11 F.4th 1101
9th Cir.2021Background
- Plaintiffs Clark Landis, Robert Barker, Grady Thompson, and Kayla Brown sued the owners/operators of T‑Mobile Park (Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium PFD, Baseball of Seattle, Mariners Baseball, LLC, Baseball Club of Seattle) under Titles II and III of the ADA, alleging multiple barriers to wheelchair users.
- At bench trial, Plaintiffs claimed the Stadium (1) failed to provide sufficiently dispersed wheelchair‑accessible seating, (2) did not offer proportional ticket pricing for accessible seats, and (3) failed to provide comparable sightlines to the field and scoreboards; they also alleged cumulative discrimination from these defects.
- The district court found for Defendants on these claims; Plaintiffs appealed. The Ninth Circuit reviews factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.
- Key regulatory touchpoints included the 1991 ADAAG requirement that accessible seating be an “integral part” of seating and offer comparable lines of sight, and § 36.302(f)(3)’s pricing and location requirements for accessible seats.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court: it held accessible seating was sufficiently dispersed, ticket pricing complied with the ADA, and Plaintiffs waived their cumulative‑effects argument by raising it first on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Distribution of wheelchair‑accessible seating | Accessible seats must be provided proportionally across price levels/tiers (true proportionality test) | Seating satisfies ADAAG if accessible seats are integral, comparable, and distributed (not bunched) | Court: No true proportionality test; seating is integral and sufficiently dispersed (affirmed) |
| Ticket pricing for accessible seats | DOJ Ticket Sales guidance requires proportional representation of price levels for accessible seats | ADA/regulations require accessible seats in various locations and that accessible tickets not be priced higher than nearby non‑accessible seats | Court: Stadium meets § 36.302(f)(3): accessible seats available across price range; prices not higher than nearby seats (affirmed) |
| Comparable sightlines to field/scoreboards | Wheelchair users must have comparable sightlines to general public | Stadium’s seating plan provides comparable viewing options; district court found no violation | Court: District court’s rejection of this claim stands; issue addressed in concurrently published opinion (affirmed) |
| Cumulative discriminatory effect (general non‑discrimination provision) | Combined defects create discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) | Cumulative argument not raised below; district court’s factual findings control | Court: Argument raised for first time on appeal and not shown to be exceptional; waived (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc., 634 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard of review: factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo)
- Club One Casino, Inc. v. Bernhardt, 959 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2020) (appellate waiver rule for issues raised first on appeal)