Disability suit over post office ramp reinstated

A federal appeals court Tuesday reinstated a disability lawsuit filed against the U.S. Postal Service by a wheelchair user seeking to have a ramp installed for entry into an Indiana post office.

The Shelbyville, Indiana, post office, which is the closest one to wheelchair user Shellie Ellison’s home and the largest in that area of the state, has only one customer entrance, at the top of its front steps, according to the ruling by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in Shellie Ellison v. United States Postal Service.

Ms. Ellison sued the Postal Service in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis under the Rehabilitation Act, seeking an injunction in connection with its refusal to build a wheelchair ramp.

The U.S. District ruled in the Postal Service’s favor, concluding it did not need to install a ramp because Ms. Ellison could access the post office through its website or three wheelchair-accessible Postal Service locations within a 15-minute drive of her home.

In overturning the lower court, a three-judge appeals court panel held that three potential accommodations were inadequate.

 It said that for a while, the Postal Service directed Ms. Ellison to its loading dock, where she could push a call button, but an employee did not always respond, and delivery trucks often blocked the parking space.

The panel said the cheapest option for shipping was not available online and the website forces users to pay shipping and handling fees they would not incur in person.

It also noted it took longer for Ms. Ellison to reach the wheelchair-accessible post offices in the rural areas surrounding Shelbyville, which are also open for fewer hours than the Shelbyville location.

“To meet her initial burden at this stage, Ellison needed only to suggest an accommodation that seemed reasonable on its face. … We think that her proposed accommodation — a ramp or other means for her to enter the Shelbyville Post Office — cleared this low bar,” the ruling said, in vacating the lower court’s ruling and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Attorneys in the case did not respond to requests for comment.