The ACLU of Southern California today filed for a preliminary injunction in federal court to force the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) to meet the basic transportation needs of mobility-impaired bus riders. The order sought would require the MTA to keep its wheelchair lifts and safety equipment in proper working order, promptly repair broken equipment, and provide alternative transportation for mobility-impaired passengers who are not able to board. The ACLU is also calling on the MTA to voluntarily make improvements in its service for disabled riders so that a court order will not be necessary.

Mobility-impaired riders have repeatedly complained about the failure to accommodate their disabilities, to no avail. More than five months after the lawsuit was brought, the MTA has still not agreed to make improvements in its service to mobility-impaired riders.

The ACLU's federal class action suit, filed on behalf of mobility-impaired bus riders in Los Angeles County [Beauchamp et al. v. Los Angeles County MTA, et al., C.D. Cal. Case No. 98-0402-CBM (BQRx)], charges that the MTA is failing miserably in its obligation to provide "full and equal access" to disabled bus riders. This lawsuit, filed January 16, was amended, June 2, into a class action. Plaintiffs charge that the MTA is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 ("ADA") and other disability access laws. The ADA was enacted to dismantle barriers that prevent disabled individuals from obtaining equal opportunities, independence and economic self-sufficiency.

Plaintiffs charge that the MTA is breaking the law by failing to keep its wheelchair lifts in proper working order and that, on some lines, the lifts are broken more than 60% of the time. Frequently, mobility-impaired riders have been passed by completely, often without any explanation. The MTA has also endangered riders in wheelchairs by failing to keep its safety equipment operational or to use this equipment properly. The deplorable conditions on MTA buses have resulted in physical injuries, humiliation, emotional distress, and loss of wages to plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are informed that the MTA Board will consider making voluntary improvements to its service for disabled riders, including wheelchair lifts and safety equipment, at its June 26 meeting. If the MTA Board refuses to make the necessary improvements, then a hearing will occur on July 20 at which plaintiffs will ask the federal district court for an order that would force the MTA to comply with the ADA and other disability access laws.

The ACLU is calling on the MTA Board to voluntarily agree to improvements in service to mobility-impaired riders, so that a court-ordered preliminary injunction will not be necessary.

ACLU staff attorney Dan Tokaji commented: "While the MTA has squandered billions of dollars on failed projects, the basic needs of disabled bus riders have gone unmet. The MTA has spent extravagant sums on plush new offices, but has failed to keep its wheelchair lifts in proper working order. As a result, mobility-impaired riders continue to suffer every day. Time and time again, disabled riders are left out in the cold or sweltering heat, while bus after bus passes them by. It is high time for the MTA to do right by disabled riders. If they won't make things better on their own, the MTA will face a court order forcing them to stop treating disabled people like second-class citizens."

This morning plaintiffs in Mochizuki vs United States announced settlement of the federal class action lawsuit filed in August 1996 seeking reparations and a formal apology from the United States government for the forcible kidnaping and imprisonment of Japanese Latin Americans during World War II.

Attorneys and representatives from the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the Japanese American Citizens League, and the National Coalition for Redress/Reparations announced the settlement agreement that provides a presidential apology and $5,000 reparation payment to survivors of the ordeal. While acknowledging the significance of the formal apology, former internees are none-the-less disappointed that the settlement does not guarantee redress payment, which is one quarter of the amount given to Japanese Americans who were interned at the same time. In addition, former internees must apply for redress by August 10, 1998.

Named plaintiff Carmen Mochizuki said at a news conference held in Los Angeles this morning, "I am disappointed that we did not receive the same amount of redress that was given to the Japanese Americans, however, I feel that we are victorious for making the United States government finally accept responsibility for its actions against us."

Mochizuki, is one of over 2,000 Latin Americans Japanese taken from their homes and transported to the US for use in a prisoner exchange with Japan during W.W.II. The prisoners were primarily legal residents and citizens of friendly nations who posed no military threat to the US. Forced to come to the US, they were imprisoned in Department of Justice camps and over 800 were exchanged for US citizens during the war.

The lawsuit challenged the denial of redress to Japanese Latin Americans under the Civil Liberties Act, a law passed in 1988 which mandates a government apology and $20,000 reparation to persons of Japanese ancestry who were deprived of liberty by the US government during W.W.II. Under the settlement, the US will provide a letter of apology signed by President Clinton for each former internee or the surviving heirs. Redress payments of $5,000 will be issued with the apology paid from the 1988 Civil Liberties Act fund, until the fund runs out. Figures from the Government indicate that could be soon. Advocates for the Japanese Latin Americans are counting on support from the Clinton Administration and Congress to seek additional funds.

Internees who have not yet applied for the Civil Liberties Act must do so by August 10, 1998. Claims must be postmarked by that date and received by the Office of Redress Administration no later than September 1998. The Department of Justice will contact former internees who have already applied for the redress. The most difficult task lies in locating the additional 400 estimated survivors or their heirs in time for the August 10 deadline. Survivors are concentrated in Japan and Latin America, but could reside anywhere in the world. The government has agreed to publish the settlement agreement in two major newspapers, one in Japan and one in Peru, within 25 days. Campaign for Justice, the coalition supporting Japanese Latin American redress will continue efforts to locate former internees.

