Disability Support Alliance v. Heartwood Enterprises, LLC
885 F.3d 543
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Eric Wong, who uses a wheelchair, is chair of Disability Support Alliance (DSA). He visited (without an appointment) Heartwood Offices, a small office building in St. Paul, saw multiple exterior steps, left because he could not access the building, and sued under Title III of the ADA and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA); DSA was co‑plaintiff.
- Wong sought injunctive relief under the ADA, injunctive relief and civil penalties under the MHRA, and damages under Minnesota’s bias‑offense statute; Heartwood removed the case to federal court and moved for summary judgment.
- The district court held DSA lacked Article III standing (DSA does not appeal) but found Wong had standing at summary judgment; it nonetheless granted Heartwood summary judgment on the merits, concluding barrier removal was not "readily achievable."
- Heartwood submitted unrefuted cost estimates and declarations showing ramp/route costs ranging from roughly $12,000 to over $100,000 and estimated $300,000+ to make the whole building accessible.
- Wong failed to produce timely, specific evidence of feasible modifications, cost estimates, or financial information for Heartwood; the district court struck his late evidence and granted summary judgment dismissing ADA and MHRA claims, and the related state "bias offense" claim.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed: dismissed DSA’s appeal for lack of standing, accepted the district court’s resolution of Wong’s standing at summary judgment, and upheld summary judgment on the merits because barrier removal was not shown to be readily achievable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing for Wong | Wong visited, intends to return once barriers are removed, so he suffered injury and has imminent intent to return | Heartwood: Wong never had an appointment, left without attempting access, lacks actual or imminent injury | Court: At summary judgment, Wong’s sworn statement sufficed; Wong had standing (DSA lacked standing) |
| Burden on "readily achievable" issue | Wong contended district court improperly shifted burden; claimed ramp costs and departures/tax benefits could make removal readily achievable | Heartwood: Presented evidence costs are substantial; removal not readily achievable | Court: Wong conceded burden below; Heartwood met burden; no procedural error in striking untimely evidence |
| Whether removal of barriers is "readily achievable" under Title III | Wong: External ramp installation could be readily achievable (cited regulatory examples, possible cost offsets) | Heartwood: Submitted detailed, unrefuted cost estimates and structural constraints showing removal would be difficult and expensive | Court: Removal not readily achievable on this record; summary judgment for Heartwood |
| State‑law MHRA and bias‑offense claim | Wong: MHRA claim parallels ADA and can provide additional remedies; bias‑offense damages available if MHRA violated | Heartwood: If ADA claim fails, MHRA and related bias offense fail too | Court: MHRA analyzed same as ADA; because ADA claim failed, MHRA and bias‑offense claims dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (Eighth Circuit on Title III standing and imminent intent to return)
- Park v. Forest Serv. of U.S., 205 F.3d 1034 (standard of review for standing determinations)
- Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43 (organizational standing principles)
- Colo. Cross Disability Coal. v. Hermanson Family Ltd. P’ship I, 264 F.3d 999 (readily achievable inquiry is fact‑specific)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment and evidence viewed in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
- Osborn v. United States, 918 F.2d 724 (Rule 12(b)(1) fact‑based jurisdictional challenge procedures)
- McClain v. American Economy Ins. Co., 424 F.3d 728 (district court need not accept bare jurisdictional allegations)
- Gathright‑Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F.3d 1269 (ADA barrier removal and readily achievable analysis)
- Somers v. City of Minneapolis, 245 F.3d 782 (MHRA claims analyzed same as ADA)