The title of today’s blog recognizes the gift bestowed by Judge Nannette Brown on everyone interested in the ADA in all its many details. Bailey v. Bd. of Commissioners of Louisiana Stadium and Exposition Dist., 2020 WL 5309962 (E.D. La. Sept. 4, 2020) is the latest of Judge Brown’s decisions concerning the dispute over stadium seating in the Superdome. Written after trial, the 64 page decision methodically dissects the law concerning concerning which standards apply to what parts of a facility after alterations, what the sight-line requirements for stadiums are under the various standards, including an exposition of the law concerning Auer deference and the effect of Kisor v. Wilke, how Title II program accessibility requirements fit into design/build standards, what kind of control is required for a person to be an “operator” of a public accommodation, when and how the “reasonable modification” requirement in Title III of the ADA applies to Title II entities, and last but not least the extent to which Title I’s “interactive process” requirement might apply to Titles II and III. The Fifth Circuit, and maybe the Supreme Court, will have the last word in this case, but if you are looking for a quick reference to almost every issue that comes up in a case involving altered facilities you can find it in this decision.¹ More
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA Litigation Procedure, ADA regulations, Movies, Public Facilities, Stadiums Tags: ADA defense, Seattle Mariners, Stadium accessible seating, Stadium Sightlines, T-Mobile Stadium
Nobody knows. The August 19, 2020 decision in Landis v. Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist., 2019 WL 3891566 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 19, 2019) is thoughtful, thorough, and from the standpoint of those looking for certainty concerning the stadium sightlines argument inconclusive. The Court denied the plaintiffs’ request for a ruling that as a matter of law the T-Mobile Stadium at which the Seattle Mariners play failed to meet ADA requirements, but the Court found it could not do so without a trial. This is the inevitable result of the complexity of stadium design and impossibility of promulgating regulations concerning the location of wheelchair accessible seating that are both specific and cover every possibility. At trial the Court will hear more evidence and make fact findings about just what comparable sightlines means in this particular stadium, but that result will likely cover only the single stadium at issue, leaving other courts and other cases to determine on a stadium by stadium basis what is good enough. More
By Richard Hunt in Accessibility Litigation Trends, ADA FHA General, ADA FHA Legislation, Convention Centers, Stadiums Tags: ada litigation, ada violation, convention centers, private lawsuits, private litigants
When public or quasi-public entities contract with private businesses to use their facilities it can be difficult to pin down just who may have violated the ADA. It doesn’t have to be, but allocating ADA responsibility requires that the parties at least think about it. When they don’t the resulting litigation is likely to be complex and lengthy.
In Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2004) the Ninth Circuit established that a private entity could not avoid ADA liability by renting a publicly owned facility. It found, in essence, that the facility became a public accommodation when it was being used by the private entity, and the private entity could be the operator of that public accommodation. The now decade old message for businesses was clear: Your ADA liability will depend on your contract with the facility, and in particular on whether you control some aspect of accessibility. More