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

7/27/2019 CHOUDHARY M. AZAM v. DC TAXICAB COMMISSION - Motion for TRO

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/choudhary-m-azam-v-dc-taxicab-commission-motion-for-tro 1/66

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

CHOUDHARY M. AZAM, et.al.

v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAXICAB

COMMISSION

Civil Action Number:

And

RONALD LINTON, CH IRM N

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAXICAB :

COMMISSION

And

COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT

OF COLUMBI

And

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Defendants.

MOTION FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING .

ORDER AND A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Choudhary M Azam, Tariq Mahmood, Waleed A Mohammed, Ahmed Djebbour and

Mohammed Akram ("Plaintiffs"), by and through undersigned counsel, Billy L Ponds, of The

Ponds Law Firm, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 65 and LCvR 65.1, respectfully submits this Motion

for a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary Injunction and respectfully request that this

Court hold a hearing on this Motion and issue a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary

Injunction to prevent enforcement of the subject rules pending final judgment. In support of this

motion, the plaintiffs state as follows:

1

Case 1:13-cv-01558-ESH Document 2 Filed 10/09/13 of 66



INTRODUCTION

This action arises from the District o Columbia Taxicab Commission's ("Commission")

enactment o the Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations And The New Standardized Dome

Light Regulations, which makes t mandatory for all District o Columbia taxicab drivers

("taxicab driver") to replace their current dome lights! and credit card machines. 2 The plaintiffs

are District o Columbia taxicab drivers who allege that the Emergency and Proposed

Rulemaking violates the Fourth Amendment right against invasion o privacy, their Fifth

Amendment right to procedural and substantive due process and violates Title II o the

Americans With Disabilities Act.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Commission's enabling statute, The District o Columbia Taxicab Commission

Establishment Act o 1985 ("Establishment Act"), effective March 25, 1986 (D.C. Law 6-97),

empowers the Commission to establish: reasonable rates for taxicab service; methodologies for

the determination o reasonable fares for taxicab service; criteria, standards and requirements for

taxicab vehicle licensing and licensing o taxicab owners, operators, taxicab companies,

associations, and fleets to include the setting o reasonable license fees; standards for driver and

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,

dated July 11,2011. See also D.C. Official Code § 50-305(a) andd)

(2012).

The Establishment Act was passed "[t]o promote the public interest in taxicab

transportation by insuring that all rules, regulations, and laws specifically relating to taxicabs be

1 he new meter system was required to be installed no later than September 30 2013.

2 he dome light must be installed no later than November 1 2013.

2




vigorously and fairly enforced; that discrimination in taxicab passenger service be strictly

proscribed and penalized; and that adequate and high quality taxi passenger service be provided

to all quadrants and neighborhoods o the District; [and t]o maintain a taxicab transportation

system which provides owners and operators o taxicabs with reasonable and just compensation

for their services " D.C. Code § 50-302 (2010). Additionally, the Act aims to assure the

meaningful participation o minorities, healthy competition between companies and associations,

and access to the ownership o taxicabs by taxicab operators. Id

On April 29, 2011, the Commission's Notice o Proposed Rulemaking to Amend Chapter

6 (Taxicab Parts and Equipment) o Title 31 (Taxicab and Public Vehicles for Hire) o the

District o Columbia Municipal Regulations was published in the District o Columbia Register

("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

effective on the afore-mentioned date.

On July 18 2012, the Commission adopted the Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking

and took effective on July 25, 2012. t was later published on July 27,2012 in the Register, at 59

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

Rulemaking was adopted and published for a second time on October 5,2012, at 59 DCR 11594.

The comment period for the Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking expired on Novermber 3,

2012. On October 5 2012, the Commission's Second Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking to

3




amend 3 DCMR 600 was published. On November 14, 2012, the Commission adopted the

aforementioned rulemaking as final.

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

i m p l e m e n t t ~ o n of the Modern Taximeter System ("MTS"). The public hearings were held on

February 5 and April 17, 2013. On July 12,2013, the Commission published it s third proposed

regulation pertaining to the digital payment system (DPS). On July 13, 2013, the Commission

adopted A Second Notice of Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking and was later published on

July 26,2013, at 60 DCR 11007.

The final rule consists of the following components:

A new Section 604 TAXI SMART METER SYSTEM is added to read as follows:

604.1 Effective ,2013, all licensed taxicabs in the District of Columbia

shall be equipped with a Commission approved Taxi Smart Meter System

(TSMS) that meets all ofthe specifications listed below: 3

(a) Hardware Specifications:

(1) Driver Information Module (DIM):

(A) 7 DIM:

(i) Configured to DCTC specifications;

(ii) Screen: 7" high resolution color touch screen;

(iii) Maximum power draw of 6W from Power ControlModule; .

(iv) Integrated with DCTC s Back Office Management

Information System (BOMIS); and

(v) Interface with the Dome Light

3 The new meter system was required t be installed no later than September 30 2013

4




(B) Mounting Brackets:

(i) DIM equipment is made to accommodate all vehicle

types by providing various customized mounting

b,rackets; and

(ii) Mounting brackets are installed on the dashboard

based on the dashboard type. A universal mountingbracket can also be integrated to fit with any

vehicle.

(2) Passenger Information Module (PIM):

. (A) 10" PIM:

(i) Configured to Commission specifications;

(ii) Screen: 10" high resolution color touch screen;

(iii) Maximum power draw of lOW from Power ControlModule; and .

(iv) Integrated with the Commission's Back Office

Management Information System (BOMIS);

(B) Mounting Brackets:

(i) PIM equipment is made to accommodate all vehicle

types by providing various customized mounting

brackets; and

(U) Mounting brackets to install the PIM in the rear of

the car, depending on the vehicle type;

(3) Communications Device.

Wireless G or better CDMA Modem cellular network connection

card;

(4) GPS.

High Sensitivity GPS receiver with 48 channels ofparallel

tracking;

(5) Antenna.

3dB Gain antenna mounted on the taxicab roof for maximum sky

view;

(6) . Passenger Safety Button.

Integrated into PIM;

5




(7) Driver Safety Button.

Integrated into DIM; and

(8) Receipt Printer.

Integrated with the PIM.

(b). Integration Specifications:

(1) Authentication.

For the meter to turn on, the DIM must validate the current status

. (valid, revoked, or suspended) of the driver and ensure that the

driver is a valid taxicab driver via real-time checks against the

Commission's BOMIS.

(2) Electronic Trip-Sheet Data Collection:

(A) The DIM must electronically collect trip-sheet data that

meets the requirements of this title. The trip-sheet

reporting shall make use ofGlobal Positioning Satellite

(GPS) technologies to geospatially mark pick-up, drop-off

and current taxi location information. The TSMS shall

collect and record trip-sheet data according to chapter 8 of

this title. All data collected through the DIM.shall not be

accessed or utilized by anyone on a real time basis other

than the DC Unified Communications Center, law

enforcement personnel or DCTC enforcement personnel asmay be necessary to address an emergency initiated by the

Safety Button located on the IM or the PIM. The DCTC

shall not have access to data collected through the DIM

until twenty-four (24) hours after such data is collected and

submitted to the DC BOMIS. The following data elements

shall be captured and transmitted to the DCTC BOMIS:

(i) The date, operator 's name and identification card

number (i.e., Hack License Number), taxicab

company, vehicle number, and license plate

number;

(ii) The time at beginning of tour of duty;

(iii) The time and mileage of each trip;

(iv) The time and geospatially recorded place of origin

and time and geospatially recorded place of

destination of each trip;




(v) Thenumbero passengersandfarechargedforeachtrip;

(vi) Thetimeattheendo eachtouro duty;

(vii) Tripnumber;

(viii) Taxicabnumber;

(ix) Itemizedfare:tolls,surcharges,andtipamountfor

credit/debitpurchases;and

(x) Paymenttype(cash,creditpayments,creditcard

brand,ordebit).

(B) TheTSMSshallprintallrelevantfaregeneratingtripinformationonthepassengertaxireceiptwhichshould

printfromthefronto thecabafteracceptanceo alltripandfareinformationbythepassengerthroughthePIM.

Thetaxireceiptshallinclude,ataminimum,thefollowingtripinformation:

(i) Thedate;

(ii) Thetimeandmileageo eachtrip;

(iii) Tripnumber;

(iv) Taxicabnumber;

(v) Drivernumber;

(vi) Itemizedfare:tolls,surcharges,andtipamount

(credit/debitonly);and

(vii) Numbero passengers;

(3) DriverInformationMonitor(DIM)withTextMessaging:

(A) TheDriverInformationModule(DIM)mustintegratewith

theCommission'sBOMISandreceiveandsendmessagesintextformat.

(i) TheDistrictshallbeabletocommunicatewith

taxicabsintheevento anemergency;and

7




(ii) TheDistrictshallbeabletostreamlinetheprocess

forlostpropertyclaimsbycommunicatingrequests

tolocatelostpropertydirectlytotaxicaboperators..

(B) TheCommissionshallbeabletosendshortalphanumeric

messagesfromtheBOMIStotaxicabDIMsandreceive

pre-programmedresponsesfromdrivers.

(C) TheDIMshallintegratewiththeCommission'sBOMISto

receiveanddistributedirected(toindividualtaxicabs)and

global(toalltaxicabs)alphanumerictextmessages.

