedthe Fourth and Fifth
Amendments or discriminatedagainst disabled or drivers over the age offorty. Consequently,
there is no possibility or harm to the respondent(s). In this case it is clearthat the respondents
will not suffer anycognizable injury ftom the Courtenjoining the Commissionenforcement of
ModemTaximetersSystemRegulationsandthenewdomelightrequirement.
There is a Strong Public Interest in Granting Plaintiffs Motion
It is well established that there is a strong public interest in favor ofthe enforcement of
public laws and regulations. F.TC. v. Whole Foods Mkt., Inc. 548 F.3d 1028, 1035 (D.C.Cir.
2008)(recognizing "the public interest in effective enforcement ofantitrust laws."); F.T.C. v.
ExxonCorp.,636F.2d 1336, 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1980).
TheCommissionhasnotrevealedtothepublicthatthenewdomelightswillnothavethe
flashing illuminated sign withthecall 911 signal onthetop oftheroof. Thiseliminates asafety
componentfor thetaxicabdrivers andpassengers. Everypassengerwantstofeel safe and secure
24
whiletravelinginataxicab. Eliminatingthecall911 signal,whichisnotacompbnentinthenew
dome light increases the danger to all passengers. Furthermore, the public has interest in
enjoining a regulation that is aninvasionofprivacy and aviolationoftheFourthAmendment.
The public interest in granting this motion is extremely high. The plaintiffs, similar class
members and the public will benefit from the non-enforcement ofthe MTS and the newdome
light requirement. The Commission Will still retain control over regulating taxicabs in the
DistrictofColumbia. However,theCommissionisnotpermittedtoenforcelawsthatviolatethe
Fourthand FifthAmendments as well as discriminateagainstdisabled drivers. Furthermore,the
safety ofthe public will be assured because taxicab drivers will be able to maintain the dome
. lightsthathastheflashing911 signal,removalofthesmartchipwillensurethattheCommission
isnotableto utilizetheGPS to trackthemovements ofpassengers, maintainthatinformationin
perpetuityandminethatinformationatanytime. Accordingly,thereissubstantialpublicinterest
ingrantingthismotion.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth herein and for good cause shown, the plaintiffs respectfully
request that this Courthold a hearing onthe Motionfor a Temporary Restraining Order and a
PreliminaryInjunction,grantatemporaryrestrainingorderandinjunctionagainstthedefendants
andforsuchotherreliefasisjust.
25
UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
CivilDivision
CHOUDHARYM.AZAM,et.al.
v.
COMMISSION
And
RONALDLINTON,CHAIRMAN: CivilActionNumber:
COMMISSION
And
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIACITY
COUNCIL
And
DISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA
Defendants.
=================================
MEMORANDUMOFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIESINSUPPORTOFPLAINTIFFS'
MOTIONFORTEMPORARYRESTAININGORDERAND/ORPRELIMINARY
INJUNCTIONANDEXPEDITEDHEARING
I
VIOLATIONOFTHEEQUALPROTECTIONCLAUSEPURSUANTTO
THEFIFTHAMENDMENT
TheEqualProtectionClauseof theFourteenthAmendmentcommandsthatno Stateshall
"denyto anypersonwithinitsjurisdictiontheequalprotectionofthelaws," whichis essentially
a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S.
202,216, 102 S.Ct. 2382 23'94, 72L.Ed.2d786(1982). Section5of theAmendmentempowers
Congresstoenforcethismandate, butabsentcontrollingcongressionaldirection,thecourtshave
26
themselves devised standards for determining the validity ofstate legislation or other official
action that is challenged as. denying equal protection. The general rule is that legislation is
presumedto bevalidandwill be sustainediftheclassificationdrawnbythe statuteis rationally
related to a legitimate state interest. Schweiker v. Wilson, 450 U.S. 221, 230, 101 S.Ct. 1074
1080,67L.Ed.2d 186 (1981); United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166,
174-175, 101 S.Ct. 453,459-460, 66 L.Ed.2d368 (1980); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97,
99 S.Ct. 939, 942, 59 L.Ed.2d 171 (1979); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U.S. 297, 303, 96 S.Ct.
2513 2516,49L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). When social oreconomiclegislationis atissue, theEqual
Protection Clause allows the States widelatitude, United States Railroad Retirement Board v.
Fritz, supra, 449U.S., at 174, 101 S.Ct., at459;New Orleans v. Dukes, supra, 427 U.S.,at 303,
96 S.Ct.,at2516, andtheConstitutionpresumesthatevenimprovidentdecisionswilleventually
berectifiedbythedemocraticprocesses.
The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, alienage, or
national origin. Thesefactors are so seldomrelevantto the achievement ofany legitimatestate
interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and
antipathy-aviewthatthose intheburdenedclassarenotas worthyordeservingas others. For
these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative
means, these laws aresubjectedto strictscrutinyand will be sustainedonlyifthey are suitably
tailoredto serveacompellingstateinterest. McLaughlin v. Florida, 379 U.S. 184, 192,85S.Ct.
283,288, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29
L.Ed.2d534(1971). Similaroversightbythe courtsisduewhenstatelawsimpingeon personal
rights protected bythe Constitution. Kramer v. Union Free School District No. 15, 395 U.S.
621, 89 S.Ct. 1886, 23 L.Ed.2d 583 (1969); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct.
27
1322, 22 L.Ed.2d600 (1969); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rei. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct.
1110, 86L.Ed. 1655(1942).
Legislative classifications basedon gender also call for a heightened standard ofreview.
That factor generally provides no sensible ground for differential treatment. "[W]hat
differentiates sex from suchnonsuspect statusesas intelligenceorphysical disability .. .is that
the sexcharacteristic frequently bearsno relationtoabilityto performorcontributeto society."
Frontiero v. Richardson, 411 U.S. 677, 686, 93 S.Ct. 1764 1770, 36 L.Ed.2d 583 (1973)
(plurality opinion). Rather than resting on meaningful considerations, statutes distributing
benefitsandburdensbetweenthesexesindifferentways verylikelyreflectoutmodednotionsof
therelativecapabilitiesofmenandwomen. Agenderclassificationfailsunlessitissubstantially
related to a sufficiently important governmental interest. Mississippi University for Women v.
Hogan, 458 U.S. 718, 102 S.Ct. 3331, 73 L.Ed.2d 1090 (1982); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190,
97 S.Ct. 451, 50 L.Ed.2d 397 (1976). Because illegitimacyis beyondthe individual's control
and bears "no relation to the individual's ability to participate in and contribute to society,"
Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 505, 96 S.Ct. 2755 2762, 49 L.Ed.2d 651 (1976), official
discriminations resting on that characteristic are also subject to somewhat heightened review.
Those restrictions "will survive equal protection scrutiny to the extent they are substantially
relatedtoalegitimatestateinterest." Mills v. Habiuetzel, 456U.S. 91, 99, 102S.Ct. 1549 1554,
71 L.Ed.2d 770 (1982); City of Cleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U S ~ 432, 440-
41, 105 S.Ct.3249,87L.Ed.2d313 (1985)
OnMay 17,2013,the Commissionpassedthe ModernTaximeters SystemsRegulations,
whichinpartmadeitmandatorythatalltaxicabsinstallanewcreditcardsystemthathasasmart
chipthatdownloads all financial transactionsandtripsto the Commission.TheCommissionhas
28
full access to mineall informationfrom everytaxicab driver'stransaction(s) and deducttwenty
five cents ($.25) cents from every taxicab fare. This twenty five cent ($.25) deduction is
essentially a commutertax. The Commissionhas full authority and will unilaterallydeduct the
twentyfive cent($.25) centtaxfrom eachdriver'svendor-establishedandmandatedaccountfor
everycreditcardtransaction: Eachtimethemeterissetforanewtrip,thisinformationislogged
into the Commission'ssystem. Ifthe passengerpays the fare incash, the driverhasto pay the
Commissiontwenty five cents ($.25) for every cashtransaction. Ifthe driver does not pay the
twenty five cent ($.25) tax for each cash transaction to the Commission within the prescribed
periodoftime, the Commissionwillunilaterally deductthe amountdueto thisagency forcash
transactions from the account the driver maintains for credit card transactions. Ifthere are no
funds inthedriver'saccount, the Commissionwill automaticallyturnoffthedriver'smeterand
the driver is precluded from picking up any passengers. This action is takenpriorto providing
thedriverswithahearingandanopportunitytobeheard.
There are neitherany privately ownednorpubliclytradedbusiness(es) inthe Districtof
Columbiathatare subjectedtothis automaticdeduction and immediatepaymentto aDistrictof
Columbiaagency fora surcharge, sales tax, orany othertaxfor eachtransaction. Onlytaxicab
drivers are subjected to these draconian measures. Moreover, there is neither any privately
ownednorpubliclytradedbusinessintheDistrictofColumbiawhere eachfinancial transaction
is downloadedto a District ofColumbiaagency. This regulation imposed onthe plaintiffs and
similarclass members creates powerand authority to the Commissionthat does not even exist
withtheInternalRevenueService.
TheplaintiffssubmitthattheDistrictofColumbiaandtheCommissionhaveviolatedthe
equal protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment's
29
EqualProtectionClauserequires Statestotreatsimilarlysituatedpersons alike. City a/Cleburne
v. Cleburne Living Ctr., Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d313 (1985).
The District ofColumbia is subject to that requirement by virtue ofthe Fifth Amendment's
guaranteeofdueprocessoflaw.See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347U.S. 497,499, 74 S.Ct.693,694, 98
L.Ed. 884 (1954); Women Prisoners 0/ District a/Columbia Dept. a/Corrections v. District 0/
Columbia, 93 F.3d910(C.A.D.C., 1996).
"[T]he threshold inquiry in evaluating an equal protection claim is . . . to determine
whether a person is similarly situated to those persons who allegedly received favorable
treatment." Dixon, 753 F. Supp. 2dat8-9 (firstalterationinoriginal)(quoting Women Prisoners
a/the D.C. Dep't a/Carr. v. District a/Columbia, 93 F.3d 910, 924 (D.C. Cir. 1996; Dixon v.
Dist. 0/ Columbia (D.C. Cir., 2011). The answer to that question is that taxicab drivers are
similarlysituatedas any otherpersonorentityoperatingabusiness in theDistrictofColumbia,
however,thenewregulationmandatesasetofmeasuresforthecollectionofthistax whichisnot
imposed upon any other person(s) orbusiness(es) who are similarly situated in the District of
Columbia.
Theplaintiffsandothermembersoftheclassare literallyall foreignbornorareAfrican-
Americans. "[I]fa law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will
upholdthelegislativeclassificationsolongasitbearsarationalrelationto somelegitimateend."
Romer v. Evans, 517U.S. 620, 631 (1996)(citationomitted). Theplaintiffsandsimilarmembers
submitthat because theyare a suspectclassandthis automatic deduction and realtimetransfer
ofeach financial transaction violates a fundamental right the Court should review this issue
pursuanttostrictscrutiny.
30
The Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations And The New Standardized Dome Light
Regulations clearly'as to the collection of the twenty five cent ($.25) tax and financial
information is inconsistent as to the collection ofsurcharges, salestaxes, or any other tax for
othersimilarlysituatedpersonsorbusinesses. Furthermore,theelectronicdownloadofeachand
every credit card transaction to a District ofColumbia agency is not a burdenrequired ofany
othersimilarlysituatedbusinessesoperatingintheDistrictofColumbia.
Insum,theplaintiffsandotherclassmembersarenotchallenging,for thepurposeofthis
action, the validity ofhaving to pay the twenty five cents ($.25) per fare. However, they
challenge the methods as to how the District ofColumbia automatically deducts twenty five
cents($.25) aftereachfare as well as the continuous, real time access to eachoftheirfinancial
transactions, which is not a requirement ofany other similarly situated persons or business
entitiesdoingbusinessintheDistrictofColumbia.
II
THE GPS TRACKING DEVICE CONTAINED WITHIN THE NEW
METER SYSTEM IS A VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
The plaintiffs submitthat the regulations implemented by the District ofColumbia and
the Commission is a violation ofthe Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,
specifically, the newmetersystem. Thenewmeter system containsasmartchip thattracks the
movement ofthe taxicab driver as well as the passenger. The trip informationis automatically
downloaded and maintained"by the Commission. The datacompiled from the smart chip tracks
alltripsfrom arrivalto thefinal destination. Wheneveracustomerpaysforhisorherfarewitha
creditcard,thenewmetersystemandthesmartchipclearlyidentifiesnotonlytheidentityofthe
passenger who traveled in the taxicab, but the time, place, when and where the travel was
31
initiatedand whenandwherethepassengerdisembarked. Thedevicewhichoperatesas theGPS
