Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
765 F.3d 1205
| 10th Cir. | 2014Background
- CCDC sued Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Hollister stores alleging ADA violations at center-entrance porches; action sought nationwide injunctive relief.
- District court upheld standing, certified a nationwide class of wheelchair users, and held porches violated Title III; granted a permanent injunction.
- Plaintiff Farrar ( wheelchair user) was added; she averred intent to visit Park Meadows Hollister multiple times yearly.
- Abercrombie modified some stores but Park Meadows porch remained elevated, with other entrances available at floor level.
- Two Hollister store designs exist: level entrances and elevated porches; the Park Meadows store features a raised porch central entrance and side doors; district court found porch violations under design and entrance standards.
- Appellants challenged standing, class certification, and liability; the Tenth Circuit partially affirmed standing and class certification but reversed on summary judgment and vacated the injunction; case remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Farrar has Article III standing to seek nationwide relief | Farrar has ongoing intent to visit Park Meadows; prospective relief warranted | Standing insufficient since not intend to visit all stores | Farrar has standing for prospective relief |
| Whether the class satisfies Rule 23 requirements for injunctive relief | Class is numerous, commonality and typicality shown; nationwide injunctive relief appropriate | Numerosity not proven; class comprising unknown future members | Class certification affirmed (Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2)) but subject to remand on merits |
| Whether the porch violates the ADA under Design Standards | Porch design and use violate 1991/2010 Standards irrespective of compliance | Design Standards limit liability to noncompliant design elements; compliance with guidelines should suffice | Porch liability upheld under Design Standards (rejected overarching-aims theory) for at least one valid ground |
| Whether the Design Standards require all spaces/entrances to be accessible | All non-exempt spaces must be connected to an accessible route; porch is a space | Entrance-based exemptions loosen accessibility requirements; not all spaces must be accessible | Disagreement on scope; majority view adopted that 2010 Standards eliminated some prior requirements, but porch still must be evaluated as space or entrance under applicable standards |
Key Cases Cited
- Tandy v. City of Wichita, 380 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004) (standing for testers under ADA; prospective relief context)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (injury-in-fact; standing elements)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (class certification framework; Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) considerations)
- DG ex rel. Stricklin v. Devaughn, 594 F.3d 1188 (10th Cir. 2010) (Rule 23 standing and cert.; district court deference in class certification)
- Antoninetti v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., 643 F.3d 1165 (9th Cir. 2010) (design standards govern liability for noncompliant design)