Messagescanbeinformational(one-directional)orrequire

driverstorespond. Response-orientedmessagesshallbe

accompaniedbycorresponding"Yes/No"orcustom

responsechoices. TheDIMshallenableresponsesby

allowingdriverstocyclethroughandselectresponse

choicesthroughasinglebuttonontheDIMscreenor

hardwareinterface. Driversshallonlybeabletorespondtomessageswhenthevehicleisstationary.

(D) ThedriverSafetyButtonmustintegratewiththeCommission'sBOMISallowingthedrivertosenda

distresssignaltotheUnifiedCommunicationsCentertobe

passedtolawenforcementofficialswiththecurrentand

updatedlocationo thevehicle.

(4) CreditlDebitCardAcceptance.

ThePIMshallbeenabledto acceptfare paymentsfrom allmajor

credit/debitcards, includingVisa,MasterCard,AmericanExpress,

andDiscovercards.

(5) PassengerInformationMonitor(PIM)

(A) ThePIMistheinteractivedeviceused to completeall faretransactions.Attheendo eachfare,thePIMshalldisplay

, the total fare (itemizing fare, tolls, and surcharges) and

include anoption to pay with a credit/debit card or with

cash. Forcredit/debitcardpaymentsthePIMshallinclude

acontactandoptionalcontact-lessreaderwiththeabilityto

addatip t theelectronicpayment. Forcashpayments,the

PIMshalldisplaytheitemizedcharges(excludingtip)andallow the passenger to confirm and complete the cash

transaction.

8




(13) The PIM is the primary mechanism to supply passengerswith information and content. The Commission shall be

responsible for supplying programming to the PIM. The

PIM shallbe integratedwiththeCommission'sBOMIS toreceive programming content which may include: news,

announcements, advertisements, taxicab rules and

regulations, fare information, public serviceannouncements (PSA), television and movie clips andinteractivemaps.

(C) The PIMshalldisplaythedriver'sname,photo, andhacklicensenumberaccordingto Commissionspecifications

(D) The PIM shall integrate with a Safety Button that allows

the passenger to send a distress signal to the District's

Unified CommunicationsCenterwith the currentlocationof thevehicle.

(E) ThePIMshallbeinstalledintherearpassengerareaof thetaxicab and be easily viewable by non-visually impaired

passengers and accessible to and fully functional for all

passengers, includingindividuals withdisabilities coveredby Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, asamended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(d)) and Title II of theAmericanswithDisabilitiesAct(42 U.S.C. Sec. 12101 et

seq. . The PIM and other equipment that is installed

exclusivelyforpassengerusemustincorporateadaptiveorassistive technology that will allow for use by all

passengers, including individuals withdisabilities coveredbySection508 of theRehabilitationActof 1973 andTitle

II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. This shallincludethe ability for allpassengers, includingthosewith

visual and physical impairments, to independently

completeacreditordebitcardtransactionthatpaysforthe

fare. The PIM shall be simple to use; shall incorporatelarge keys, equipment markings, and theability to select

largefontsizes;andshallprovideanaudiblenarrativeof all

keyprocessingactions.

(6) AccommodationsforFutureEnhancements.

Exceptasotherwiseprovidedforherein,allvehicleownersare

.responsibleforinstallinganyfuturehardwareorsoftwareupgrades

andenhancementsthatareproposedto beprovidedbyanapproved

9




TSMS vendor and approved by the Commission; provided,

however, that the costs o such upgrades, iI, .cluding all equipment,

software, and installation shall be borne by the TSMS vendor.

(7) Use o TSMS for Dispatch Service.

(A) No vendor providing TSMS equipment or software shall

utilize the TSMS System to advertise or solicit the

availability o dispatch service to vehicle owners or

operators without the prior written approval o the

Commission.

(B) No vendor providing TSMS equipment or software shall

offer a centralized dispatch service o any kind to vehicle

owners or operators at a rate that is less than that charged to

non-TSMS customers.

(C) No vendor providing TSMS equipment or software shall

prohibit or exclude a dispatch service from integrating its

service with the vendor's TSMS equipment and software,

nor shall such vendor assess an unreasonable fee for such

integration.

(D) All costs for integration shall be filed with the Corhmission

and published by the TSMS vendor on its website.

(c) Operational Specifications.

1 . Installation:

(A) The Taxi Smart Meter System shall be installed at a District

o Columbia Authorized Taxi Smart Meter System

Installation Business.

(B) t is the Taxi Smart Meter System owner's technical and

financial responsibility to integrate other services such as

dispatch into the TSMS; provided, that no vendor providingTSMS equipment or software shall prohibit or exclude a

centralized dispatch service from integrating its service

with the TSMS equipment and software, nor shall such

vendor assess an unreasonable fee for such integration; all

costs for integration shall be filed with the Commission and

published by the. vendor on its website.

10




(C) The Commission shall provide at no cost to theowner/operator all equipment and software for the TSMS

through the equipment vendor under contract to the Districtof Columbia and shall pay for all costs of TSMSinstallations for the TSMS equipment provided by a vendor

. under contract to the District of Columbia for the

provisions of such equipment and that is scheduled forinstallation through ,2013. The costof allequipment and software for the TSMS obtained from anapproved TSMS vendor that is not under contract to theDistrict of Columbia, including all installation costs, are theresponsibility of the owner/operator.

(D) After 2013, the taxicab owner/operator willbe responsible for payment of the installation fee at thetime ofTSMS installation.

(E) f a scheduled installation appointment is missed, thevehicle will be rescheduled for installation at the end of theinstallation process schedule, unless the vehicle ownerrequests and is granted an earlier date that is mutuallyagreeable. f the appointment is missed due to theintentional misconduct of or willful disregard by thetaxicab owner or the company, association, or fleet ownerto which it is affiliated and either (i) the owner or, if

relevant, the affiliated company, association, or fleet owner

does not provide the Commission with written evidenceof

a legitimate reason for missing the appointment, or (ii) thetaxicab· owner removes the taxicab from service andrelinquishes to the Commission the vehicle registration andall other indicia of registration as a District of Columbiataxicab, the vehicle owner or, if relevant, the taxicabcompany, association, or fleet owner shall be fined apenalty of $500 per missed appointment.

(2) . Maintenance.

Each Taxi Smart Meter System owner shall fUlly maintain allhardware, software, and other equipment related to the Taxi Smart

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

maintaining all software including, but not limited to, upgrades and

security patches and shall operate a Maintenance and




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

maintain a twenty-four (24) hour, seven (7) days a week help desk

for assistance with TSMS related questions and requests for repair

and shall have available on an on-call basis seven (7) days per

week a facility that is capable of repairing an9/or replacing all or

part of a malfunctioning TSMS within eight (8) hours of receiving

notification from a taxicab owner/operator of such malfunction.

(3) Insurance

. Each Taxi Smart Meter System owner shall offer replacement cost

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, while installed in a public vehicle for hire.

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 of July 18, 2012 and that is utilizing a Taxi Smart Meter System that

substantially meets the requirements of § 604.1 may be authorized by the

Commission to continue to utilize such system, provided that the system is able

to provide the following:

(a) The system must be able to process and provide to the Commission the

authorized passenger surcharge.

(b) The system must be able to authenticate the driver and only functionwhen the driver possesses a currently valid license issued by the

Commission.

(c) The system must be able to provide for cashless payment from a

passenger and a receipt that is generated from the taxicab meter.

(d) The system must contain a safety button for both the driver and the

passenger that can be activated in the event of a driver- or passenger

perceived emergency and that will provide for instant communication

with the Unified Communications Center.

(e) The system must electronically collect trip-sheet (manifest) data that

meets the requirements of this chapter and that is capable of being

electronically transmitted on a real-time basis to the DCTC BOMIS.

(f) The system must be capable of receiving and distributing directed (to

individual taxicabs) and global (to all taxicabs) alphanumeric text

2




messages from DCTC through its BOMIS. Messages can be

informational(one-directional)or requiredriversto respond.

(g) Thesystemmustbe capableof beingintegratedwithDCTC'sBOMISto

receiveprogrammingcontentwhichmay includenews, announcements,

advertisements, taxicab rules and regulations, fare information, public

serviceannouncements(PSA),televisionandmovieclips,andinteractivemaps.

(h) ThePIMshallbeinstalledintherearpassengerareaof thetaxicabandbe

easily viewable by non-visually impaired passengers and accessibleto

and fully functional for all passengers, including individuals with

disabilitiescoveredby Section508 of theRehabilitationActof 1973, as

amended (29 U.S.C. Sec. 794(d)) and Title II of the Americans with

DisabilitiesAct(42U.S.G.Sec. 12101 et seq. .

604.3 EachOwner/Operatorshall,uponcommencementof contractperformanceby the

TSMSvendorundercontractto theDistrictofColumbia:

(a) Execute into a Bi-Party Agreement with the Taxi Smart Meter System

vendorlbusinesswhichshallsetforththerightsandresponsibilitiesof each

partywithregard to theinstallationandoperationof theTaxiSmartMeter

System;and

(b) Establishastandingaccountwithan initialdepositof onehundreddollars

($100.00)withthe Taxi SmartMeter Systemvendorlbusinesswhichshall

provide for the paymentto the Commissionof the passenger surcharge

required to be collected by each owner/operator from eachpayable fare

pursuantto theseregulations. Thea'ccount willbe debitedfortheamountof thesurchargeforeachcashfarethatis collectedbytheowner/operator.