systemtracksataxicabdrivernotonlywhenheis onduty,butevenwhentheyareoffduty.
The Supreme Court in United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), found that the
warrantlessuseofaGPS deviceviolatedtheFourthAmendment. United States v. Maynard, 615
F.3d 544 (2010). Specifically, the FourthAmendmentprovides inrelevantpartthat"[t]heright
ofthe people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable
searchesandseizures, shallnotbe violated."It isbeyonddispute thatavehicleis an"effect"as
thattermis used in the Amendment. United States v. Chadwick, 433 U.S. 1, 12, 97 S.Ct. 2476,
53 L.Ed.2d 538 (1977). In United States v. Jones, supra, the Supreme Courtheld that that the
Government's installation ofa GPS device on a target's vehicle,and itsuse ofthat device to
monitorthe vehicle's movements, constitutes a"search." It is importantto be clear about what
occurred in this case: The Governmentphysically occupied private property for the purpose of
obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been
considereda"search"withinthemeaningoftheFourthAmendmentwhenitwasadopted. Entick
v. Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765) is a "case we have described as a 'monument of
English freedom' 'undoubtedly familiar' to 'every American statesman' ~ the time the
Constitution was adopted, and considered to be 'the true and ultimate expression of
constitutionallaw' " withregardto searchandseizure. Brower v. County ofInyo, 489U.S. 593,
596, 109S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d628 (1989) (quoting Boyd v. United States, 116U.S. 616,626,
6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886)). In that case, Lord Camden expressed in plain terms the
significanceofpropertyrightsinsearch-and-seizureanalysis:
32
"[O]ur law holds the property ofevery man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his
neighbour's close withouthi,s leave; ifhedoes he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at
all;ifhewilltreaduponhisneighbour'sground,hemustjustifyitbylaw."Entick, supra, at817.
The text of the Fourth Amendment reflects its close connectipn to property, since
otherwise it would have referred simply to "the right of the people to be secure against
unreasonable searches and seizures"; the phrase "intheir persons, houses, papers, and effects"
wouldhavebeensuperfluous.
Consistent with this understanding, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to
common-lawtrespass,atleastuntilthelatterhalfofthe20thcentury.Kyllo v. United States, 533
U.S. 27, 31, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94 (2001); Kerr, The Fourth Amendment and New
Technologies: Constitutional Myths and the Case for Caution, 102 Mich. L.Rev. 801, 816
(2004). Thus,inOlmstead v. United States, 277U.S. 438,48 S.Ct. 564,72 L.Ed. 944(1928), we
held that wiretaps attached to telephone wires on the public streets did not constitute a Fourth
Amendmentsearchbecause"[t]herewasno entryofthehousesorofficesofthedefendants,"id.,
at464,48S.Ct. 564.
Ourlatercases, ofcourse, have deviatedfrom thatexclusively property-basedapproach.
InKatz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), we saidthat
"theFourthAmendmentprotectspeople, notplaces,"and found aviolationin attachmentofan
eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth. Our latercases have applied the analysis of
Justice Harlan's concurrence in that case, which said that a violation occurs when government
officersviolateaperson's"reasonableexpectationofprivacy,"id.,at360,88S.Ct. 507.See, e.g.,
Bond v. United States, 529 U.S. 334, 120 S.Ct. 1462, 146 L.Ed.2d 365 (2000); California v.
33
Cira%, 476 U.S. 207, 106 S.Ct. 1809, 90 L.Ed.2d 210 (1986); Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S.
735,99S.Ct.2577, 61 L.Ed.2d220(1979). United States v. Jones, 132S.Ct. 945 (2012).
Justice Sotomayor in the concurring opinion wrote, search within the meaning ofthe
Fourth Amendment occurs, at a minimum, "[w]here, as here, the Government obtains
information by physically intruding on a constitutionally protected area." Ante, at 950. In this
case, the Government installed a Global Positioning System (GPS) tracking device on
respondent Antoine Jones' Jeep without a valid warrantand without Jones' consent, then used
that device to monitor the Jeep's movements over the course offour weeks. The Government
usurped Jones' property for the purpose ofconducting surveillance on him, thereby invading
privacyinterestslongafforded, andundoubtedlyentitledto, FourthAmendmentprotection.See,
e.g., Silverman v. United States, 365 U.S. 505,511-512,81 S.Ct. 679,5L.Ed.2d734(1961).
Ofcourse, the Fourth Amendment is not concerned only withtrespassory intrusions on
property. See, e.g., Kyllo v. United S t a t e ~ 533 U.S. 27, 31-33, 121 S.Ct. 2038, 150 L.Ed.2d 94
(2001). Rather, evenintheabsenceofatrespass, "aFourthAmendmentsearchoccurswhenthe
governmentviolates a subjective expectationofprivacythat societyrecognizes as reasonable."
Id., at 33, 121 S.Ct.2038;see also Smith v. Maryland, 442U.S. 735,740-741,99 S.Ct. 2577,61
L.Ed.2d 220 (1979); Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576
(1967)(Harlan,J.,concurring). United States v. Jones, supra, 132S.Ct.at955.
Governmentcanstoresuchrecords andefficientlyminethem for informationyears into
the future. Pineda-Moreno, 617 F.3d, at 1124 (opinion ofKozinski, C.J.). And because GPS
monitoring is cheap in comparison to conventional surveillance techniques and, by design,
proceeds surreptitiously, it evades the ordinary checks that constrain abusive law enforcement
34
practices: "limitedpolice resources and communityhostility." Illinois v. Lidster, 540 U.S. 419,
426, 124S.Ct.885, 157L.Ed.2d843 (2004).
Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive
freedoms. Andthe Government'sunrestrainedpowerto assembledatathatreveal privateaspects
ofidentityis susceptibletoabuse.ThenetresultisthatGPS monitoring-bymakingavailableat
arelativelylowcostsuchasubstantialquantumofintimateinformationaboutanypersonwhom
the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track-may "alter the relationship
betweencitizenandgovernmentinawaythatisinimicalto democraticsociety." United States v.
Cuevas-Perez, 640F.3d272,285 (C.A.72011)(Flaum,1.,concurring).
I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the
existenceofareasonablesocietalexpectationofprivacyinthesumofone'spublicmovements. I
would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and
aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, moreorless at will, their
politicalandreligiousbeliefs,sexualhabits,andsoon. Ido notregardasdispositivethefactthat
the Government might obtain the fruits of GPS monitoring through lawful conventional
surveillance techniques. See Kyllo, 533 U.s., at 35,n. 2, 121 S.Ct. 2038; ante, at 954 (leaving
openthe possibilitythat duplicatingtraditional surveillance "throughelectronicmeans, without
anaccompanyingtrespass, isanunconstitutional invasionofprivacy"). Iwouldalso considerthe
appropriatenessofentrustingtotheExecutive,intheabsenceofanyoversightfrom acoordinate
branch, atool soamenabletomisuse, especiallyinlightoftheFourthAmendment'sgoalto curb
arbitraryexercises ofpolicepowerto andprevent"atoopermeatingpolicesurveillance,"United
States v. Di Re, 332U.S. 581,595,68S.Ct.222,92L.Ed.210(1948).
35
Morefundamentally, itmaybenecessaryto reconsiderthepremisethatanindividualhas
no reasonable expectation ofprivacy ininformationvoluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g.,
Smith, 442U.S.,at742,99S.Ct.2577; United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435,443,96S.Ct. 1619,
48L.Ed.2d71 (1976).Thisapproachisill suitedtothedigitalage, inwhichpeoplerevealagreat
dealofinformationaboutthemselvestothirdpartiesinthecourseofcarryingoutmundanetasks.
Peopledisclosethephonenumbersthattheydial ortexttotheircellularproviders;theURLsthat
theyvisitandthee-mailaddresseswithwhichtheycorrespondtotheirInternetserviceproviders;
and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to onlineretailers. Perhaps, as Justice
ALITO notes, somepeoplemay findthe"tradeoff'ofprivacyfor convenience"worthwhile,"or
corne to acceptthis "diminutionofprivacy"as "inevitable,"post,at 962, and perhaps not. Ifor
one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the
Governmentofa listofeveryWeb sitetheyhadvisitedinthe lastweek, ormonth, oryear. But
whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only ifour
FourthAmendmentjurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would
notassumethatallinformationvoluntarilydisclosedtosomememberofthe publicfor alimited
purpose is, for that reason alone, disentitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See Smith, 442
U.S., at 749, 99 S.Ct. 2577 (Marshall, J., dissenting) ("Privacy is not a discrete commodity,
possessed absolutely ornotat all. Those who disclosecertainfacts to abankorphone company
for a limited business purpose need not assume that this information will be released to other
persons for other purposes"); see also Katz, 389 U.S., at 351-352, 88 S.Ct. 507 ("[W]hat [a
person] seeks to preserve'as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be
constitutionallyprotected"). United States v. Jones, supra, 132S.Ct.at957.
36
In summary, the installation of the smart chip which contains the GPS tracking system
without a warrant or consent is the precise issue that the Supreme Court did not condone, but
found violated a person's expectation of privacy. Despite this ruling, the District of Columbia
and the Commission has knowingly installed a GPS stacking system that will cause a wide
spread invasion of privacy for every taxicab driver and the public who uses a credit card for
:
payment. Consequently, the smart chip GPS tracking systems does exactly what the Supreme
Court in Jones, supra, held was in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
III
. VIOLATIONOFTITLEII 35.140OFTHE
AMERICANSWITHDISABILITIESACT
Effective November 1, 2013, the Commission requires all District of Columbia taxicabs
to replace all dome lights located on the roof of each taxicab. The current dome light has a call
911 sign on the end of the dome light which enables a driver to activate the 911 light from inside
of the taxicab which triggers a flashing light that illuminates call 911 on both ends of the
horizontal or middle portion of the dome light. This signal alerts pedestrians, other drivers and
law enforcement that the taxicab driver's life in is in distress due to a medical crisis or physical
harm by a third party. This alerts police officers as well as passing motorists or pedestrians to
contact law enforcement that a taxicab driver is in distress.
5
Moreover, if a taxicab driver who is
with a passenger is accosted by a third party who enters the taxicab, the passenger's life is placed
in jeopardy due to the absence of the 911 signal. The new dome light system mandated by the
Commission does not contain the 911 flashing signal on the dome. Consequently, the new dome
5 Driving a taxicab is ranked number 5 in the worst jobs ranking only behind (ll roust about, (2) ironworker, (3)
lumberjack, (4) roofer. "Ten Worst Jobs 2011" CareerCust.com Oct. 29-2012.
37
lightcreatesahazardousconditionforallofthetaxicabdrivers,butmoreparticularlyfortaxicab
driverswithadisability.
Thenewdome lightregulationcreatesadiscriminatoryenvironmentfor disabledtaxicab
drivers. Thelowercostsystemunlikethepriordomelightsystemdoesnothaveaswitchonthe
insideofthetaxicabto activatethelightto indicateifthetaxicabdriverisoncall oroffcalL In
order to activate the on call and offcall light, a taxicab driver must physically get out ofhis
taxicabtoactivatethissystemfromadevicelocatedonthedomelightontheroofofthevehicle.
Thismustbedoneregardlessoftraffic,weather,ortheconditionsoftheneighborhoodwherethe
driverislocatedwhenheorshemustgetoutofhislhercar.
Thenewregulationviolates35.140,EmploymentDiscrimination,whichstates:
(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be
subjectedto discriminationinemploymentunderanyservice,program, oractivityconductedby
apublicentity.
(b)
(1) For purposes of this part, the requirements of title I of the Act, as
established by the regulations of the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission in29 CFR part 1630, apply to employment in any service,
program or activity conducted by a public entity ofthat public entity is
also subjecttothejurisdictionoftitleI.
(2) For the purposes ofthis part, the requirements ofsection 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as established the regulations of the
DepartmentofJusticein28 CFRpart41, as thoserequirementspertainto
employment, apply to employment in any service, program, or activity
conductedbyapublicentityisnotalsosubjecttothejurisdictionoftitleI.
35.149DiscriminationProhibited,
Exceptas otherwiseprovided in 35.150, no qualified individualwitha disabilityshall,
becauseapublicentity'sfacilitiesareinaccessibletoorunusablebyindividualswithdisabilities,
beexcludedfromparticipationin,orbedeniedthebenefitsofservices,programs,oractivitiesof
apublicentity,orbesubjectedtodiscriminationbyanypublicentity.
38
Thenewregulationtriggers aviolationofADA 35.140 inthatit forces ataxicab driver
