Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc.
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140306
S.D. Cal.2011Background
- Kohler is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair; he visited House of Flava in Feb 2010 and encountered barriers.
- Barriers included: dressing room bench not enabling diagonal transfer, lowered checkout counter obstructed by items, and absence of appropriate disabled signage.
- Kohler visited the store two more times, encountering barriers but not attempting purchases.
- On Apr 7, 2010, Kohler filed a federal ADA action and related California claims, alleging five barriers at the store.
- Plaintiff sought injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and damages for ADA, California Disabled Persons Act, Unruh Act, and Health and Safety Code claims.
- The court later granted defendant’s summary judgment on the ADA-related claims and denied plaintiff’s summary judgment on those claims; it dismissed without prejudice the California Health and Safety Code claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADA compliance of the lowered counter | Kohler argues counter is inaccessible. | Counter meets ADAAG 7.2 and is usable. | Lowered counter accessible; summary judgment for Flava |
| ISA signage on the counter | Lowered counter lacked ISA sign per ADAAG 7.3(3). | 7.3(3) applies only to check-out aisles; no sign needed. | Signage not required; summary judgment for Flava |
| Dressings room bench length | Bench exceeds 48 inches, violating 1991/2010 ADAAG. | Long bench provides substantially equivalent access; complies via 2.2. | Bench length acceptable for substantial equivalence; summary judgment for Flava |
| Clothing hooks height | Hooks mounted too high. | Hooks comply with 4.2.5; height is accessible. | Hooks accessible; summary judgment for Flava |
| Overhead accessibility sign | Need overhead sign indicating counter remains open. | No sign requirement without checkout aisles. | No overhead sign required; summary judgment for Flava |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports, Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (ADA discrimination includes readily achievable barrier removal)
- Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004) (ADAAG as precise standard for accessibility)
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements for Title III discrimination and remedies)
- Independent Living Resources v. Oregon Arena Corp., 1 F. Supp. 2d 1159 (D. Or. 1998) (use of substantial equivalence in accessibility)
- Californians for Disability Rights v. Mervyn's LLC, 165 Cal.App.4th 571 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (Unruh Act and DPA implications from ADA violations)