Acash fare shall beany fare collectedby the owner/operatorthatis not

processed through the axi·Smart Meter vendorlbusiness. The

owner/operator shall ensure that there is a minimum of fifty dollars

($50.00)intheaccountatalltimes. Anybalanceremainingintheaccount

shallberefundedto theowner/operatorwhentheowner/operatorno longeroperatesataxicab. .

604.4 Until such time·the TSMS vendor under contract to the Districtof Columbia

commences performance under the contract, each owner/operator shall, ifauthorizedbytheCommission:

(a) EstablishwiththeCommissionastandingaccountwithaninitialdepositof

twohUJ?dred dollars($200.00)foreachpublicvehicleforhireownedbythe

owner, regardlessof whetherthevehicle is drivenbyanemployeeof the

ownerorrentedbytheownerto alicensedpublicvehicleforhiredriverand

theaccountshall:

13




(1) Provide for the payment to the Commission of the passenger

surcharge required to be collected by each licensed driver from each

payable fare pursuant to this title.

(2) Be debited for the amount of the surcharge for each fare required to

be paid by a bona fide passenger for a trip in a public vehicle for

hire.

(b) At the owner's option, have installed in each taximeter a computer chip that

will allow for the wireless transmission of all meter data to another personal

electronic device, so as to allow the Commission to "read" the meter and

reconcile the actual paying trip data with the automatic withdrawal from the

individual standing accounts. The actual trip information shall be utilized

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. f the account is further debited, the owner shall be

required to add additional funds to the account so that the account contains

the minimum amount set forth in this subsection.

604.5 For purposes of this section, the Commission will assume that each owner'spublic vehicle for hire will record two hundred (200) fare paying trips per month

and will deduct from each account the sum of one hundred dollars at the end of

each month. Each owner shall ensure that there is a minimum one hundred

dollars ($100.00) in each of the owner/operator's accounts at all times.

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 which the monthly amount shall be debited. Each owner providing

a credit/debit card number or a checking/savings account number shall be

responsible for ensuring that the Commission has, at all times, a valid credit/debit

card number or a valid savings/checking account number.

604.7 Any balance remaining in an account shall be refunded to the owner/operator

when the vehicle is no longer registered as a public vehicle for hire in the District

of Columbia; provided, however, that an owner who replaces a licensed vehicle

with another licensed vehicle may transfer the account of the old vehicle to thenew vehicle.

604.8 Before any owner/operator, including any newly licensed operator, is authorized

to operate a taxicab with the Taxi Smart Meter System, the owner/operator shall

complete required training on the Taxi Smart Meter System either from the Taxi

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 SmartMeterSystemshallonlybeacquiredfrom andinstalledbyaTaxi

SmartMeter Systemvendorlbusiness authorizedby the Commission to provide

andinstall TaxiSmartMeterSystem.

NotaxicabshallbeequippedwithmorethanonetaximeterorTaxiSmartMeter

System,exceptwherespecificallyapprovedbyCommissioninwriting.

At theoption, andcost, of the Taxi SmartMeter System vendor, the taximeter

previouslyinstalledinataximaybeintegratedintotheTaxiSmartMeterSystem

wherethevendordeterminesthattheexistingmeteriscompatiblewiththeTaxi

SmartMeterSystem·installation.

ftheTaxiSmartMeterSystemvendordeterminesthattheexistingmeterinataxi

isincompatiblewiththeTaxiSmartMeterSysteminstallation,theowner/operator

must accept the replacement meter for integration into the Taxi Smart Meter

Systemandtheowner/operatorshallretainpossession ofhisorheroriginalmeter.

EachTaxi SmartMeter System shall be tested once peryearby aTaxi Smart

MeterSystell1 businesslicensedbytheCommission.Theannual inspectionshall

beidenticaltotheinspectionprocessidentifiedin §1324.1of thisTitle.

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) Ataxicabshallnotbeconsidered"ForHire"unless theTaxi SmartMeter

Systemisingoodworkingcondition;

(b) A driver shallnotpickupor transport apassengerunless the Taxi Smart

MeterSystemiscapableofprintingfarereceiptsforpassengers;and

(c) AdriverwhileondutyshallnotoperateataxicabunlesstheLEDportionof

thedomelightdisplays"TaxiForHire"whentheTaxiSmartMeterSystem

is notin use andthe driver is available to transport apassenger, andthe

LEDportionof theDomeLightdisplaying"TaxiForHire"is"Dark"when

theTaxiSmartMeterSystemisinusetransportingapassenger.

Tamperingwiththetaximeter,TaxiSmartMeterSystem,ordomelight is

prohibited.(a) AdrivershallnotoperateataxicabinwhichtheTaxiSmartMeterSystem

hasbeentamperedwith,broken,oralteredinanymanner. Theoperationof

a taxicab with a broken Taxi Smart Meter System shall give rise to a

rebuttablepresumptionthatthedriverknew of thetamperingoralteration

andoperatedthetaxicabwithsuchknowledge.

15




(b) A driver shall not tamper with, repair or attempt to repair, or connect any

unauthorized device to the Taxi Smart Meter System, cable connection, or

electrical wiring thereof, or make any change in the vehicle's mechanism or

its tires which would affect the operation o the Taxi Smart Meter System.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, a driver may utilize a device that allows for

digital dispatch from an authorized dispatch service.

(c) A driver shall not tamper with the dome light or any o the intr::rior lights or

connections except to replace a defective bulb or fuse. The dome light o a

taxicab. shall be automatically controlled by the operation o the Taxi Smart

Meter System so that the LED portion o the dome light displays "Taxi For

Hire" when the Taxi Smart Meter System is not in use and available to pick

up passengers, and the LED portion o the dome light shall go "dark" when

the Taxi Smart Meter System is in use transporting a passenger. The

operation o a taxicab with an unauthorized dome light shall give rise to a

rebuttable presumption that the driver knew o the unauthorized dome light

and operated the taxicab with such knowledge.

(d) A taxicab driver/owner/operator shall not place tires or wheels o a different

size, or "off-size" t i n ~ s on the taxicab without reinspection and

recalibration o the Taxi Smart Meter System. A taxicab driver, owner, or

operator shall not operate a taxicab with tires inflated outside the

manufacturer's recommended level, whether "under" or "over inflated",

(e) Except as is otherwise the responsibility o the 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, orotherwise made inoperable for the purpose for which it was purchased and

installed, while in the owner/operator's possession. The owner/operator

must replace, at its expense, the Taxi Smart Meter System and shall be

suspended from operating until the Taxi Smart Meter System is fully

operational.

604.17 The Taxi Smart Meter System must be immediately surrendered to the authorized

Taxi Smart Meter System installer when the vehicle is removed from service as a

licensed taxi in the District o Columbia, whether the removal is voluntary or

involuntary. However, i the vehicle being removed from service as a licensed

taxicab is being immediately replaced with a new vehicle by the vehicle owner,

the vehicle owner is authorized to have an authorized Taxi Smart Meter System

installer reinstall the System in the replacement vehicle; provided, however, that

such vehicle owner immediately notifies the Commission o such action on a form

provided by the Commission.

16




604.18 The Taxi Smart Meter System installer must immediately notify the Commission

in writing when a Taxi Smart Meter System is surrendered to the authorized Taxi

Smart Meter System installer when the vehicle is removed from service as a

licensed taxi in the District Columbia, whether the removal is voluntary or

involuntary.

604.19 Effective ,2013, any licensed taxicab in the District of Columbia thathas not been equipped with a Commission approved Taxi Smart Meter System is

not authorized to be operated as a licensed public vehicle for hire in the District of

Columbia and will be ticketed and towed of f of the public streets as an unlicensed

vehicle.

604.20 Effective ,2013, any taxi vehicle added to the taxi fleet in the District

of Columbia shall be equipped with a Commission approved Taxi Smart Meter

System that meets the specifications listed in § 604.1. Further, effective

- 2013, the costs of the TSMS, including installation of the meter and

TSMS, shall be the responsibility of each owner/operator.

604.2116 Effective , 2013, all costs to install, transfer, or replace (except

where covered under vendor warranty or insurance or under the District's contract

with a TSMS vendor) Taxi Smart Meter System equipment will be the financial

responsibility of the owner/operator.

Section 605, CRUISING LIGHTS, s amended as follows:

The section heading is amended to read as follows:

605 DOME LIGHTS AND TAXI NUMBERING SYSTEM

Subsections 605.1 through 605.10 are amended to read as follows:

605.1 Effective , 2013, all licensed taxicabs in the District of

Columbia shall be equipped with the Commission-approved Dome Lights and

Taxi Number. System that meets the specifications listed below:4

(a) The Dome Light shall display the public vehicle identification number

("PVIN") assigned by the Commission on the left side of the Dome Light

when viewed from the front and the right side of the Dome Light when

viewed from the rear of the dome light;

(b) The Dome Light shall be connected to the engine and that portion of the

Dome Light that displays the PVIN shall remain on at all times when the

car s engine in on; provided, however, that the Dome Lightmay contain a

driver activated switch located on the side of the Dome Light that will

4 The dome light must be installed o later than November 1 2013

7




allow the complete Dome Light to remain dark when the vehicle is either

Off-duty or is being utilized for personal use;

(c) Roof Light Housing shall be aluminum or silver colored acrylic: H - 8.0"

x D 6" sloping to 87" x W 48"; Thickness I";

(d) The left part of the Dome Light shall be H - 8" x W- 12", silver in color

with the PVIN etched in white plastic acrylic letters that are H-5" and

housing a bulb to illuminate the PVIN;

(e) The right portion of the Dome Light shall 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

characters that are H-4";

(f) The base shall be constructed of aluminum with a continuous neoprenebase that surrounds the entire base with several rubber gaskets to allow fordrainage ofwater and condensation.

