Court: District Court, N.D. California; July 28, 2015; Federal District Court
Robert Kalani, the Plaintiff, alleges that Starbucks Corporation, the Defendant, violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by improperly orienting its interior wheelchair accessible tables at Store #6931, requiring wheelchair users to face the wall instead of the store's interior. Kalani seeks attorney's fees, costs, and an injunction to reposition at least one table to allow for a more inclusive seating arrangement. The Defendant argues that the tables comply with the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and therefore adhere to the law.
The Court conducted a bench trial on June 25, 2015, with Kalani as his own witness and expert Kim R. Black-seth representing the Defendant. Key findings include that Kalani is mobility impaired and uses a wheelchair, visited the Starbucks store on January 31, 2013, and that the store is a public accommodation. The store has two accessible tables, both requiring wheelchair users to sit facing a wall, while non-disabled patrons enjoy seating that allows them to engage with the store's environment. The Court acknowledged the Defendant's efforts to create a welcoming atmosphere and community space. Four photographs were admitted as evidence, depicting the accessible tables and the seating behavior of patrons at the store.
Defendant’s Exhibit A shows one of two accessible tables at the Store, marked by the International Symbol of Accessibility (ISA). Exhibit B depicts another accessible table with bench seating. The Court notes that the Plaintiff has visited the Store at least four times since January 31, 2013, always accompanied by his wife, and he enjoys social interactions during these visits. The central legal issue is whether Title III of the ADA mandates that at least one interior accessible table is positioned so that a wheelchair user does not have to sit facing a wall.
The Court will first elaborate on the purposes of Title III before assessing the Plaintiff's standing to file a Title III claim. It will address whether the Plaintiff needs to demonstrate a violation of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and whether the Defendant breached specific sections of Title III. The ADA was established to combat discrimination against individuals with disabilities across various public life areas. Title III prohibits discrimination in public accommodations, mandating equal enjoyment of services and facilities for disabled individuals. It also requires that accommodations be provided in the most integrated setting suitable for the individual's needs. The ADA's definition of discrimination includes both overt exclusion and more subtle barriers that impede full enjoyment of public accommodations.
Congress assigned the Attorney General the duty to create regulations for Title III of the ADA, as outlined in 42 U.S.C. § 12186(b). The ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) detail the technical requirements for public accommodations applicable during design, construction, and alterations under the ADA. Although the ADA aims for widespread reform and has a broad mandate, its application is limited. To pursue a discrimination claim under Title III, a plaintiff must establish standing by demonstrating an actual case or controversy, which includes proving injury-in-fact, traceability to the defendant's conduct, and the potential for redress. Additionally, the plaintiff must show a realistic threat of future harm.
In this case, while the defendant did not explicitly challenge the plaintiff's standing during the trial, it contested standing for injunctive relief during summary judgment. The Court previously confirmed that the plaintiff met standing requirements, with the defendant not disputing the injury-in-fact, traceability, and redressability elements. The plaintiff presented evidence of intent to return to the store and frequent visits to the area for various purposes, supporting a likelihood of future injury. Thus, the plaintiff has standing to pursue claims under Title III.
To succeed under Title III, the plaintiff must prove three elements: (1) the plaintiff's status as disabled under the ADA, (2) the defendant's operation of a public accommodation, and (3) denial of full and equal treatment due to the plaintiff's disability. There is agreement that the plaintiff meets the first two criteria; the Court must now assess whether the plaintiff was denied equal treatment because of his disability.
Defendant argued that Plaintiff must demonstrate a violation of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) to support a discrimination claim under Title III of the ADA. During the trial, Defendant presented expert testimony on whether any accessibility guidelines applied to the orientation of accessible tables and claimed that compliance with access regulations was crucial. The Defendant moved for nonsuit due to the lack of a specific ADAAG guideline. However, both parties acknowledged that the accessible tables did not violate any ADAAG standards. The key issue was whether Plaintiff's failure to identify a specific regulation regarding the table orientation barred the discrimination claim.
The Court concluded that Defendant's position was legally incorrect, referencing the Ninth Circuit’s precedent which states that proving a specific ADAAG violation is not necessary for establishing an ADA discrimination claim. The Ninth Circuit distinguishes between claims related to the design of public accommodations, which require ADAAG compliance, and those concerning policies or practices regarding the use of design elements, governed by 42 U.S.C. § 12182. This distinction aligns with the ADA's broader goals.
The Court emphasized that mere compliance with ADAAG does not prevent a public accommodation from denying individuals full and equal access to services. In the cited case of Fortyune, the Ninth Circuit rejected the argument that a specific ADAAG violation is necessary for an ADA claim, holding that the discrimination was based on the defendant’s policy regarding seating rather than a regulated design issue. Thus, the Court affirmed that Plaintiff could assert a discrimination claim under Title III without identifying a specific ADAAG violation, given the circumstances presented.
In Baughman v. Walt Disney World Company, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that public accommodations must consider the experience of non-disabled guests and take reasonable steps to ensure disabled guests have equal enjoyment of facilities. The court highlighted that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guarantees more than just access; it ensures "full and equal enjoyment." The plaintiff's claim focuses on the operational use of accessible tables rather than the design compliance with ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Therefore, a violation of ADAAG is not necessary to establish a claim under the ADA's anti-discrimination provisions.
