Baughman v. Walt Disney World Company
685 F.3d 1131
| 9th Cir. | 2012Background
- Baughman, who has limb girdle muscular dystrophy, sought to visit Disneyland using a Segway due to difficulty standing.
- Disney policy allows wheelchairs and motorized scooters but prohibits two-wheeled devices like Segways.
- Baughman sued under the ADA alleging Disneyland denied full and equal access; the district court granted summary judgment, finding judicial estoppel barred her from using a motorized wheelchair.
- The district court found Baughman’s earlier statements about relying on a wheelchair inconsistent with her current claim to need a Segway.
- The Ninth Circuit analyzes judicial estoppel factors and concludes Baughman is estopped from claiming she can’t use a wheelchair, presuming she can use a mobility device.
- The court reverses and remands on the ADA issue, framing the dispute as whether reasonable modifications, possibly including Segways, are required under the ADA regulations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does judicial estoppel bar Baughman’s ADA claim? | Baughman argues earlier statements were not under oath and she isn’t bound. | Earlier inconsistent statements and settlements misled courts; estoppel prevents inconsistent positions. | Yes; Baughman is estopped from claiming she can’t use a wheelchair. |
| Does ADA require modification to permit Segways when a wheelchair is available? | Modification to allow Segway use is necessary for full and equal enjoyment. | Modification is not required if existing devices (wheelchairs) suffice. | No rigid 'necessary' reading; §36.311 and case law support reasonable modifications, including Segways, when feasible. |
| Are DOJ regulations interpreting mobility-device access entitled to deference in this case? | Regulations support allowing Segways as reasonable modifications. | Regulations conflict with Martin’s narrow view of 'necessary'. | Yes; DOJ guidance is entitled to deference and supports considering Segways as reasonable modifications. |
Key Cases Cited
- New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (2001) (judicial estoppel prevents inconsistent positions)
- Martin v. PGA Tour, Inc., 532 U.S. 661 (2001) (definition of 'necessary' modification under ADA context)
- Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) (need for companion seating to ensure full and equal enjoyment)
- Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (2005) (comparing access experience of disabled patrons to non-disabled patrons)
- Regal Cinemas, Inc., 339 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003) (public accommodations must provide equivalent experience for disabled patrons)
- Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624 (1998) (DOJ regulatory framework and interpretation of ADA scope)
- Tennessee v. Lane, 541 U.S. 509 (2004) (role of reasonable accessibility in public facilities)