779 F.3d 1001
9th Cir.2015Background
- Byron Chapman, a wheelchair user, sued Pier 1 (filed 2004) alleging Title III ADA violations based on obstructed store aisles and a cluttered accessible sales counter at a Vacaville, CA Pier 1 store.
- After earlier en banc proceedings addressing standing, Chapman amended to allege he personally encountered aisle obstructions on eleven visits (2011–2012) and counter clutter on 2–3 visits.
- Pier 1 argued obstructions were "isolated or temporary" and thus excused by 28 C.F.R. § 36.211(b); it submitted declarations asserting policies to maintain 36" aisle width and two inspections showing compliance.
- Chapman submitted photographs, his declaration, and expert Joe Card’s report documenting repeated aisle blockages (furniture, display racks, ladders) reducing clear width below 36" on multiple visits.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Chapman, enjoining Pier 1 from blocking aisles or cluttering the accessible counter except for unavoidable transitory re-stocking; Pier 1 appealed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed regarding aisles (systemic, recurring obstructions not "temporary") but reversed as to the sales counter (clutter was isolated/temporary and did not deny full and equal access).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated aisle obstructions that reduce clear width below 36" are exempt as "isolated or temporary" under § 36.211(b) | Chapman: aisle blockages occurred repeatedly on 11 visits, creating systemic denial of an accessible route | Pier 1: obstructions are transitory/movable (customers or staff move items), and store policies/inspections show maintenance | Held: Not temporary; repeated/persistent failures made barriers non‑transitory — summary judgment for Chapman affirmed |
| Whether items on the accessible sales counter denied "full and equal" access or were excused as temporary under § 36.211(b) | Chapman: counter clutter (books, cups, phone) impeded use on multiple visits | Pier 1: item placement was temporary, employees removed or moved items; counter remained usable for transactions | Held: Insufficient evidence of denial of full and equal access; occurrences were isolated/temporary — summary judgment for Chapman reversed |
| Whether store policies and occasional clean inspections create a genuine dispute of material fact | Chapman: policies were ineffective or honored in the breach; photographic evidence shows recurring problems | Pier 1: policies and inspections demonstrate efforts to maintain accessibility | Held: Policies/inspections did not refute repeated obstructions; policies do not excuse systemic failures |
| Proper scope of injunction following mixed summary judgment outcomes | Chapman: seeks broad injunction prohibiting blocking aisles/counter except transitory re‑stocking | Pier 1: challenges scope as overbroad given alleged temporariness | Held: Injunction should be modified on remand to exclude counter prohibition but continue to enjoin aisle blockages except unavoidable transitory activities |
Key Cases Cited
- Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line, 545 U.S. 119 (Sup. Ct.) (Title III prohibits discrimination in full and equal enjoyment of public accommodations)
- Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc., 267 F.3d 918 (9th Cir.) (compliance with ADAAG technical standards required; spirit of ADA insufficient)
- Midgett v. Tri-County Metropolitan Transp. Dist. of Or., 254 F.3d 846 (9th Cir.) (regulations do not contemplate perfect service; isolated/temporary hindrances may not violate ADA)
- Foley v. City of Lafayette, Ind., 359 F.3d 925 (7th Cir.) (single, promptly remedied service interruption did not violate ADA)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. en banc) (standing and pleading requirements in prior stage of same litigation)