(g) A visual depiction of the dome light is shown below:

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

businesses authorized by the Commission to install the approved dome light.

605.3 The Dome Light shall be fully visible to a person o average height at all times

when the vehicle is cruising. Vehicles o greater length or height shall be

required to have two (2) fully functioning dome lights. Vehicles that containadvertising signs on the roof shall have a fully functioning dome light on the front

and rear o the advertising sign.

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 not replace a taxicab company's, association's, or fleet's taxicab

fleet numbering system provided in § 503.10 o this title. However, the PVIN on

the Dome Light will replace the current vehicle identification numbers assigned to

independently operated taxicabs pursuant to § 505.7o

this title.

605.5 The LED portion o the Dome Light shall display "Taxi For Hire" at all times

when the taxicab is available for hire and the LED portion o the Dome Light

shall go "dark": when the taxicab is not available for hire because the taxicab is

carrying a passenger, is on call, or is off duty not intending to take on passengers.

The Dome Light may contain a driver activated switch on the side o the Dome

9




Light that will allow the complete Dome Light to remain dark when the vehicle is

either off-duty or is being utilized for personal use

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 "Taxi For Hire" light shall go "dark."

605.7 Whenever a .taxicab is responding to a dispatch call or proceeding to a prior

arranged transport, the "Taxi For Hire" light shaH go "dark."

605.8 No taxicab shall be operated unless its Dome Light is in proper working

condition. The operation of a taxicab with a broken Dome Light shall give rise to

a rebuttable presumption that the driver knew of the condition and operated the

taxicab with such knowledge. .

RGUMENT

The plaintiffs are entitled to a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction

enjoining the District of Columbia, District of Columbia Taxicab Commission from enforcing

the Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations and the New Standardized Dome Light

Regulations The plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits, and are certain to suffer irreparable

injury if this motion is not granted. This Court must act now to prevent irreparable injury to the

plaintiffs and the pUblic. There is no prospect of harm to the defendants if the motion is granted,

and the public interest strongly favors the plaintiffs' motion.

h ~ plaintiffs seek a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. The same

standard applies to both temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions." Hall v

Johnson 599 F.Supp.2d 1 6 (D.D.C. 2009); accord Sterling Commercial Credit-Michigan LLC

v Phoenix Industries LLC 762 F.Supp.2d 8 (D.D.C. 2011); Coalition for Parity Inc v

Sebelius 709 F.Supp.2d 6 (D.D.C. 2010).

In order to obtain injunctive relief, "a moving party must show: (1) a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits, (2) ~ h t it would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction

were not granted, (3) that an injunction would not substantially injure other interested parties,

20


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/F.Supp.2d








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.3d 290, 297 D.C. Cir. 2006)); accord National Wildlife Federation v. Burford,

835 F.2d 305 D.C. Cir. 1987); Cabell v. Norton, 391 F.3d 251,258 D.C. Cir. 2004).

When agency action is involved, the Court should balance the actual irreparable harm to

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

Light Regulations

The Substantial Likelihood Of Success On The Merits

The District Court must balance the likelihood of success against the equities on the

sliding scales. See Heinz, 246 F.3d at 727; FTC v. Elder Grain, Inc., 868 F.2d 901,903 7th Cir.

1989); FTC v. Whole Food Markets, Inc., 548 F.3d 1028, 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 burden on disabled taxicab drivers. Furthermore, the new dome light regulation creates

a work environment that is d i s c r i m i n ~ o r y towards disabled taxicab drivers and creates a more

hazardous work environment. Consequently, the likelihood of success on the merits is high. The

plaintiffs and its class members are likely to prevail on the merits. The meter system mandated

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 Supreme Court in Jones v. United States found that this type of tracking device was

an invasion of privacy in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Consequently, the likelihood of

21






success on the merits is high. Finally, the twenty five cent ($.25) automatic deduction from each

financial transaction is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fifth Amendment.

The New Standardized Dome Light Regulations violate the Age Discrimination In

Employment Act. There are 'numerous taxicab drivers in the District of Columbia who are over

the age of forty. The New Standardized Dome Light Regulations gives an unfair advantage to

taxicab drivers who are under the age of forty, while it creates an undue burden to taxicab drivers

over forty. Based on the totality of the circumstances and on the action of the Commission,

licensed taxicab drivers, for the purpose of the definition of the AEDA, are employees of the

District.

Irreparable Damage bsent a Temporary Restraining Order and a Preliminary

Injunction

Irreparable injury must be both certain and great; it must be actual and not theoretical.

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 a clear and present need for equitable relief, that is beyond remediation. Nat'l

Ass'n ofMortg. Brokers v Bd. fGovernors ofFed. Reserve Sys., 773 F.Supp.2d 151, 179-80

(D.D.C. 2011). When a plaintiff faces certain imtninent irtiury with no way to recover the loss,

it weighs in favor of finding irreparable injury. Ia

Irreparable injury may be presumed in an unfair competition action. 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 th525 F.2d 281 Cir.1975 . Furthennore, it is well established that injunctive relief is

appropriate to prevent hann to privacy interests such as 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); Ryanv

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 in which injunctive relief has been sought to protect privacy interest

have held that proof of damages or unjust enrichment may be extremely difficult, and thus

injunctive reliefis often appropriate. Id (citing Ali, 447 F.Supp. at 729).

If a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction is absent, the taxicab

drivers and passengers will continue to have their Fourth Amendment rights against invasion of

privacy violated through the. governmental action of the smart chip. The twenty five cent ($.25)

automatic deduction will continue to violate the plaintiffs Fifth Amendment rights if this conduct

is not enjoined. Taxicab drivers and citizens will be exposed to a more dangerous 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 of forty.

The New Standardized Dome Light Regulations gives an unfair advantage to taxicab drivers who

are under the age of forty, while it creates an undue burden to taxicab drivers over forty. Based

on the totality of the circU111stances and on the action of the Commission, licensed taxicab

drivers, for the purpose of the definition of the AEDA, are employees of the District. Irreparable

damage has accrued and will continue to accrue absent this Court granting this motion.

23






There Is Little Possibility o Harm to the Respondents i Relief is ranted

In order to sustain a motion for temporary injunctive relief, a moving party must show

that the injunction "would not substantially injure other interested parties." FT v Mallett No.

11-01664 CKK, 2011 WL 4852228,3

(D.D.C. Oct. 13,2011).

The respondents will suffer no harm or be prejudiced if the requested relief is granted.

Prior to the enactment of the Modem Taximeters System Regulations and the New Standardized

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·

privacy issues. The Modem Taximeters System Regulations was enacted as a mechanism for the

Commission to automatically deduct the twenty five ($.25) cent tax from each transaction. The

previous system neither encompassed any regulation that either violated the Fourth and Fifth

Amendments or discriminated against disabled or drivers over the age of forty. Consequently,

there is no possibility or harm to the respondent(s). In this case it is clear that the respondents

will not suffer ny cognizable injury ftom the Court enjoining the Commission enforcement of

Modem Taximeters System Regulations and the new dome light requirement.

There is a Strong Public Interest in ranting Plaintiffs Motion

t is well established that there is a strong public interest in favor of the enforcement of

public laws and regulations. F.TC. v hole Foods Mkt. Inc. 548 F.3d 1028, 1035 (D.C.Cir.

2008)(recognizing "the public interest in effective enforcement of antitrust laws."); F.T.C. v.

Exxon Corp., 636 F.2d 1336, 1343 (D.C. Cir. 1980).

The Commission has not revealed to the public that the new dome lights will not have the

flashing illuminated sign with the call 911 signal on the top of the roof. This eliminates a safety

component for the taxicab drivers and passengers. Every passenger wants to feel safe and secure

24




while traveling in a taxicab. Eliminating the call 911 signal which is not a compbnent in the new

dome light increases the danger to all passengers. Furthermore the public has interest in

enjoining a regulation that is an invasion o privacy and a violation o the Fourth Amendment.

The public interest in granting this motion is extremely high. The plaintiffs similar class

members and the public will benefit from the non-enforcement o the MTS and the new dome

light requirement. The Commission Will still retain control over regulating taxicabs in the

District o Columbia. However the Commission is not permitted to enforce laws that violate the

Fourth and Fifth Amendments as well as discriminate against disabled drivers. Furthermore the

safety o the public will be assured because taxicab drivers will be able to maintain the dome

. lights that has the flashing 911 signal removal o the smart chip will ensure that the Commission

is not able to utilize the GPS to track the movements o passengers maintain that information in

perpetuity and mine that information at any time. Accordingly there is substantial public interest

in granting this motion.

