Kohler v. Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC
778 F.3d 827
9th Cir.2015Background
- Plaintiff Chris Kohler, a wheelchair user, sued Bed Bath & Beyond (BB&B) under Title III of the ADA alleging inaccessible restroom door clearances at a Riverside, CA store.
- Kohler visited the restroom twice in May 2011 and claimed insufficient strike-side space: under 10 inches of wall space on the pull side (but >4 ft of clear floor beyond it) and under 3 inches of wall/floor on the push side.
- District court granted summary judgment to BB&B, holding the ADA Guidelines require floor (and air) maneuvering clearance, not wall length, and that push-side strike clearance applies only when a door has a latch.
- Kohler appealed, arguing (1) the Guidelines require 18 inches of strike-side wall space on the pull side; and (2) the restroom door’s features qualify as a “latch,” so 12 inches of push-side clearance was required.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed summary judgment de novo and considered both the 1991 and 2010 ADAAG/Standards, including the Guidelines’ graphics and text, and statutory safe-harbor rules.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ADA Guidelines require minimum strike-side wall length (pull side) | Kohler: 1991 Guidelines require ≥18 inches of clear wall length parallel to doorway | BB&B: Guidelines require clear floor area and unobstructed airspace, not wall length | Court: Maneuvering clearance means clear floor space and airspace; no minimum wall length required |
| Whether 2010 Guidelines’ graphics/text change interpretation to require wall space | Kohler: 2010 figures and conventions (solid/black lines) imply wall required | BB&B: 2010 dashed-line convention denotes floor/maneuvering clearance; text requires clearance across doorway | Court: 2010 materials confirm clearance refers to floor/airspace, not wall length |
| Whether push-side strike clearance (12") applies absent a latch | Kohler: Door has a stop/feature that counts as a “latch,” triggering 12" requirement | BB&B: Door lacks a latch (operable fastening); only closer is present, so no extra clearance needed | Court: “Latch” means an operable fastening device; door lacked a latch, so no push-side strike clearance required |
| Whether district court erred in granting summary judgment | Kohler: Genuine dispute of material fact about required clearance and latch status | BB&B: No disputed material facts on interpretation and physical characteristics; entitled to judgment | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for BB&B on ADA claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) (ADA accommodations and Guidelines as standard of compliance)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (comprehensive nature of ADA Guidelines and their technical requirements)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir. 2008) (summary judgment standard reviewed de novo)
- Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv., 329 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (appellate court may affirm district court on any basis supported by the record)