862 F.3d 1006
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff John Karczewski is a T10/11 paraplegic who drives with hand controls and attempted to test-drive a car at DCH Mission Valley; dealership refused to temporarily install hand controls for the test-drive.
- Karczewski sued under Title III of the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12182), alleging: (1) failure to make reasonable modifications to policies/practices/procedures and (2) failure to remove architectural barriers.
- District court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6), holding ADA does not require dealerships to install temporary hand controls for test-drives in any circumstance.
- Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding plaintiff stated a claim under § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) (reasonable modifications).
- Court rejected application of the architectural-barriers provision (§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)) to cars-for-sale (goods, not facilities) and held implementing regulations do not categorically bar the claim.
- Court emphasized fact-specific reasonableness inquiry: temporary hand controls might be reasonable in some dealer settings (e.g., large dealer with experience/stock and advance notice).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA requires reasonable modification of dealer policy to install temporary hand controls for a test-drive | Karczewski: refusal to install temporary hand controls is a failure to make reasonable modifications to policies/practices required by § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) | DCH: installing hand controls alters inventory, is a personal-device obligation, and is categorically excluded by regulations | Held: Plaintiff plausibly alleged a § 12182(b)(2)(A)(ii) claim; dismissal improper — reasonableness is fact-specific |
| Whether the architectural-barriers provision (§ 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)) applies to lack of hand controls in cars for sale | Karczewski: regulation listing "installing vehicle hand controls" supports an architectural-barriers claim | DCH & DOJ (argued for applicability in amicus): cars are covered by regulation | Held: Statute’s "architectural barriers in existing facilities" targets facilities (buildings/structures); goods (cars) are not covered here; regulation inapplicable as statute does not reach these facts |
| Whether 28 C.F.R. § 36.307(a) (no obligation to alter inventory) bars the claim | Karczewski: temporary modification of an individual vehicle in stock is distinct from altering dealer's inventory | DCH: installing hand controls alters inventory and is exempt | Held: § 36.307 concerns altering an inventory as a whole; does not foreclose temporary modifications to individual items in stock |
| Whether 28 C.F.R. § 36.306 (no obligation to provide "personal devices") bars the claim | Karczewski: "personal devices" should be read narrowly; temporary, compatible devices coordinated with business may be required | DCH: hand controls are personal devices and thus exempt | Held: Court adopts narrower reading of "personal devices" (e.g., wheelchairs, eyeglasses) to avoid conflict with other regs; § 36.306 does not categorically preclude the claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir.) (standards of de novo review and taking complaint allegations as true)
- Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir.) (elements of reasonable-modification claim and reasonableness inquiry)
- Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.) (Title III obligations to provide disabled guests a like experience)
- Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters., Inc., 603 F.3d 666 (9th Cir.) (Title III discrimination framework)
- Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 (9th Cir.) (readily achievable inquiry under architectural-barriers provision)
- Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (U.S.) (subsection (a) general rule supplemented by specific requirements in subsection (b))
- SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 (U.S.) (agency rationale and judicial review principles)