ON LUSION

For the reasons set forth herein and for good cause shown the plaintiffs respectfully

request that this Court hold a hearing on the Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and a

Preliminary Injunction grant a temporary restraining order and injunction against the defendants

and for such other relief as is just.

25




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Civil Division

CHOUDHARY M. AZAM, et.al.

v


COMMISSION

And

RONALD LINTON, CHAIRMAN: Civil Action Number:


COMMISSION

And

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITY

COUNCIL

And

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Defendants.

=================================

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS'

MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTAINING ORDER AND/OR PRELIMINARY

INJUNCTION AND EXPEDITED HEARING

VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE PURSUANT TO

THE FIFTH AMENDMENT

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that no State shall

"deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws," which is 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, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). Section 5 of the Amendment empowers

Congress to enforce this mandate, but absent controlling congressional direction, the courts have

26




themselves devised standards for determining the validity of state legislation or other official

action that is challenged as. denying equal protection. The general rule is that legislation is

presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally

related to a legitimate state interest. Schweiker v Wilson 450 U.S. 221, 230, 101 S.Ct. 1074

1080,67 L.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.2d 368 (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 2516,49 L.Ed.2d 511 (1976). When social or economic legislation is at issue, the Equal

Protection Clause allows the States wide latitude, United States Railroad Retirement Board v

Fritz supra 449 U.S., at 174 101 S.Ct., at 459; New Orleans v Dukes supra 427 U.S., at 303,

96 S.Ct., at 2516, and the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually

be rectified by the democratic processes.

The general rule gives way, however, when a statute classifies by race, alienage, or

national origin. These factors are so seldom relevant to the achievement of any legitimate state

interest that laws grounded in such considerations are deemed to reflect prejudice and

antipathy a view that those in the burdened class are not as worthy or deserving as others. For

these reasons and because such discrimination is unlikely to be soon rectified by legislative

means, these laws are subjected to strict scrutiny and will be sustained only if they are suitably

tailored to serve a compelling state interest. McLaughlin v Florida 379 U.S. 184 192,85 S.Ct.

283,288, 13 L.Ed.2d 222 (1964); Grahamv

Richardson 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29

L.Ed.2d 534 (1971). Similar oversight by the courts is due when state laws impinge on personal

rights protected by the 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.2d 600 (1969); Skinner v Oklahoma ex rei. Williamson 316 U.S. 535, 62 S.Ct.

1110, 86 L.Ed. 1655 (1942).

Legislative classifications based on gender also call for a heightened standard o review.

That factor generally provides no sensible ground for differential treatment. [W]hat

differentiates sex from such nonsuspect statuses as intelligence or physical disability . . . is that

the sex characteristic frequently bears no relation to ability to perform or contribute to 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

benefits and burdens between the sexes in different ways very likely reflect outmoded notions o

the relative capabilities o men and women. A gender classification fails unless it is substantially

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 illegitimacy is beyond the 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

related to a legitimate state interest. Mills v Habiuetzel 456 U.S. 91, 99, 102 S.Ct. 1549 1554,

71 L.Ed.2d 770 (1982); City Cleburne Texas v Cleburne Living Center 473 U S ~ 432, 440-

41,105

S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985)

On May 17,2013, the Commission passed the Modern Taximeters Systems Regulations,

which in part made it mandatory that all taxicabs install a new credit card system that has a smart

chip that downloads all financial transactions and trips to the Commission. The Commission has

28




full access t mine all information from every taxicab driver's transaction(s) and deduct twenty

five cents ($.25) cents from every taxicab fare. This twenty five cent ($.25) deduction is

essentially a commuter tax. The Commission has full authority and will unilaterally deduct the

twenty five cent ($.25) cent tax from each driver's vendor-established and mandated account for

every credit card transaction: Each time the meter is set for a new trip, this information is logged

into the Commission's system. f the passenger pays the fare in cash, the driver has to pay the

Commission twenty five cents ($.25) for every cash transaction. f the driver does not pay the

twenty five cent ($.25) tax for each cash transaction to the Commission within the prescribed

period of time, the Commission will unilaterally deduct the amount due to this agency for cash

transactions from the account the driver maintains for credit card transactions. f there are no

funds in the driver's account, the Commission will automatically turn off the driver's meter and

the driver is precluded from picking up any passengers. This action is taken prior to providing

the drivers with a hearing and an opportunity to be heard.

There are neither any privately owned nor publicly traded business(es) in the District of

Columbia that are subjected to this automatic deduction and immediate payment to a District of

Columbia agency for a surcharge, sales tax, or any other tax for each transaction. Only taxicab

drivers are subjected to these draconian measures. Moreover, there is neither any privately

owned nor publicly traded business in the District of Columbia where each financial transaction

is downloaded to a District of Columbia agency. This regulation imposed on the plaintiffs and

similar class members creates power and authority to the Commission that does not even exist

with the Internal Revenue Service.

The plaintiffs submit that the District ofColumbia and the Commission have violated the

equal protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment's

29




Equal Protection Clause requires States to treat similarly situated persons alike. City a/Cleburne

v. Cleburne Living Ctr. Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249 3254, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985).

The District of Columbia is subject to that requirement by virtue of the Fifth Amendment's

guarantee of due process oflaw. See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.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.3d 910 (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. 2d at 8-9 (first alteration in original) (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). he answer to that question is that taxicab drivers are

similarly situated as any other person or entity operating a business in the District of Columbia,

however, the new regulation mandates a set ofmeasures for the collection of this t x which is not

imposed upon any other person(s) or business(es) who are similarly situated in the District of

Columbia.

The plaintiffs and other members of the class are literally all foreign born or are African

Americans. "[I]f a law neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class, we will

uphold the legislative classification so long as it bears a rational relation to some legitimate end."

Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 631 (1996) (citation omitted). The plaintiffs and similar members

submit that because they are a suspect class and this automatic deduction and real time transfer

of each financial transaction violates a fundamental right the Court should review this issue

pursuant to strict scrutiny.

30




The Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations And The New Standardized Dome Light

Regulations clearly' as to the collection o the twenty five cent ($.25) tax and financial

information is inconsistent as to the collection o surcharges, sales taxes, or any other tax for

other similarly situated persons or businesses. Furthermore, the electronic download o each and

every credit card transaction to a District o Columbia agency is not a burden required o any

other similarly situated businesses operating in the District o Columbia.

In sum, the plaintiffs and other class members are not challenging, for the purpose o this

action, the validity o having to pay the twenty five cents ($.25) per fare. However, they

challenge the methods as to how the District o Columbia automatically deducts twenty five

cents ($.25) after each fare s well s the continuous, real time access to each o their financial

transactions, which is not a requirement o any other similarly situated persons or business

entities doing business· in the District o Columbia.

THE GPS TR CKING DEVICE CONT INED WITHIN THE NEW

METER SYSTEM IS VIOL TION OF THE FOURTH MENDMENT

The plaintiffs submit that the regulations implemented by the District o Columbia and

the Commission is a violation o the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution,

specifically, the new meter system. The new meter system contains a smart chip that tracks the

movement o the taxicab driver s well s the passenger. The trip information is automatically

downloaded and maintained" by the Commission. The data compiled from the smart chip tracks

all trips from arrival to the final destination. Whenever a customer pays for his or her fare with a

credit card, the new meter system and the smart chip clearly identifies not only the identity o the

passenger who traveled in the taxicab, but the time, place, when and where the travel was

31




initiated and when and where the passenger disembarked. The device which operates as the GPS

system tracks a taxicab driver not only when he is on duty, but even when they are o duty.

The Supreme Court in United States v. Jones, 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012), found that the

warrantless use o a GPS device violated the Fourth Amendment. United States v Maynard, 615

F.3d 544 (2010). Specifically, the Fourth Amendment provides in relevant part that [t]he right

o the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable

searches and seizures, shall not be violated. t is beyond dispute that a vehicle is an effect as

that term is 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 Court held that that the

Government's installation o a GPS device on a target's vehicle,and its· use o that device to

monitor the vehicle's movements, constitutes a search. t is important to be clear about what

occurred in this case: The Government physically occupied private property for the purpose o

obtaining information. We have no doubt that such a physical intrusion would have been

considered a search within the meaning o the Fourth Amendment when it was adopted. Entick

v Carrington, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (C.P. 1765) is a case we have described as a 'monument o

English freedom' 'undoubtedly familiar' to 'every American statesman' the time the

Constitution was adopted,· and considered to be 'the true and ultimate expression o

constitutional law' with regard to search and seizure. Brower v. County Inyo, 489 U.S. 593,

596, 109 S.Ct. 1378, 103 L.Ed.2d 628 (1989) quoting Boyd v United States, 116 U.S. 616,626,

6 S.Ct. 524, 29 L.Ed. 746 (1886)). In that case, Lord Camden expressed in plain terms the

significance o property rights in search-and-seizure analysis:

32




[O]ur law holds the property of every man so sacred, that no man can set his foot upon his

neighbour's close without hi,s leave; if he does he is a trespasser, though he does no damage at

all; if he will tread upon his neighbour's ground, he must justify it by law. Entick supra at 817.

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 in their persons, houses, papers, and effects

would have been superfluous.