withadisabilitytopurchaseamoreexpensivenewdomelightsystemthatcanbeactivatedfrom
. insideofthetaxicab.Theirdisabilitymakesthemincapableofturningtheswitchonandofffrom
the dome light on the outside ofthe vehicle on the roof. Furthennore, it creates an undue
financial burden for those taxicab drivers with a disability to purchase the more expensive
system than those taxicab drivers without a disability who do not have to purchase the more
expensive systembecausethey are capableofoperatingthedome lightbythedevice locatedon
theroofofthetaxicab.
The net effect ofthis regulation could be cost prohibitive to taxicab drivers with a
disabilityandleadsto thoseindividualsbeingdeniedan opportunityfor employmentas adirect
result ofthe regulation. The new regulation strips away all oftheprotections and benefits to
disabledtaxicabdriversthatthepreviousdomelightprovided.
IV
THEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIATAXICABCOMMISSIONHAS
VIOLATEDTHEAGEDISCRIMINATIONANDEMPLOYMENTACT
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act ("AEDA") makes it "unlawful for an
m p l o y ~ to ... discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, tenns,
conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's age." 29 U.S.C.
623(a)(1). PatternedafterTitle VII, theADEAallows "[a]nypersonaggrieved [to] bring acivil
action in any court ofcompetentjurisdiction for ... legal or equitable relief." Id. 626(c)(1).
Schuler v. Pricewaterhousecoopers, Lip, 514F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir.,2008).
Theplaintif:fssubmitthattheDistricthasviolatedtheAEDAonagediscrimination. The
newdome lightis aviolationofagediscriminationagainsttaxicabdriversoverthe ageofforty.
There are asignificantnumber oftaxicab drivers inthe DistrictofColumbiawho are overthe
39
ageofforty. Manyofthe taxicab drivers have retiredfrom anothercareerand drive ataxicabto
supplement their pension or income. As discussed in the section addressing the District's
violationoftheAmericans WithDisabilitiesAct, thesametheoryappliesto discrimination. The
currentdome lightallowsthedrivertooperatethatdomelightfrom insideof thetaxicab,which
includesthe operationofthecall 911 sign. The leastexpensive newdome lightdoes nothave a
call911 signanddoesnothaveanoncalloroffcalllightthatcanbeoperatedfromtheinsideof
thetaxicab. There is anewdome lightoptionthatismore expensive and whichcanbeoperated
from theinside ofthe taxicab. The District's current dome light system with the call 911 sign
that can be operated from inside ofthe taxicab is not discriminatory. However, the new dome
lightsystemchanges the workplaceconditions and results inage discrimination.'Specifically, it
imposesagreaterburdenontheolderdriversbecauseeachtimetheirstatuschangesfromoncall
to offcall the taxicab driver must exit their vehicle despite weather, traffic or neighborhood
conditions.Taxicabdriversundertheageoffortyarelesslikelytobeburdenedbythemannerin
whichthenewdomelightfunctions asnotedaboveduetotheirageincomparisontoitseffecton
olderdrivers. This placestaxicab drivers overtheageofforty atadisadvantage as comparedto
taxicab drivers who are underthe age offorty. Thecurrentdome lightsystem is alevelplaying
fieldforall driversregardlessofage. Consequently,theDistricthas changedalawthatwasnon-
discriminatoryasto ageandcreatedanewlawthatisagediscriminate.
THE PLAINTIFFS MEET THE REQUIREMENT TO BRING A CAUSE OF ACTION
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations, specifically 29 C.F.R.
1626.10, allow the Commissionto "enter into agreements with State or local fair employment
practices agencies to cooperate in enforcement, technical assistance, research, or public
informational activities, and [to] engage the services ofsuch agencies in processing charges
40
assuring the safeguard of'the federal rights of aggrieved persons." Id. 1626.10(a), The
regulations further provide that these agreements may "authorize such agencies to receive
chargesandcomplaintspursuantto1626.5 andinaccordancewiththespecificationscontained
in 1626.7 and 1626.8." Id. 1626.10(b). The first ofthese provisions allows aggrieved
:"
employees to submit EEOC charges "to any office ofthe Commission or to any designated
representativeofthe Commission," id. 1626.5,the secondestablishestimelinessrequirements,
id. 1626.7,andthethirdprescribesthenecessary substantivecontentsofcharges,id. 1626.8.
Criticallyforthiscase,theregulation'sfinal subsectionprovides:
Whenaworksharingagreementwitha stateagencyisineffect,the Stateagency
will act on certain charges and the Commission will promptly process charges
which the State agency does not pursue. Charges received byone agency under
the agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for pufposes of
1626.7.
Resolving this dispute requires an analysis ofthe worksharing agreement, which the
" ,
EEOC, acting in accordance with 29 C.F.R. 1626.10, has signed with the DCOHR. Because
that "worksharing agreement ... is in effect, ... [c]harges received by one agency under the
agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency." ld. 1626.10(c) (emphasis added).
TheD.C. worksharingagreement'sfirstoperativeprovisionexpresslyimplementsthisregulation,
stating, "[i]norderto facilitate the assertionofemploymentrights,theEEOC andthe [DCOHR]
each designate the other as its agent for the purpose ofreceiving and drafting charges." D.C.
WorksharingAgreement II.A.Readtogether,theregulationandagreementthusmakeclearthat
for all intents and purposes, the DCOHR receives charges filed with the EEOC. Schuler, 514
F.3dat1372.
41
THEPLAINTIFFSMEETTHEDEFINITIONOFANEMPLOYEE
Theplaintiffs submitthatbased onthe control by the Districtandthe Commissionas it
applies to theirjobas taxicab drivers, they meet the definition ofan employee pursuant to the
FairLaborStandardAct.
The Fair Labor Standards Act of1938, enacted June 25, 1938, is a part ofthe social
legislation ofthe 1930's ofthe same general character as the National Labor Relations Act of
July5, 1935,49Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. 151 etseq., andthe Social SecurityActofAugust 14,
1935,49Stat. 620,42U.S.C.A. 301 etseq. Decisionsthatdefinethecoverageof theemployer-
Employee relationship under the Labor and Social Security acts are persuasive in the
consideration ofa similar coverage under the Fair Labor Standards Act. See National Labor
Relations Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 US. 111, 64 S.Ct. 851, 88 L.Ed. 1170; United
States v. Silk, 331 U.S. 704,67S.Ct. 1463.Rutherford Food Corporation v. Comb, 331 U.S. 722,
724,67S.Ct. 1473,91 L.Ed. 1772(1947).
As in theNational LaborRelations Actandthe Social SecurityAct, there is inthe Fair
Labor Standards Act no definition that solves problems as to the limits ofthe employer-
employeerelationship undertheAct. Provisionswhichhavesomebearingappearinthemargin.
Thedefinitionof'employ'isbroad.It evidentlyderivesfromthechildlaborstatutesanditshould
be noted that this definition applies to the child labor provisions ofthis Act, 12.7 We have
decided that it is not so broad as to include those 'who, without any express or implied
compensation agreement, might work for their own advantage on the premises ofanother.'
Walling v. Portland Terminal Co., 330 U.S. 148, 67 S.Ct. 639, 641. In the same opinion,
however, wepointed out that 'This Act contains its own definitions, comprehensive enough to
requireits applicationto manypersonsandworkingrelationships, whichpriorto this Act, were
42
notdeemedtofall withinan'employer-employeecategory,'330U.S. 150,67S.Ct. 640. Wehave
.said that the Act included those who are compensated on a piece rate basis. United States v.
Rosenwasser, 323 U.S. 360, 65 S.Ct. 295, 89 L.Ed. 301. We have accepted a stipulation that
station'red-caps'wererailroademployees. Williams v. Jacksonville Terminal Co., 315 U.S. 386,
391,62S.Ct. 659,663, 86L.Ed. 914. Rutherford Food Corporation, 331 U.S.at729.
TheInternalRevenueServicedefinesanindependentas follows:
"People such as doctor's, dentists, veteriniarians, lawyers, accountants,
contactors, subcontractors, public stenographers, or auctioneers who are in an
independenttrade, businessorprofessioninwhichtheyoffertheirservicesto the
general public are generally independent contractors. However, whether these
people are independent contractors or employees depends on the facts in each
case. The general rule is that an individual is an independent contractor ifthe
payer has the rightto control ordirect only the result ofthe work and not what
willbedoneandhowitwill bedone. Theearnings ofapersonwhoisworkingas
anindependentcontractoraresubjectto Self-EmploymentTax.
Youarenotan'independentcontractorifyouperformservicesthatcanbe
controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This
appliesevenifyouaregivenfreedomofaction. Whatmattersisthattheemployer
hasthelegalrighttocontrolthedetailsofhowtheservicesareperformed."
Plaintiffssubmitthatthefollowinglist,whichisnotexhaustive,illustratesthefactorsthat
establishanemployer-employeerelationshipwiththeDistrict:
L TheDistrictand/ortheCommissionsetataxicabcleanlinessrequirement;
2. The Commission has access to all ofthe credit card transactions between taxicab
driversandpassengers;
3. TheDistrictand/ortheCommissiontaketwentyfivecents($.25)fromeachtriptaken
byapassenger;
4. The District and/or the Commission unilaterally determined the type ofcredit card
machine approved for installation in a taxicab operated by a District ofColumbia
taxicabdriver;
5. The District and/or the Commission has provided a limited list of financial
institutionsthatataxicabdrivercanusetoprocesscreditcardpayments;
43
6. TheDistrictandlortheCommissionhasthepowerto hiretaxicabdriversbyissuinga
licensetoataxicabdrivertooperateataxicabintheDistrictofColumbia;
7. TheDistrictandlortheCommissionhas thepowerto terminatetheoperator'slicense
issuedto ataxicabdriverforaviolation.
8. The Districtandlorthe Commissionsupervisethe conductoftaxicab driversthrough
hack inspections!
9. TheDistrictandlorthe Commissionsettheratesthattaxicab driverscan chargesfor
fares;
10. TheDistrictandlortheCommissionsetwhatsurchargestaxicabdriverscanorcannot
charged;
11. The Commission provides a link on its website with instructions to submit a
complaintagainstataxicabdrivertotheCommission.
Theplaintiffshaveattachedhereto asExhibitA affidavitsinsupportoftheirclaimscited
herein. SeeExhibitA,Affidavits.
In conclusion, the new dome light system is a violation of the AEDA. There are
numerous taxicab drivers in the District ofColumbiawho are overthe age offorty. The New
Standardized Dome Light Regulations gives an unfair advantage to taxicab drivers who are
underthe age offorty, while it createsan undueburdento taxicab drivers overforty. Basedon
thetotality ofthe circumstances and the actionofthe Commission, licensedtaxicab drivers for
thepurposeofdefinitionareemployeesoftheDistrict.
Accordingly, the plaintiffs request that the Court grant this motion and enjoin the
Commission and the Districtfrom enforcing the ModemTaximeters SystemsRegulations And
TheNewStandardizedDomeLightRegulations.
44
ChoudaryM. Azam
TariqMahmood
WaleedA. Mohammed
AhmedDjebbour
MohammedAkram
ByCounsel
Respectfullysubmitted,
~ s ?
CounselforthePlaintiffs
ThePondsLawFinn
BarNumber379883
125024thStreet,N.W.
Suite300
Washington,D.C.2007
TelephoneNumber:(202)333-2922
FacsimileNumber: (202)333-4114
E.:.Mail: plfpc@aol.com
45
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
IherebycertifythatatrueandcompletecopyoftheMotionfor aTemporaryRestraining
Order and a Preliminary Injunction was hand-delivered to the Honorable Vincent C. Gray,
Mayorofthe DistrictofColumbia, Executive Office ofthe Mayor, 1350PennsylvaniaAvenue,
NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004 and to Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the
DistrictofColumbia,441 4th Street,NW,Suite650, Washington, D.C. 20004 onthis 9
th
dayof
October2013.
46
EXHIBITA
Azam, et.al. v. DC, et.al.
Exhibit A Affidavits:
1. Affidavit of Massoud Medghalachi
2. Affidavit of Sajid Choudhary
3. Affidavit of Choudhary M. Azam
4. Affidavit of Tariq Mahmood
5. Affidavit of Waleed A. Mohammed
6. Affidavit of Christopher C. Murray
7. Affidavit of Barrington Nicholas
8. Affidavit of Ralph L. Vest, Jr.
9. Affidavit of William E. Lucas
10. Affidavit of Daisy A. Battle
11. Affidavit of Weldon Powell
12. Affidavit of Lonnie Maggett
13. Affidavit of Joseph Felix Buadu
14. Affidavit of Support of Said Aboulhana
15. Affidavit of James Wright
16. Affidavit of Norwood Cuehins
17. Affidavit of James E. Joyner and
18. Affidavit of Aytenfsu Samuale
I am a District of Columbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately --l-!.uOC-l"L,<...)_
cab drivers from c:C( b
All of the above-referenced cab drivers, who work for
\(l P -1 Metre I!' ,tor lI) coJ Co. , support this case against the District of
Columbia and the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, which includes, but is not limited
to, ttle following claims, violation(s) of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Fourth Amendment
violation(s) and Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process violation(s).

Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this .J..- day of October 2013.
My Commission Expires ___________
JllllAN JOSEPH
NotaryPublic,DistrictofColumbia
MyComm.Exp.April 14. 2018
AFFIDAVIT
, hereby affirm as follows:
1/
My name is _-''''-- __ __
t/:L!- v
I am a District of Columbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately / );2.
cab drivers from Cf1d wlitpdl1)'. --
_ fL C{jd5 support this case against the District of
Columbia and the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, which includes, but is not limited
to, the following claims, violation(s) of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Fourth Amendment
violation(s) and Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process violation(s).
Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this :<).)1> day of October 2013.
CAROLYN P. PRUE
Notary Public, District of Columbia
My Commission Expires ... __My_Co_m_m_iss_ion_xpi__res_May_14_.20_1_6_
AFFIDAVIT
I, '1 ,herebyaffirmasfollows:
Mynameis e./.. 8d-d-t:rlL /ltd
IamaDistrictof ColumbiacabdriverandIamanorganizerforapproximately zrn.f
cabdriversfrom
trs-J.-15>- ' supportthiscaseagainsttheDistrictof
ColumbiaandtheDistrictofColumbiaTaxicab Commission,whichincludes, butis not limited
to,thefollowingclaims,violation(s)oftheAmericansWithDisabilitiesAct,FourthAmendment
violation(s)andFifthAmendmentproceduralandsubstantivedueprocessviolation(s).
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis N'b dayof October2013.
CAROLYN p. PRUE
MyCommissionExpires MyCommissionxpiresMay14.2016
AFFIDAVIT
I, Tariq Mahmood, hereby affinn as follows:
My name is Tariq Mahmood.
I am a District of Columbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately 25 Prime
Cab Association drivers.
All ofthe above-referenced cab who work for Prime Cab Association, support this
case against the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Taxicab which
includes, but is not limited the following violation(s) ofthe Americans With Disabilities
Act, Fourth Amendment violation(s) and Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process
violation( s).
Tariq Mahmood

Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this __3- __day of October 2013.
My Commission Expires ___________
JILLIANJOSEPH
NotaryPublic, DistrictofColumbIa
MyComm. EXp. April 14, 2018
AFFIDAVIT
I, Waleed A. Mohammed, hereby affirm as follows:
My name is Waleed A. Mohammed.
I am a District of Columbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately 400 Silver
Cab drivers.
All ofthe above-referenced cab drivers, who work for Silver Cab, support this case against
the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission, which includes, but
is not limited to, the following claims, violation(s) of the Americans With Disabilities Act, Fourth
Amendment violation(s) and Fifth Amendment procedural and substantive due process
violation(s).
Waleed A. MIIlffied
Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this .i day of October 2013.
My Commission Expires __________
JILLIAN JOSEPH
NotaryPubliC, DistrictofColumbia
MyComm.Exp.April14,2018
I, ,herebyaffirmasfollows:
IamcurrentlylicensedtooperateacabintheDistrictofColumbia.
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor ___ ____
Iwillberequiredtopayforthemoreexpensivedomelightsystemtocomplywiththenew
domelightsystemrequirementbecauseof mydisability.Itwouldbeextremelydifficultformeto
manuallyactivatethesystemfromoutsideof mytaxicab.However,intheeventIcannotpurchase
themoreexpensivedomelightsystemmorethanlikelyIwillnotbeabletocontinuetooperateas
aDistrictofColumbiataxicabdriver.
Thecurrentdomelightsystemallowsalldriverstoactivatethedomelightfrom insideof
thetaxicab. Additionally,thenewdomelightdoesnothavethe911 callsignalonthedome.This
isasafetyandwelfarehazardforme.

