Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp.
816 F. Supp. 2d 831
N.D. Cal.2011Background
- Plaintiffs are disabled California residents using wheelchairs or scooters who sued Taco Bell Corp. in 2002 under ADA, Unruh Act, and CDPA for architectural barriers at California Taco Bell restaurants.
- A class was certified in 2004 covering individuals denied full and equal enjoyment at California Taco Bell corporate restaurants since Dec 17, 2001.
- Special Master Bob Evans conducted surveys; exemplar trial in 2011 addressed 12 barrier elements at Taco Bell 4518.
- Exemplar trial determined multiple ADA/Title 24 violations at 4518, including queue line width, van-accessible parking, doors, restroom fixtures, and furnishings.
- Defendant’s post-2005 policies were found inconsistent and insufficient to assure ongoing accessibility; discrimination findings supported liability and broad injunctive relief is warranted.
- The court held plaintiffs have standing for injunctive relief due to ongoing likelihood of recurrence despite current compliance, and granted system-wide injunctive relief limited by considerations discussed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Taco Bell violated ADA/Unruh/CDPA by the 12 barriers at 4518. | Moeller plaintiffs contend barriers violated ADAAG/Title 24. | TBC argues barriers were remediated and policies updated; reliance on equivalent facilitation. | Liability found for multiple barriers; 12 elements proven violations at 4518. |
| Whether plaintiffs have standing for injunctive relief given current compliance. | Corbett, Harry, Westbrook-White plan to return; past violations show likelihood of recurrence. | Current compliance moots injunctive relief; no ongoing harm. | Standing for injunctive relief affirmed; systemic, class-wide injunctive relief warranted. |
| Whether TBC can rely on voluntary cessation/equivalent facilitation defenses to avoid an injunction. | Remediation and new policies insufficient; history shows noncompliance; policies vague. | Remediation plus new policies show cessation of violation; policies adequate. | Voluntary cessation defense rejected; injunction (system-wide) justified. |
| Appropriate scope of injunctive relief and application to all California Taco Bell restaurants. | System-wide relief necessary to maintain accessibility across all stores. | Relief should be tailored to 4518 and limited for feasibility. | Court concludes class-wide injunctive relief is warranted for maintaining accessibility; form to be determined. |
Key Cases Cited
- Armstrong v. Davis, 275 F.3d 849 (9th Cir.2001) (standing and injury requirements in ADA actions; broad standing scope)
- Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034 (9th Cir.2008) (standing for ADA barriers; injury-in-fact suffices when barrier encountered)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir.2011) (broad standing; barriers related to plaintiff's disability may be challenged in one suit)
- Colorado Cross Disability Coalition v. Hermanson Family Ltd. Partnership I, 264 F.3d 999 (10th Cir.2001) (burden-shifting framework for readily achievable barrier removal; initial plaintiff burden)
- Bringle v. Board of Sup'rs of Orange County, 54 Cal.2d 86 (Cal. 1960) (presumption of building department compliance; limits on exceptions not to be assumed without written findings)