Consistent with this understanding, our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence was tied to

common-law trespass, at least until the latter half of the 20th century. 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, in Olmstead v United States 277 U.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

Amendment search because [t]here was no entry of the houses or offices of the defendants, id.

at 464,48 S.Ct. 564.

Our later cases, of course, have deviated from that exclusively property-based approach.

In Katz v United States 389 U.S. 347, 351, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), we said that·

the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places, and found a violation in attachment of an

eavesdropping device to a public telephone booth. Our later cases have applied the analysis of

Justice Harlan's concurrence in that case, which said that a violation occurs when government

officers violate a person's reasonable expectation of privacy, id., at 360 88 S.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.

735,99 S.Ct. 2577, 61 L.Ed.2d 220 (1979). United States v Jones 132 S.Ct. 945 (2012).

Justice Sotomayor in the concurring opinion wrote, search within the meaning of the

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 warrant and without Jones' consent, then used

that device to monitor the Jeep's movements over the course of four weeks. The Government

usurped Jones' property for the purpose of conducting surveillance on him, thereby invading

privacy interests long afforded, and undoubtedly entitled to Fourth Amendment protection. See

e.g. Silverman v. United States 365 U.S. 505,511-512,81 S.Ct. 679, 5 L.Ed.2d 734 (1961).

Of course, the Fourth Amendment is not concerned only with trespassory 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, even in the absence of a trespass, a Fourth Amendment search occurs when the

government violates a subjective expectation of privacy that society recognizes as reasonable."

Id., at 33 121 S.Ct. 2038; see also Smith v. Maryland 442 U.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 132 S.Ct. at 955.

Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into

the future. Pineda-Moreno 617 F.3d, at 1124 (opinion of Kozinski, 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: "limited police resources and community hostility." Illinois v Lidster 540 U.S. 419,

426, 124 S.Ct. 885, 157 L.Ed.2d 843 (2004).

Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive

freedoms. And the Government's unrestrained power to assemble data that reveal private aspects

of identity is susceptible to abuse. The net result is that GPS monitoring-by making available at

a relatively low cost such a substantial quantum of intimate information about any person whom

the Government, in its unfettered discretion, chooses to track-may "alter the relationship

between citizen and government in a way that is inimical to democratic society." United States v

Cuevas-Perez 640 F.3d 272, 285 (C.A.7 2011) (Flaum, 1., concurring).

I would take these attributes of GPS monitoring into account when considering the

existence of a reasonable societal expectation ofprivacy in the sum of one's public movements. I

would ask whether people reasonably expect that their movements will be recorded and

aggregated in a manner that enables the Government to ascertain, more or less at will, their

political and religious beliefs, sexual habits, and so on. I do not regard as dispositive the fact that

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

open the possibility that duplicating traditional surveillance "through electronic means, without

an accompanying trespass, is an unconstitutional invasion of privacy"). I would also consider the

appropriateness of entrusting to the Executive, in the absence of any oversight from a coordinate

branch, a tool so amenable to misuse, especially in light of the Fourth Amendment's goal to curb

arbitrary exercises of police power to and prevent a too permeating police surveillance," United

States v Di Re 332 U.S. 581,595,68 S.Ct. 222, 92 L.Ed. 210 (1948).

35




More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has

no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g.

Smith 442 U.S., at 742 99 S.Ct. 2577; United States v Miller 425 U.S. 435, 443,96 S.Ct. 1619,

48 L.Ed.2d 71 (1976). This approach is ll suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great

deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks.

People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that

they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers;

and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers. Perhaps, as Justice

ALITO notes, some people may find the "tradeoff' of privacy for convenience "worthwhile," or

corne to accept this "diminution of privacy" as "inevitable," post, at 962, and perhaps not. I for

one doubt that people would accept without complaint the warrantless disclosure to the

Government of a list of every Web site they had visited in the last week, or month, or year. But

whatever the societal expectations, they can attain constitutionally protected status only if our

Fourth Amendment jurisprudence ceases to treat secrecy as a prerequisite for privacy. I would

not assume that all information voluntarily disclosed to some member of the public for a limited

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 or not at all Those who disclose certain facts to a bank or phone 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

constitutionally protected"). United States v Jones supra 132 S.Ct. at 957.

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 th 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

.VIOLATION OF TITLE II §35.140 OF THE

AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT

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 l l roust about, 2) ironworker, 3)

lumberjack, 4) roofer. Ten Worst Jobs 2011 CareerCust.com Oct. 29-2012.

37


http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/CareerCust.com



lightcreatesahazardousconditionforallof thetaxicabdrivers,butmoreparticularlyfortaxicab

driverswithadisability.

Thenewdomelightregulationcreatesadiscriminatoryenvironmentfordisabledtaxicab

drivers.Thelowercostsystemunlikethepriordomelightsystemdoesnothaveaswitchonthe

insideof thetaxicabtoactivatethelightto indicateif thetaxicabdriverisoncalloroffcal In

orderto activate the oncall andoff call light, a taxicabdrivermustphysicallygetoutof his

taxicabtoactivatethissystemfromadevicelocatedonthedomelightontheroofof thevehicle.

Thismustbedoneregardlessof traffic,weather,or theconditionsof theneighborhoodwherethe

driverislocatedwhenheorshemustgetoutofhislhercar.

Thenewregulationviolates§35.140,EmploymentDiscrimination,whichstates:

(a) No qualified individual with a disability shall, on the basis of disability, be

subjectedtodiscriminationinemploymentunderanyservice,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

Commissionin 9 CFRpart 1630,apply to employment inany service,programor activity conductedbyapublic entityof thatpublicentityis

alsosubjecttothejurisdictionoftitleI

(2) For the purposes of this part, the requirements of section 504 of the

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as established the regulations of the

Departmentof Justicein28CFRpart41,asthoserequirementspertainto

employment, apply to employment in any service, program, or activity

conductedbyapublicentityisnotalsosubjecttothejurisdictionof titleI§35.149DiscriminationProhibited,

Exceptasotherwiseprovided in§35.150,noqualifiedindividualwithadisabilityshall,

becauseapublicenti ty's facilitiesareinaccessibletoorunusablebyindividualswithdisabilities,

beexcludedfromparticipationin,orbedeniedthebenefitsof services,programs,oractivitiesof

apublicentity,orbesubjectedtodiscriminationbyanypublicentity.

38




The new regulation triggers a violation ofADA §35.140 in that it forces a taxicab driver

with a disability to purchase a more expensive new dome light system that can be activated from

. inside ofth taxicab. Their disability makes them incapable of turning the switch on and offfrom

the dome light on the outside of the vehicle on the roof. Furthennore, it creates an undue

financial burden for those taxicab drivers with a disability to purchase the more expensive

system th n those taxicab drivers without a disability who do not have to purchase the more

expensive system because they are capable of operating the dome light by the device located on

the roofofth taxicab.

The net effect of this regulation could be cost prohibitive to taxicab drivers with a

disability and leads to those individuals being denied an opportunity for employment as a direct

result of the regulation. The new regulation strips away all of the· protections and benefits to

disabled taxicab drivers that the previous dome light provided.

IV

THE DISTRICT O COLUMBIA TAXICAB COMMISSION HAS

VIOLATED THE AGE DISCRIMINATION AND EMPLOYMENT ACT

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). Patterned after Title VII, the ADEA allows [a]ny person aggrieved [to] bring a civil

action in any court of competent jurisdiction for ... legal or equitable relief. Id. § 626( c)(1).

Schuler v Pricewaterhousecoopers Lip 514 F.3d 1365 (D.C. Cir., 2008).

The plaintif:f s submit that the District has violated the AEDA on age discrimination. The

new dome light is a violation of age discrimination against taxicab drivers over the age of forty.

There are a significant number of taxicab drivers in the District of Columbia who are over the

39




age of forty. Many of the taxicab drivers have retired from another career and drive a taxicab to

supplement their pension or income. As discussed in the section addressing the District's

violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act, the same theory applies to discrimination. The

current dome light allows the driver to operate that dome light from inside of the taxicab, which

includes the operation of the call 911 sign. The least expensive new dome light does not have a

call 911 sign and does not have an on call or off call light that can be operated from the inside of

the taxicab. There is a new dome light option that is more expensive and which can be operated

from the inside of the taxicab. The District's current dome light system with the call 911 sign

that can be operated from inside of the taxicab is not discriminatory. However, the new dome

light system changes the workplace conditions and results in age discrimination. 'Specifically, t

imposes a greater burden on the older drivers because each time their status changes from on call

to off call the taxicab driver must exit their vehicle despite weather, traffic or neighborhood

conditions. Taxicab drivers under the age of forty are less likely to be burdened by the manner in

which the new dome light functions as noted above due to their age in comparison to its effect on

older drivers. This places taxicab drivers over the age of forty at a disadvantage as compared to

taxicab drivers who are under the age of forty. The current dome light system is a level playing

field for all drivers regardless of age. Consequently, the District has changed a law that was non-

discriminatory as to age and created a new law that is age discriminate.

