957 F. Supp. 2d 1272
D. Colo.2013Background
- Plaintiffs are individuals using wheelchairs who challenge Hollister store Raised Porch Entrances nationwide.
- Court previously held two Colorado Hollister stores violated the 1991 DOJ Standards and Title III of the ADA.
- A nationwide class was certified defining wheelchair users denied full and equal enjoyment due to Elevated Entrances.
- After certification, Defendants made limited modifications (signage and operable handles) at Park Meadows store; other stores remained with Raised Porch Entrances.
- Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and injunctive relief; Defendants moved for summary judgment or to vacate the 2011 order; DOJ filed an interested party brief.
- Court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ motion; ordered the parties to confer on an injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to challenge nationwide stores | Plaintiff Farrar argues class standing suffices for nationwide challenges | Defendants contend only individual standing per store is required | Court holds class standing exists; certified class provides standing for claims across all stores |
| Raised Porch Entrances violate 1991 and 2010 Standards | Raised porches fail to provide accessible entrances per 1991 Standards | Stores allegedly compliant under 2010 Standards and porches constitute a single entrance | Raised Porch Entrances violate both 1991 and 2010 Standards; not reducible to compliance under 2010 Standards |
| Injunctive relief and remedies | Injunction necessary to remedy Title III violations; damages not available | Questions about scope and feasibility of injunction; equitable factors apply | Injunctive relief granted; injunction to remedy violations; damages unavailable; parties to propose remedial injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Colorado Cross-Disability Coal. v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 835 F.Supp.2d 1077 (D. Colo. 2011) (Raised porch entrances violated 1991 Standards and Title III)
- Clark v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 590 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir. 2009) (Rule 23 standing subsumed by class certification)
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (U.S. 1997) (class actions; broad framework for standing and certification)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S. 2011) (Rule 23(b)(2) class action; discrimination context)
- United States v. Hoyts Cinemas Corp., 380 F.3d 558 (1st Cir. 2004) (statutory interpretation; statute as a whole)
- Time Warner Entm’t Co. v. Everest Midwest Licensee, LLC, 381 F.3d 1039 (10th Cir. 2004) (agency deference in regulatory interpretation)