The plaintiff alleges that the use of interior accessible tables violates 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii, iii) and 12182(b)(1)(B). Title III prohibits discrimination based on disability by ensuring that individuals with disabilities receive equal opportunities to participate in or benefit from goods and services. The court noted that the defendant's offerings include seating and the overall "Starbucks experience," which emphasizes community interaction. It was stipulated that accessible seating forces wheelchair users to sit with their backs to the interior of the store, limiting their engagement with the environment and other patrons. The court must evaluate whether the accessible tables provide a functionally equivalent experience to non-disabled patrons, who can choose seating that allows them to interact visually with the store's ambiance and other customers, thereby fully participating in the "Starbucks environment."
Defendant is accused of discriminating against Plaintiff, who uses a wheelchair, by denying him the same seating choices available to non-disabled patrons, forcing him to face a wall instead of engaging with the social environment of the coffeehouse. This unequal treatment places Plaintiff in a distinctly disadvantaged position compared to non-disabled customers, who can enjoy a communal experience. Defendant's argument that Plaintiff is not excluded from conversation because he can sit with his spouse is deemed irrelevant, as it does not represent the full breadth of the 'Starbucks environment.'
The excerpt references a Ninth Circuit case where a physical barrier impeded disabled patrons from fully participating in the dining experience, establishing that unequal experiences violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court draws parallels between this precedent and Plaintiff's situation, asserting that the orientation of accessible tables at Defendant's location similarly denies disabled patrons the opportunity to fully engage in the Starbucks experience. Consequently, the court finds that the Defendant's practices constitute discrimination under Title III of the ADA.
Additionally, provisions 42 U.S.C. 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii) and 12182(b)(1)(B) are cited as bases for Plaintiff's ADA claim, highlighting that it is discriminatory to provide goods or services to individuals with disabilities in a manner that is different or separate from those provided to others unless necessary for effective accommodation. Title III emphasizes that accommodations must be offered in the most integrated setting suitable for the individual's needs.
Goods and services must be provided in a way that allows individuals with disabilities to engage fully with non-disabled persons, a principle enshrined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The plaintiff argues that the seating arrangement at Starbucks, which faces a wall, physically isolates wheelchair users from the community experience that the establishment promotes, thereby depriving them of the "Starbucks experience." The ADA defines discrimination to include the provision of unequal or separate services, emphasizing that individuals with disabilities should not be relegated to inferior or segregated options, such as seating placed in less desirable areas.
The court recognizes that the plaintiff desires to participate in the full coffeehouse experience, akin to non-disabled patrons, and finds that the current seating arrangement provided by the defendant fails to meet the standards of integration and equality mandated by the ADA. The court draws a parallel to previous cases where the expectation of sitting with loved ones during shared experiences is crucial, noting that the plaintiff, like those in similar contexts, has been denied the opportunity to enjoy the decor and community atmosphere integral to the Starbucks experience.
Ultimately, the court concludes that the manner in which the defendant uses accessible seating excludes disabled patrons from engaging with the Starbucks community and experience, constituting discrimination under specific provisions of the ADA. The plaintiff's ability to enjoy the intended atmosphere and social interactions at the store has been significantly hindered, leading to a violation of Title III of the ADA.
Injunctive relief under the ADA is available to individuals facing discrimination based on disability. The Civil Rights Act allows a 'person aggrieved' by ADA violations to seek civil action for preventive relief, including injunctions. Specifically, Title III of the ADA mandates injunctive relief to make facilities accessible to individuals with disabilities and may include modifications to policies or services. The ADA does not permit monetary damages.
In this case, the Plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring the Defendant to provide an accessible table that allows a person in a wheelchair to view the store and its patrons rather than facing a wall. The Court has determined that the Defendant's use of accessible tables is discriminatory under Title III, entitling the Plaintiff to injunctive relief.
The Court clarifies that traditional equitable relief standards do not apply when seeking an injunction to enforce a federal statute with specific injunctive relief provisions. The Defendant raised concerns about spatial constraints and the feasibility of adjustments but did not substantiate these claims. The Court noted that a public accommodation must make reasonable modifications to practices that adversely affect individuals with disabilities.
During the trial, the Defendant's expert indicated that at least one accessible table already had sufficient clearance for wheelchair access, suggesting that accommodating the Plaintiff’s request would not be burdensome and is a feasible modification. Consequently, the Court concluded that the requested injunctive relief is reasonable and that the Plaintiff prevails in demonstrating a violation of Title III of the ADA.
The interior accessible tables in the Store were found to be in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(1)(A)(ii), (iii), and § 12182(b)(1)(B). As a result, the Court has granted the Plaintiff's request for injunctive relief, mandating that the Defendant provide at least one compliant interior accessible table that allows a wheelchair user to sit facing the Store's interior with their back to the wall. The Plaintiff must submit any motion for attorney's fees and costs within 30 days of this Order, with opposition and reply governed by the Civil Local Rules. The Court acknowledges that the Ninth Circuit's conclusion is supported by recent Department of Justice regulations, which require public accommodations to make reasonable modifications for the use of power-driven mobility devices unless legitimate safety concerns exist. Although the Court addresses the Plaintiff's claims under these provisions for thoroughness, it notes that the Plaintiff did not specify this statutory basis at trial. The Court also mentions a narrow exception to § 12182(b)(1)(A)(iii), which allows for different or separate services under specific conditions; however, the Defendant did not argue or provide evidence for this exception.
