Chris Kohler v. Flava Enterprises
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 3594
| 9th Cir. | 2015Background
- Plaintiff Chris Kohler, a wheelchair user, sued Flava Enterprises under Title III of the ADA (plus state claims) after visiting Flava’s retail store and encountering a dressing-room bench that ran the length of the wall and was longer than 48 inches.
- The bench’s placement (along the wall) prevented a diagonal transfer from Kohler’s wheelchair but Kohler admitted he could perform a parallel transfer onto the bench.
- District court granted summary judgment to Flava on Kohler’s ADA claims and declined to exercise jurisdiction over state claims; Flava sought attorneys’ fees, which the district court denied.
- On appeal Kohler challenged the district court’s conclusion that a bench longer than 48 inches could comply with the 1991 ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG); Flava cross-appealed the denial of fees.
- The key regulatory framework: 1991 ADAAG requires a fixed 24x48 bench with clear floor space alongside for a parallel transfer and contains an “equivalent facilitation” provision allowing departures that provide substantially equivalent access; 2010 ADAAG introduced different dimensional/diagonal-transfer requirements and a safe-harbor for unchanged compliant features in existing facilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a bench longer than 48 inches that blocks diagonal transfer violates 1991 ADAAG | Kohler: bench noncompliant because arrangement prevents diagonal transfer and thus fails ADAAG requirements | Flava: bench permits required parallel transfer; even if longer than 48 inches, it qualifies as an "equivalent facilitation" under 1991 ADAAG | Held: bench qualifies as an equivalent facilitation because Kohler could make a parallel transfer; thus bench complies under 1991 ADAAG |
| Whether Flava’s answer gave fair notice of equivalent facilitation defense | Kohler: Flava failed to plead equivalent facilitation as affirmative defense | Flava: pleading of "alternative methods" provided fair notice of alternative/equivalent accessibility | Held: Pleading provided sufficient notice under federal pleading standards |
| Whether a feature that qualifies as equivalent facilitation under 1991 ADAAG must be retrofitted to meet 2010 ADAAG | Kohler: if longer-than-48-in bench departs from 1991 standard, it must meet 2010 diagonal-transfer requirements | Flava: equivalent facilitation that provided substantially equivalent access under 1991 is not noncompliant and falls within 2010 safe-harbor if unaltered since March 15, 2012 | Held: Equivalent facilitation is compliance under 1991 ADAAG; unchanged features since March 15, 2012 are covered by 2010 safe harbor and need not permit diagonal transfer |
| Whether Flava is entitled to attorneys’ fees or sanctions | Flava: Kohler’s suit was frivolous; seeks fees under ADA and § 1927 and sanctions | Kohler: suit presented a novel question and was not frivolous | Held: Fees denied—plaintiff’s claims were not frivolous; no evidence of subjective bad faith required for § 1927 or inherent-power sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Pier I Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (discussing ADAAG interpretation and standards for Title III)
- Curley v. City of North Las Vegas, 772 F.3d 629 (9th Cir. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Skaff v. Meridien N. Am. Beverly Hills, LLC, 506 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2007) (review standard for denial of attorneys’ fees)
- Summers v. Teichert, 127 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 1997) (defendants awarded ADA fees only in exceptional circumstances)
- New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow, 869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1989) (§ 1927 requires subjective bad faith for sanctions)
- Estate of Blas v. Winkler, 792 F.2d 858 (9th Cir. 1986) (bad-faith standard for imposing sanctions)