THE PL INTIFFS MEET THE REQUIREMENT TO BRING C USE OF CTION

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission regulations, specifically 29 C.F R §

1626.10, allow the Commission to 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 of such agencies in processing charges

40




assuring the safeguard o 'the federal rights o aggrieved persons. Id. § 1626.10(a), The

regulations further provide that these agreements may authorize such agencies to receive

charges and complaints pursuant to § 1626.5 and in accordance with the specifications contained

in §§ 1626.7 and 1626.8. Id. § 1626.10(b). The first o these provisions allows aggrieved

:employees to submit EEOC charges to any office o the Commission or to any designated

representative o the Commission, id. § 1626.5, the second establishes timeliness requirements,

id. § 1626.7, and the third prescribes the necessary substantive contents o charges, id. § 1626.8.

Critically for this case, the regulation's final subsection provides:

When a worksharing agreement with a state agency is in effect, the State agencywill act on certain charges and the Commission will promptly process charges

which the State agency does not pursue. Charges received by one agency under

the agreement shall be deemed received by the other agency for pufposes o §1626.7.

Resolving this dispute requires an analysis o the 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).

The D.C. worksharing agreement's first operative provision expressly implements this regulation,

stating, [i]n order to facilitate the assertion o employment rights, the EEOC and the [DCOHR]

each designate the other as its agent for the purpose o receiving and drafting charges. D.C.

Worksharing Agreement II.A. Read together, the regulation and agreement thus make clear that

for all intents and purposes, the DCOHR receives charges filed with the EEOC. Schuler 514

F.3d at 1372.

41




THE PLAINTIFFS MEET THE DEFINITION OF AN EMPLOYEE

The plaintiffs submit that based on the control by the District and the Commission as it

applies to their job as taxicab drivers, they meet the definition of an employee pursuant to the

Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, enacted June 25, 1938, is a part of the social

legislation of the 1930 s of the same general character as the National Labor Relations Act of

July 5 1935,49 Stat. 449, 29 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., and the Social Security Act of August 14

1935,49 Stat. 620,42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq. Decisions that define the coverage of the employer-

Employee relationship under the Labor and Social Security acts are persuasive in the

consideration of a 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. 704,67 S.Ct. 1463. Rutherford Food Corporation v Comb 331 U.S. 722,

724,67 S.Ct. 1473,91 L.Ed. 1772 (1947).

As in the National Labor Relations Act and the Social Security Act, there is in the Fair

Labor Standards Act no definition that solves problems as to the limits of the employer-

employee relationship under the Act. Provisions which have some bearing appear in the margin.

The definition of employ is broad. t evidently derives from the child labor statutes and it should

be noted that this definition applies to the child labor provisions of this 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 of another.

Walling v Portland Terminal Co. 330 U.S. 148, 67 S.Ct. 639, 641. In the same opinion,

however, we pointed out that This Act contains its own definitions, comprehensive enough to

require its application to many persons and working relationships, which prior to this Act, were

4




notdeemedtofallwithinan'employer-employeecategory,'330U.S. 150,67S.Ct.640.We have

.said that the Act includedthose who are compensatedon apiece rate basis. United States v.

Rosenwasser 323 U.S. 360, 65 S.Ct. 295, 89 L.Ed. 301. We have accepteda stipulationthat

station'red-caps'wererailroademployees.Williams v Jacksonville Terminal Co. 315U.S.386,

391,62S.Ct.659,663, 86 L.Ed.914. Rutherford Food Corporation 331 U.S.at729.

TheInternalRevenueServicedefinesanindependent as follows:

"People such as doctor's, dentists, veteriniarians, lawyers, accountants,contactors, subcontractors, public stenographers, or auctioneers who are in anindependenttrade,businessorprofessioninwhichtheyoffertheirservicestothegeneral public are generally independent contractors. However, whether thesepeople are independent contractorsoremployees depends on the facts in eachcase. The general rule is that an individual is an independentcontractor i thepayerhas therightto controlordirectonly the resulto theworkandnotwhatwillbedoneandhowitwillbedone.Theearningso apersonwhoisworkingasanindependentcontractoraresubjecttoSelf-EmploymentTax.

Youarenotan'independentcontractor i youperformservicesthatcanbecontrolled by an employer (whatwill be done and how it will be done). Thisapplieseveni youaregivenfreedom o action.Whatmattersisthattheemployerhasthelegalrighttocontrolthedetails o howtheservicesareperformed."

Plaintiffssubmitthatthefollowinglist,which is notexhaustive,illustratesthefactorsthat

establishanemployer-employeerelationshipwiththeDistrict:

L TheDistrictand/ortheCommissionsetataxicabcleanlinessrequirement;

2. The Commission has access to all o the credit card transactions betweentaxicab

driversandpassengers;

3. TheDistrictand/ortheCommissiontaketwentyfivecents($.25)fromeachtriptaken

byapassenger;

4. The Districtand/orthe Commissionunilaterallydeterminedthe typeo credit card

machine approved for installation in a taxicaboperatedby a Districto Columbia

taxicabdriver;

5. The District and/or the Commission has provided a limited list o financial

institutionsthatataxicabdrivercanusetoprocesscreditcardpayments;

43




6. The District andlor the Commission has the power to hire taxicab drivers by issuing a

license to a taxicab driver to operate a taxicab in the District of Columbia;

7. The District andlor the Commission has the power to terminate the operator's license

issued to a taxicab driver for a violation.

8. The District andlor the Commission supervise the conduct of taxicab drivers through

hack inspections

9. The District andlor the Commission set the rates that taxicab drivers can charges for

fares;

10.The District andlor the Commission set what surcharges taxicab drivers can or cannot

charged;

11.The Commission provides a link on its website with instructions to submit acomplaint against a taxicab driver to the Commission.

The plaintiffs h ve attached hereto as Exhibit A affidavits in support of their claims cited

herein. See Exhibit A, Affidavits.

In conclusion, the new dome light system is a violation of the AEDA. There are

numerous taxicab drivers in the District of Columbia who are over the age of forty. The New

Standardized Dome Light Regulations gives an unfair advantage to taxicab drivers who are

under the age of forty, while it creates an undue burden to taxicab drivers over forty. Based on

the totality of the circumstances and the action of the Commission, licensed taxicab drivers for

thepurpose of definition are employees of the District.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs request that the Court grant this motion and enjoin the

Commission and the District from enforcing the Modem Taximeters Systems Regulations And

The New Standardized Dome Light Regulations.

44




Choudary M. zam

Tariq Mahmood

Waleed A Mohammed

Ahmed Djebbour

Mohammed Akram

By Counsel

Respectfully submitted,

· ~ s ?Counsel for the Plaintiffs

The Ponds Law Finn

Bar Number 379883

1250 24th Street, N.W.

Suite 300

Washington, D.C. 2007

Telephone Number: (202) 333-2922

Facsimile Number: (202) 333-4114

E : Mail: [email protected]

45


mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]



CERTIFIC TE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and complete copy o the Motion for a Temporary Restraining

Order and a Preliminary Injunction was hand-delivered to the Honorable Vincent C. Gray,

Mayor o the District o Columbia, Executive Office o the Mayor, 1350 Pennsylvania Avenue,NW, Suite 316, Washington, D.C. 20004 and to Irvin B Nathan, Attorney General for the

District o Columbia, 441 th Street, NW, Suite 650, Washington, D.C. 20004 on this 9th day o

October 2013.

46




EXHIBIT A




Azam et.al. v. DC et al

Exhibit A Affidavits:

1 Affidavit o Massoud Medghalachi

2 Affidavit o Sajid Choudhary

3 Affidavit o Choudhary M. Azam

4 Affidavit o Tariq Mahmood

5 Affidavit o Waleed A Mohammed

6 Affidavit o Christopher C Murray

7 Affidavit o Barrington Nicholas

8 Affidavit o Ralph L Vest Jr

9 Affidavit o William E Lucas

10. Affidavit o Daisy A Battle

11. Affidavit o Weldon Powell

12. Affidavit o Lonnie Maggett

13. Affidavit o Joseph Felix Buadu

14. Affidavit o Support o Said Aboulhana

15. Affidavit o James Wright

16. Affidavit o Norwood Cuehins

17. Affidavit o James E Joyner and

18. Affidavit o Aytenfsu Samuale




I am a District ofColumbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately --l- .uOC-l"L,<...)

cab drivers from c:C b G O , J M e t r o f ~ ; j k t ~All of the above-referenced cab drivers, who work for

\ l P -1 etre ' 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).

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

My Commission Expires _

Jllll N JOS PH

Notary Public, District of Columbia

My Comm. Exp. April 14 2018




FFID VIT

~ j H l Z Y hereby affirm as follows:1

My name is _- --L A ~ ~ = : ~__ b < ~ ~ ~ ~ ;/ :L - v ~ L I J ~I am a District of Columbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately / £ ;2.

cab drivers from - - - ~ ~ I . - / I r Cf d wlitpdl1) . ~ / h : J -All of the above-referenced cab drivers, who work for~ £ J fL C{jd5 support this case against the District of


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. PRUNotary Public District ofColumbia

My Commission Expires My_Co_m_m_iss_ion_£xpi_·_res_May_14_.20_1_6_




AFFIDAVIT

I, e l c l b A ~ 1 A ~ 4 t ,hereby affirm as follows:

My name is e / 8d d t:rlL l td 4 A •

I am a District ofColumbia cab driver and I am an organizer for approximately zrn fcab drivers from _ - I / - 1 ~ i , . < I I d - t D 1 7 + - - e ; e . - I ( ~ C : ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - c ~

All of the above-referenced cab drivers, who work for

tr J. 15> support this case against the District of


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 ~ N b day ofOctober 2013.

