37.57  Required cooperation.

This section implements §242(e)(2)(C) of the ADA, which treats as discrimination a failure, by an owner or person in control of an intercity rail station, to provide reasonable cooperation to the responsible persons' efforts to comply with accessibility requirements.  For example, the imposition by the owner of an unreasonable insurance bond from the responsible person as a condition of making accessibility modifications would violate this requirement.  See H. Rept. 101-485 at 53.

The statute also provides that failure of the owner or person in control to cooperate does not create a defense to a discrimination suit against the responsible person, but the responsible person would have a third party action against the uncooperative owner or person in control.  The rule does not restate this portion of the statute in the regulation, since it would be implemented by the courts if such an action is brought.
Since cooperation is also a regulatory requirement, however, the Department could entertain a section 504 complaint against a recipient of Federal funds who failed to cooperate.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee provided as an example of an action under this provision a situation in which a failure to cooperate leads to a construction delay, which in turn leads to a lawsuit by an individual with disabilities against the responsible person for missing an accessibility deadline.  The responsible person could not use the lack of cooperation as a defense in the lawsuit, but the uncooperative party could be made to indemnify the responsible for damages awarded the plaintiff.  Also, a responsible person could obtain an injunction to force the recalcitrant owner or controller of the station to permit accessibility work to proceed.  (Id.)

This provision does not appear to be intended to permit a responsible person to seek contribution for a portion of the cost of accessibility work from a party involved with the station whom the statute and §37.49 do not identify as a responsible person.  It simply provides a remedy for a situation in which someone impedes the responsible person's efforts to comply with accessibility obligations.