After satisfying the remaining eligible claims from Japanese Americans, the Office of Redress Administration, which processes claims under the Civil Liberties Act, expects the funds to drop from 11.4 million to 4.4 million, enough for 880 payments of $5,000. Advocates for Japanese Latin Americans say the monies will not cover the 1200 Japanese Latin American internees who may apply. The Clinton administration has promised to support legislative efforts to ensure the payment to all JLAs who apply and to extend the life of the Civil Liberties Act until December 1998, should the money run out.

Public interest advocacy groups including Multicultural Education, Training and Advocacy (META), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, the Asian Law Caucus, the Employment Law Center, and Public Advocates, announced today that they are filing a class action lawsuit in federal court to block implementation of Proposition 227.

The suit seeks to invalidate Proposition 227 on federal grounds and is being filed on behalf of parents of limited English proficient students, as well as local and statewide civil rights organizations, who oppose the attempt to end optional bilingual education programs and limit parents' choices for educational programs for their children. The suit argues that Proposition 227 violates the Equal Educational Opportunity Act of 1974 and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as other federal laws guaranteeing the right of language minority students to appropriate language programs which ensure meaningful access to equal educational opportunity.

Plaintiffs in the lawsuit include the California Latino Civil Rights Network, Chinese for Affirmative Action, Mujeres Unidas y Activas (United and Active Women), Parents for Unity, and numerous parents of children currently enrolled in California's public schools. (The identities of the individual plaintiffs are being protected.) Named defendants include Governor Pete Wilson, the State Board of Education, and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Attorneys in the case hope to block the implementation of Proposition 227 before its provisions disrupt the programs currently offered to 1.4 million students identified as limited English proficient. Plaintiffs in this case are concerned that the English-only program mandated by Proposition 227, and the administrative havoc that implementing Proposition 227 will cause, will negatively affect all 5.6 million children in the state's public schools.

"Parents, including immigrant parents, should have the right to make basic choices about their children's education," said Deborah Escobedo, staff attorney with META." All children, including immigrant children, should have the right to learn academic English and have access to science, math and history. Proposition 227 takes away these basic rights. This suit seeks to defend these basic rights and to ensure that no child will be denied a meaningful education."

Speaking at the news conference held this morning in Los Angeles, ACLU Southern California staff attorney Rocio Cordoba said, "This ill conceived measure will rob school children of an equal education. Ron Unz must not be allowed to substitute his judgement for the judgement of individual school districts and educators who are working to meet the educational needs of their students. The challenge of educating children from diverse backgrounds and languages must not result in quick fix, one-size-fits all remedies which will trample the progress we are making."

Ed Chen, ACLU-NC staff attorney, said, "This initiative is unlike any other state law dealing with the needs of limited English proficient students. It prescribes a one-size-fits- all English-only model for 1.4 million students throughout California, in complete disregard for their individual needs and differences. Proposition 227 also overrules the educational expertise of local schools and school districts, which use a variety of programs including those which involve instruction in the students' primary languageto assure that students are able to make progress on academic subjects while learning English at the same time."

Christopher Ho, an attorney with the Employment Law Center, said, "Proposition 227 will segregate children who do not speak English and teach them that their primary language is worthless. It will deprive them of their only means to really communicate with their teachers, it will take away their parents' ability to participate in their children's education, and it will not give them access to the educational programs enjoyed by students who do speak English. It's pure and simple discrimination based on language and on national origin, and we want to stop this from going forward."

"Proposition 227 sets back public education in California by 25 years," commented Ted Wang of Chinese for Affirmative Action, which helped bring the original Lau v. Nichols case in 1973 "This proposition treats children who are not fluent in English as if they have a disease. They will be isolated from other children, placed in English immersion classes, and denied other academic programs. We just can't tolerate this." [Lau v. Nichols resulted in the U.S. Supreme Court mandate that language minority children must be provided access to programs which meet their specific language needs.]

"Proposition 227 violates the fundamental right of national origin minorities to participate on an equal basis in the political process of advocating for effective educational programs for their children," stated Joe Jaramillo, staff attorney for MALDEF. "This Proposition shuts off the basic means to advocate for or to change local educational programs designed to overcome students' language barriers. We're now forced to turn to the courts to vindicate the rights of parents and students to advocate for effective and appropriate education programs for limited English proficient children."

Juana Flores has two daughters enrolled in bilingual classes in San Francisco schools. Ms. Flores, speaking through an interpreter, said, "Although I do not speak English well I have been able to help my children with school. As parents, the more we are involved the more our children are going to see that education is important. If they take away bilingual education they are going to take away our communication with the teachers, and we will no longer feel welcome at the schools, nor will we be able to participate in the school community."

Maria Blanco, the Northern California Director of the California Latino Civil Rights Network, said, "As a Latino civil rights organization whose focus is to ensure equal opportunity for all of California's Latino school children, we deplore the passage of Proposition 227. This initiative is bad public policy, and it takes away educational choices from parents, from students and from local school districts. The effect of Proposition 227 is to deny limited English speakers equal access to learning."

"Proposition 227 risks this state's future with an unprecedented withdrawal of services deemed necessary for children's success by California's educators," said John Affeldt, Public Advocates' Managing Attorney. "This is no way to make policy, and it certainly is no way to treat our children."