444 F. App'x 412
11th Cir.2011Background
- Norkunas, who has post-polio syndrome, sued Seahorse NB, LLC, under Title III of the ADA alleging barriers at the Seahorse Oceanfront Inn.
- The Inn, built in the 1950s, had a non-accessible beach walkway added in 1999.
- The district court partially granted Seahorse’s motion to dismiss for lack of standing and limited the suit to two designated accessible rooms.
- A bench trial was held on February 14, 2011, after which the district court ruled Norkunas failed to prove continuing discrimination.
- On appeal, Norkunas challenges standing, the dune walkover requirement, pre-existing barriers, admission of testimony, and parking compliance.
- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed, ruling there was standing but not for the two designated rooms, upheld the dune-walkover non-requirement, and affirmed the court’s findings on pre-existing barriers, testimony, and parking.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to seek injunctive relief for designated rooms | Norkunas argues he has standing to challenge all barriers incl. designated rooms | Seahorse contends no standing for barriers in rooms not used during stay | Standing exists generally but not for the designated rooms |
| Dune walkover accessibility standard | Walkway should be accessible under ADA where feasible | No regulations require beach walkways to be accessible | Walkway not required to be ADA accessible; no governing regulations exist |
| Burden of proof for pre-existing barriers | Remedial measures do not moot ongoing discrimination; plaintiff still bears burden | Remedial work shifts or moots issues; barriers no longer exist | Gathright-Dietrich burden-shifting applies; burden remains on plaintiff to prove discrimination; remedial evidence admissible |
| Admissibility of testimony from owner and defense expert | Challenged owner’s testimony as improper expert evidence | Owner testified on personal knowledge within Rule 602; defense expert qualified | No reversible error in admitting owner’s testimony or defense expert; no plain error |
| Parking compliance analysis | All Seahorse parking lots must be counted for ADA compliance | Only the close lot is Seahorse Inn’s parking for ADA analysis; separate lot treated differently | Close lot analyzed as Seahorse Inn’s parking; parking found ADA compliant; far lot not challenged |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury, causation, and redressability; injury in fact for injunctive relief must be imminent)
- Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317 (11th Cir. 2007) (standard of review for findings of fact; deference to district court)
- Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006) (burden-shifting framework for pre-existing barriers; readily achievable standard)
- Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358 (11th Cir. 2002) (admissibility and review of challenged evidence; plain error standard limited)
- Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2004) (contemporaneous objection rule and evidence preservation)