, -"'.'-
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis 6Jev dayofOctober2013.
SonjaFlowers b'
NotaryPublic,DistrictofCoklm 13
MyCommissionExpires
MycommissionExPires10/14/2013,
AFFIDAVITOF
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor tfLrJ P(at51S
manuallyactivatethesystemfromoutsideofmytaxicab.However,intheeventIcannotpurchase
. aDistrictofColumbiataxicabdriver.
Thecurrentdomelightsystemallowsalldriverstoactivatethedomelightfrominsideof
thetaxicab.Additionally,thenewdomelightdoesnothavethe911 callsignalonthedome.This
is asafetyandwelfarehazardforme.
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis dayof October2013.
SonjaFlowers
NotaryPublic.DistrictofColumbia
, .
MyCommissionExpires
MyCommissionExpires10/14/2013
, .
...
AFFIDAVITOF L.
IamcurrentlylicensedtooperateacabintheDistrictof Columbia.
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor Lt?uI ...hAc:}.... 4'","IA.; c.A= (( OilS
(a.et'uf<A J') ..._._.
I\\jllberequiredtopayforthemoreexpensivedomelightsystemtocomplywiththenew
aDistrictof Columbiataxicabdriver.
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis 5f!v dayofOctober20l3.
Sonja Flowers
'1..." .....
Notary Public. District of Columbia
MyCommissionExpires
My Commission Expires 10[14[2013
AFFIDAVITOFi!:lJ/!)tP1 c ZlAC
fl
,..
I,Nm,LIACnfherebyaffirmasfollows:
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor eet::f-

