Jabari Wright v. RL Liquor, 887 F.3d 361

Plaintiff Jabari N. Wright, a paraplegic wheelchair user, visited RL Liquor several times between 2013–2016 and identified accessibility barriers: no van-accessible parking or signage, a non-ADA-compliant entry threshold slope, and an over-height sales counter.
Wright sued RL Liquor, its owner Ruth L. Dailey, and R2, D2, Inc. under Title III of the ADA claiming failure to remove architectural barriers that were "readily achievable."
After suit, RL Liquor painted and signed a van-accessible parking space and posted assistance signs; it did not alter the threshold or counter.
At a bench trial the district court dismissed the parking-lot claims as moot and held Wright failed to meet the initial burden to show proposed barrier removals were readily achievable; the court credited the defendant’s evidence that modifications were not readily achievable.
The Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the parking claims as moot and affirmed the ruling that Wright did not carry the required initial burden of production; it noted that even if Wright had met that burden, the defendants proved unavailability of readily achievable modifications.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Mootness of parking-lot claims	Voluntary cessation (adding sign/spot) does not moot claim because defendant could revert	Changes (painted spot and sign) are more than mere voluntary cessation and unlikely to be reversed	Court: Dismissal as moot affirmed; changes were more than voluntary cessation
Initial burden to show removal is "readily achievable"	District court erred in placing initial production burden on Wright; defendant should bear burden	Plaintiff must initially present evidence showing a proposed modification is readily achievable; defendant then proves it is not	Court: Agreed with Tenth/Second/Eleventh Circuits—plaintiff bears initial burden
Sufficiency of plaintiff's evidence on barrier removal	Wright argued district court required too much specificity and evidence	Defendants presented expert evidence that modifications were not readily achievable; plaintiff presented no plausible proposals or expert rebuttal	Court: Wright failed to meet initial, light burden; affirm judgment for defendants
Application of ADA "readily achievable" factors	Wright contended the record supported removals	Defendants argued economic/operational factors made removal infeasible and hazardous	Court: Even assuming production burden met, defendants showed removals were not readily achievable (district court noted safety and effective existing accommodations)

Keup v. Hopkins, 596 F.3d 899 (8th Cir.) (mootness reviewed de novo)
Sheely v. MRI Radiology Network, P.A., 505 F.3d 1173 (11th Cir.) (voluntary cessation doctrine discussion)
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., 528 U.S. 167 (U.S.) (standard for voluntary cessation mootness)
Hickman v. State of Mo., 144 F.3d 1141 (8th Cir.) (structural changes distinguish mere voluntary cessation)
Colorado Cross Disability Coal. v. Hermanson Family Ltd., 264 F.3d 999 (10th Cir.) (framework placing initial burden on plaintiff)
Roberts v. Royal Atl. Corp., 542 F.3d 363 (2d Cir.) (plaintiff must propose plausible, facially cost-justified modifications)
Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir.) (adopting Colorado Cross burden-shifting approach)
Molski v. Foley Estates Vineyard and Winery, LLC, 531 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir.) (different burden rule for historic building alteration claims)