835 F. Supp. 2d 1077
D. Colo.2011Background
- Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on whether Hollister store entrances at Park Meadows and Orchard Town Center violate Title III of the ADA.
- Defendants opposed; United States filed a Statement of Interest; a reply and leave to respond were filed and granted.
- Stores were built after the ADA took effect; Park Meadows is indoor, Orchard Town Center is outdoor; both feature a raised porch-like front with two steps to interior access.
- Front comprises three doors; two side doors are ground-level and allegedly accessible; center door is raised under a roof and creates a different access path.
- Plaintiffs contend the design fails the ADA’s accessibility aims and applicable Design Standards, particularly 4.1.3(8)(a) (feasibility) and 4.1.3(7)(a).
- DOJ SOI argues newly constructed facilities must comply with design Standard 4.1.3(8) unless infeasible; Defendants contest whether doors constitute a single entrance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the center door violates the ADA design standard as feasible access | Plaintiffs: center door not feasible; violates 4.1.3(8)(a) | Hollister: three doors comprise one entrance; compliant under multiple standards | Yes; center entrance violates Title III |
| Whether the two side doors being accessible suffices under the standards | Plaintiffs: side doors do not provide equivalent access to all merchandise | Side doors are fully accessible and satisfy related standards | No; reliance on side doors does not cure center-door inequity |
| Whether the doors constitute a single entrance or three entrances for purposes of the standards | Entrance is multi-elevation; DOJ position that multiple doors can form one entrance is not controlling | Design Standards permit a single entrance if connected as a continuous path | Entrance configuration does not change the outcome; center door remains noncompliant |
| Whether the ADA’s broad aims require modification of design-compliance focus in this case | ADA aims to eliminate segregation and provide integrated access; policies favor accessible, integrated entrances | Compliance with specified standards suffices and branding considerations are permissible | Plaintiffs succeed; branding design that excludes wheelchair users violates Title III |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (Supreme Court 1986) (summary judgment standard: view evidence in the light most favorable to movant)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Farm Credit Bank of Wichita, 226 F.3d 1138 (10th Cir. 2000) (reasonable inferences resolved in favor of non-movant)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Comm. v. Horizon/CMS Healthcare Corp., 220 F.3d 1184 (10th Cir. 2000) (summary judgment and evidentiary standards in EEOC context)
- Boren v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 933 F.2d 891 (10th Cir. 1991) (summary judgment standard; resolving doubts in movant's favor)