domelightsystemrequirementbecauseof my disability.Itwouldbeextremelydifficultformeto
themoreexpensivedomelightsystemmorethal1likelyIwillnotbeabletocontinuetooperateas
Thecurrentdomelightsystemallowsalldriversto activatethedomelightfrominsideof
thetaxicab.Additionally,thenewdomelightdoesnothavethe911 callsignalonthedome. This
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis ::::J;fl....,/ dayofOctober2013.
sonjaFlowers
MyCommissionExpires
Notal)'Public.Districtof
MycommlsslOo-upires19r14,20t3
-----------------
AFFIDAVIrOF
affirmasfollows:
Iam rrentlylicensedto operateacabintheDistrictofColumbia.
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor tlOM.-f:
a
Iwillberequiredtopayforthemore:;nsivedomelightsystemto complywiththenew
domelightsystemrequirementbecauseof mydisability.It wouldbeextremelydifficultformeto
Thecurrentdomelightsystemallowsalldriverstoactivatethedomelightfrom insideof
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis dayofOctober2013.
Sonja Flowers
Notary Public, District of Coklmbia
, -.
MyCommissionExpires
My Commission Expires 10114/2013
. -
AFFIDAVIT OF ____,
<4L. Cd (t) ,-v -yo <..w e-/i
I, 'l , hereoy affirm as follows:
I am currently licensed to operate a cab in the District of Columbia.
I am currently suffering with a disability for P-Jl eo, -;c f/; Id ye
I will be required to pay for the more expensive dome light system to comply with the new
dome light system requirement because of my disability. It would be extremely difficult for me to
manually activate the system from outside ofmy taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase
the more expensive dome light system more than likely I will not be able to continue to operate as
a District of Columbia taxicab driver.
The current dome light system allows all drivers to activate the dome light from inside of
the taxicab. Additionally, the new dome light does not have the 911 call signal on the dome. This
is a safety and welfare hazard for me.
Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this day of October 2013. ,.
Sonja Flowers
Notary Public. District of Columbia.
My Commission Expires
My Commission Elqllres 10/14/2013'.
AFFIDAVIT OF -=-_-___.___