C ROLYN p. PRUNotary Public District of Columbia

My Commission Expires MyCommission£xpiresMay14.2016 •




FFID VIT

I, Tariq Mahmood, hereby affinn as follows:

y 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 r i v e r s ~ who work for Prime Cab Association, support this

case against the District of Columbia and the District of Columbia Taxicab o m m i s s i o n ~ which

includes, but is not limited the following c l i m s ~ 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 e on this _ day of October 2013.

y Commission Expires _

JILLIAN JOSEPHNotary Public, District of ColumbIa

My Comm EXp. April 14 2018




AFFIDAVIT

I, Waleed A. Mohammed, hereby affirm s 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 of the 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. M lffied

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

My Commission Expires _

JILLI N JOSEPH

Notary PubliC, District of Columbia

My Comm. Exp. April 14, 2018




I, , hereby affirm as follows:

I am currently licensed to operate a cab in the District of Columbia.

I am currently suffering with a disability for ~ - - - - - - = - - = _ ~ _

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 of my 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.

~ c ~N ~ I c F w i Q 4

, - .

Subscribed To And Sworn Before e on this 6Jev day of October 2013.

Sonja Flowers bNotary Public Districtof Coklm 13

y Commission Expires My commission ExPires 10/14/2013,




AFFIDAVIT OF

I , hereby affirm as follows:


I am currently suffering with a disabil ity for tfLr P t¥5 S


dome light system requirement because of my disability. It would be extremely difficult for me to

manually activate the system from outside of my taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase


. a District of Columbia taxicab driver.




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

Sonja FlowersNotary Public District of Columbia

, .My Commission Expires My Commission xpires 10/14/2013, .




AFFIDAVIT OF L. f rI, , hereby affirm as follows:

I am currently licensed to operate a cab in the District ofColumbia.

I am currently suffering with a disability for Lt u ...hAc:}.. 4' , IA.; c.A= OilS

(a.et uf<A ~ L J') r l J i ' L ~ z _ _

I \\ jl l be required to pay for the more expensive dome light system to comply with the new

dome light system requirement because ofmy disability. It would be extremely difficult for me to

manually activate the system from outside ofmy taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase


a District ofColumbia taxicab driver.




Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this 5f v day ofOctober 20l3.

Sonja Flowers'1...

Notary Public. District o ColumbiaMy Commission Expires My Commission Expires 10[14[2013




AFFIDAVIT OF i :lJ/ )tP1 c ZlAC l,..

I Nm LI Cnfhereby affirm as follows:


I am currently suffering with a disability for t f-. ~ ~ . ~ ~ (I will be required to pay for the more expensive dome light system to comply with the new

dome light system requirement because ofmy disability. t would be extremely difficult for me to


the more expensive dome light system more thal1likely I will not be able to continue to operate as





Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this ::::J;fl....,/ day ofOctober 2013.

sonja lowers

y Commission Expires Notal) Public. District of ~ o l u m b l aMy commlsslOo-upires 19r14,20t3




FFIDAVIr OF

I , ~ ~ ; / : _ ~ ~ f ) . y affirm as follows:

I am rrently licensed to operate a cab in the District ofColumbia.

I am currently suffering with a disability for tlOM. f: i C s = ~ ~ £~ a : J a ~ P : Z c £I will be required to pay for themore nsive dome light system to comply with the new

dome light system requirement because ofmy disability. t would be extremely difficult forme to







Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this day ofOctober 2013.

Sonja FlowersNotary Public District of Coklmbia

My Commission Expires My Commission Expires 10114 2013. -




AFFIDAVIT OF

<4L d t) -v -yo <..w e iI l hereoy affirm as follows:


I am currently suffering with a disability forP J l eo -;c f/; d y



manually activate the system from outside ofmy taxicab. However in the event I cannot purchase




the taxicab. Additionally the new dome light does not have the 911 call signal on the dome. This


Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this day ofOctober 2013. .

Sonja FlowersNotary Public. District of Columbia.

y Commission Expires y Commission Elqllres 10/14/2013 .




· AFFIDAVIT OF _ _

t ~ N / I ; t 7 l , f ~ e ~I hereby affirm as follows:


I am currently suffering with a disability for ~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. t would be extremely difficult for me t9

manually activate the system from outside of my taxicab. However in the event I cannot purchase


a District of Columbia taxicab driver.



is a safety and welfare hazard for me. ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~

u h ~ c r i b e d To And Sworn Before e on this ~ day of October 2013.

Sonja FlowersNotary Public District of CokJmbia

My Commission Expires My Commission Expires 10/1412013




AFFIDAVIT OF r ) S , , - = ~ - - - - - ; p - = - - + l _ - - - ( 1 ; ; - - ~ . . . . . : : : : f UA {J Cf

~ < ; e P H r : c ~ , , - f 6 ( } ~ UI hereby affirm as follows:


I am currently suffering with a disability for - - . l C t : 1 I , . . L . - - ' < . . , . ; d ~ _ - L ~ - = - - . . . : . . . . - E , , - - - - - - = o J = = - - ( T H - ~ ·r 1 ~ u c 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 ofOctober 2013 ... _ . :. :.

'.:.: - 'Sonja FlowersNotary Public District o olumbia -

My Commission Expires commission Expires 10114/2013




AFFIDAVIT OF i PO t L

I A{(j bou 1Y a 1ttC1 hereby affirm as follows:

I am a military veteran who served in the United States - - A : L J - Q . . ~ M - - - - _ \ - I I - - - for7~ 9 _ years.

I am currently licensed to operate a taxicab in the District o Columbia.

The new meter and dome light regulations enacted by the District o Columbia Taxicab

Commission has and will continue to cause me financial harm due to the cost o the installation

for the new meter as well as the dome light. The manner in which the District o Columbia Taxicab

Commission collects all o my credit card transactions is more expensive for me than the manner

in which I handled my credit card transactions prior to the installation o the new meter system.

The new dome light does not provide me witll the same safety precautions as with the

current dome light system due to the absence o the call 9 sign which I can activate from a switch

inside o my taxicab. All o these circumstances affects my safety in operating my taxicab.

NOTARY PuBLIC

Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this 5+ - day o October 2013.

My Commission Expires I = ~ H




I , hereby affirm as follows:


I am currently suffering with a disability for 1 ~ S ~ ~ p ~ · C · ~ J \ \t


. dome light system requirement because ofmy disability. t would be extremely difficult for me to






is a safety and welfare hazard for me. /4Low e;i4h 2.- 1?

Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this t::J iIL day ofOctober 2013.

Sonja lowers

Notary Public. District of Columbiay Commission Expires My CommiSSion Expires 10/14/2013 - : ~ -




AFFIDAVITOF Y h ~ j old Gt fll J0

1 , hereby affinn as follows:

I am currently licensed to operate a cab in the District o Columbia.

I am currently suffering with a disability for _

lJ 8A yX ba nd;-r- J J J _ ~ . _I will be required to pay for the more expensive dome light system to comply with the new

dome light system requirement because o my disability. t would be extremely difficult for me to

manually activate the system from outside o my taxicab. However, in the event I cannot purchase


a District o Columbia taxicab driver.

The current dome light system allows all drivers to activate the dome light from inside o



Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this ~ d a Y o October 2013 . j

Sonja Flowers .Notary Public, District of Columbia

My Commission Expires My Commission Expires 10/14/2013 W:;; ,. w




v e t ~

AFFIDAVIT OF _V;_A /YJ ~ _ _8._..l._ I/-

I hereby affirm as follows:

I am currently licensed to operate a cab in the District o o l u m b i ~ . \

I am currently suffering with a disability for U J4 Ie -U G W ~I will be required to pay for the more expensive dome light system to comply with the new

dome light system requirement because o my disability. t would be extremely difficult for me to

manually activate the system from outside o my taxicab. However in the event I cannot purchase


a District o Columbia taxicab driver.

The current dome light system allows all drivers to activate the dome light from inside o



ubscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this.. :.. .J day o October 2013 .....

Sonja Flowers . :

Notary Public District of ColumbiaMy Commission ExpiresMy Gommisslon Expires 16/14I2Dt:t




AFFIDAVIT

~ St9tU t19WY affirm as follows:

I am a disabled cab driver.

The District ofColumbia Taxicab Commission's new dome light regulation(s) will place

an undue burden for me to continue to operate my taxicab due to the high cost of installing a

device inside ofmy vehicle to operate the on calVoff call new dome light.

Due to my disability, it is difficult for me to enter and exit my cab each time that need

to place the dome light in the on call or offcall position.

Also, the new dome light does not have the 9 flashing lights which I can activate under

the old dome light system, which would alert pedestrians, other drivers, or the police that

require assistance.

The new dome light system imposed by the District of Columbia Taxicab Commission

can hinder my ability to continue to operate my taxicab.

NOTARY PUBLIC

11Subscribed To And Sworn Before Me on this 7

My Commission Expires /1- / 1. 2t1/ r

day ofOctober 2013.


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

Documents

Transcript of CHOUDHARY M. AZAM v. DC TAXICAB COMMISSION - Motion for TRO