12 N.E.3d 337
Mass.2014Background
- Hollister leased a retail store in a mall with a raised, decorative central "porch" entry requiring steps, flanked by two accessible, automatic side doors that each lead directly to one side of the store (men's or women's).
- A wheelchair-using patron complained that the store was not fully accessible; the Architectural Access Board investigated and denied Hollister a variance, concluding each of the three doorways were separate "entrances" under 521 C.M.R. § 5.1 and § 25.1 and ordering modification of the central porch entrance.
- Hollister sought judicial review; after a remand for further factual development the Board reaffirmed its findings that the doorways were separate access points and denied a variance because there would be a substantial benefit to persons with disabilities.
- The Superior Court and the Appeals Court affirmed the Board's decision; the Supreme Judicial Court granted further review and affirmed as well.
- The Board relied on differences in use patterns (central porch allows choice of section; side doors place patrons directly in a section), design/aesthetic distinctions, testimony from a disabled patron, and the Board’s expertise to find each doorway a separate access point.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether multiple adjacent doors on a single façade can be separate "entrances" under 521 C.M.R. § 5.1 | Hollister: Adjacent doors on same façade constitute one entrance; regulations permit an inaccessible element (e.g., stairs) as part of a single entrance if an accessible door is provided | Board: "Entrance" = access point; Board may assess functionality/use patterns and conclude adjacent doors are distinct access points | Court: Affirmed Board; reasonable interpretation and supported by substantial evidence that differing use patterns and design made each doorway a separate entrance |
| Whether Board erred by denying Hollister a variance from accessibility requirements | Hollister: Denial unsupported—testimony of benefit was minimal; modification costs are excessive | Board: Testimony established substantial benefit; where substantial benefit exists, cost is irrelevant and variance improper | Court: Affirmed Board; testimony and record provided substantial evidence of substantial benefit, so denial proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Ten Local Citizen Group v. New England Wind, LLC, 457 Mass. 222 (Mass. 2010) (affords deference to agency interpretations of statutes and regulations)
- Iodice v. Architectural Access Bd., 424 Mass. 370 (Mass. 1997) (agency must assess practical, functionality-based questions under access regulations)
- Seagram Distillers Co. v. Alcoholic Beverages Control Comm'n, 401 Mass. 713 (Mass. 1988) (defines substantial evidence review standard)
- Pyramid Co. of Hadley v. Architectural Barriers Bd., 403 Mass. 126 (Mass. 1988) (variance unavailable where compliance yields substantial benefit to disabled persons)
- New Boston Garden Corp. v. Assessors of Boston, 383 Mass. 456 (Mass. 1981) (definition of substantial evidence as a reasonable mind might accept)
- Medi-Cab of Mass. Bay, Inc. v. Rate Setting Comm'n, 401 Mass. 357 (Mass. 1988) (courts do not reevaluate credibility or substitute findings for agency)
- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 835 F. Supp. 2d 1077 (D. Colo. 2011) (applies ADA standards to similar Hollister porch design and finds central porch violates Title III)
- Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition v. Abercrombie & Fitch Co., 957 F. Supp. 2d 1272 (D. Colo. 2013) (later proceedings addressing nationwide Porch-entry issues)