I, , hereby affirm as follows:
I am currently suffering with a disability for d
dome light system requirement because ofmy disability. It would be extremely difficult for me t9
manually activate the system from outside of my taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase

To And Sworn Before Me on this day of October 2013.
Sonja Flowers
Notary Public. District of CokJmbia
My Commission Expires 10/1412013
AFFIDAVIT OF :r f6 UA-{J Cf

I am currently suffering with a disability for
I r--1
manually activate the system from outside ofmy taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase
Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this t""" day of October 2013 ... _'. '- :. :.
"'.:.: -"'
Sonja Flowers
Notary Public. District of Columbia " -
My Commission Expires commission Expires 10114/2013
-
AFFIDAVITOF iJ PO tJ (L )
I, &A{(j Abou 1YJa 1ttC1, herebyaffirmasfollows:
I ama militaryveteranwho servedintheUnited States ____ for
7
years.
IamcurrentlylicensedtooperateataxicabintheDistrictofColumbia.
Thenewmeteranddomelightregulations enactedbythe District ofColumbiaTaxicab
Commissionhasandwill continueto causemefinancial harmdue to thecostofthe installation
forthenewmeteraswellasthedomelight.Themannerin whichtheDistrictofColumbiaTaxicab
Commissioncollectsallofmycreditcardtransactionsismoreexpensiveformethanthemanner
inwhichIhandledmycreditcardtransactionspriortotheinstallationof thenewmetersystem.
The new dome lightdoes notprovide me witll the same safety precautions as with the
currentdomelightsystemduetotheabsenceof thecall911 signwhichIcanactivatefromaswitch
insideof mytaxicab.Allofthesecircumstancesaffectsmysafetyinoperatingmytaxicab.
NOTARYPuBLIC
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis 5+"'- dayofOctober2013.
MyCommissionExpires
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor '1 J:\ \t
.domelightsystemrequirementbecauseof mydisability.It wouldbeextremelydifficultformeto
thetaxicab.Additionally,thenewdomelightdoesnothavethe911 callsignalonthedome. This
/4Low -e;i4h- 2.-'1?

SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis t::J.iIL dayofOctober2013.
Sonja Flowers
Notary Public. District of Columbia
MyCommissionExpires MyCommiSSionExpires 10/14/2013 .. -
AFFIDAVITOF old) Gt fll/J0
I
1, ,herebyaffinnasfollows:
Iamcurrentlysufferingwithadisabilityfor ___ _______
lJ .8A PyX ba nd;-r- J _____
Thecurrentdomelightsystemallows alldriverstoactivatethedomelightfrominsideof
thetaxicab.Additionally,thenewdomelightdoesnothavethe911 callsignalonthedome.This
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis ofOctober2013. .j
SonjaFlowers .
NotaryPublic,DistrictofColumbia
MyCommissionExpires__MyCommissionExpires10/14/2013
W:;;' , .,. w_
___

AFFIDAVIT OF _V;_A-/YJ _8._..l._"--I/-
I am currently licensed to operate a cab in the District of . /\
I am currently suffering with a disability for U-J4-/Ie, '-U ,
manually activate the system from outside of my taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase
Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this..:...J day of October 2013 .....

Sonja Flowers
. : ,
My Gommisslon Expires 16/14I2Dt:t
AFFIDAVIT
~ St9tU.t19WY affirmasfollows:
Iamadisabledcabdriver.
TheDistrictofColumbiaTaxicabCommission'snewdomelightregulation(s)willplace
an undue burden for me to continueto operate my taxicab due to the high cost ofinstalling a
deviceinsideof myvehicletooperatetheoncalVoffcallnewdomelight.
Duetomydisability, it isdifficultformetoenterandexitmycabeachtimethatI need
toplacethedomelightintheoncalloroff callposition.
Also,thenewdomelightdoesnothavethe911 flashinglightswhichIcanactivateunder
the old dome light system, which would alert pedestrians, other drivers, or the police that I
requireassistance.
The newdome light system imposed bythe District ofColumbiaTaxicab Commission
canhindermyabilitytocontinuetooperatemytaxicab.
NOTARYPUBLIC
"-11
SubscribedToAndSwornBeforeMeonthis 07
MyCommissionExpires /1- /'1. ,2t1/ r
CARLOS M. PEROZO
NotaryPublic-Maryland
MontgomeryCounty
MyCommission Expires
December19. 2015
dayof October2013.

CHOUDHARY M. AZAM v. DC TAXICAB COMMISSION - Motion For TRO

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CHOUDHARY M. AZAM v. DC TAXICAB COMMISSION - Motion For TRO

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURTFORTHEDISTRICTOFCOLUMBIA

Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this..:...J day of October 2013 .....

Você também pode gostar