Paul McGann v. Cinemark USA Inc
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 19553
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Paul McGann is deaf-blind (Usher’s Syndrome Type I), communicates receptively via ASL tactile interpretation (hand-over-hand) and sought tactile interpreters to experience the film Gone Girl at a local Cinemark theater.
- Cinemark denied the request, having never previously provided tactile interpreters; McGann sued under Title III of the ADA seeking declaratory relief and fees.
- The parties stipulated to the material facts; after a bench trial the District Court entered judgment for Cinemark, ruling tactile interpretation was not an "auxiliary aid or service" and that Title III does not require special services.
- The Third Circuit considered statutory/regulatory text (42 U.S.C. §12103, §12182; 28 C.F.R. §36.303) and DOJ guidance, noting DOJ specifically recognizes tactile interpreters.
- The Third Circuit held that ASL tactile interpretation fits the statutory/regulatory definition of an auxiliary aid or service and that denying it excluded McGann from Cinemark’s services, vacating the District Court judgment and remanding to consider Cinemark’s undue-burden defense.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether tactile ASL interpretation is an “auxiliary aid or service” under Title III | McGann: tactile ASL interpreters are qualified interpreters that make a movie’s aural and visual content available and thus are auxiliary aids | Cinemark: “auxiliary” means only supplementary to an existing service; tactile interpretation would be a new/special service, not required | Held: Tactile interpreters fall within the ADA/regulatory definition of auxiliary aids and services; District Court’s narrow dictionary reading rejected |
| Whether refusing tactile interpretation denied or excluded McGann from Cinemark’s services | McGann: theaters provide entertainment; access requires making the movie’s content available (not merely access to the auditorium) | Cinemark: Title III does not force businesses to provide specially designed goods/services for disabled patrons; analogous insurance/bookstore precedents limit obligations | Held: Denial of tactile interpretation excluded McGann from the service of experiencing the movie; the “special goods/services” line cannot be used to nullify auxiliary-aid obligations |
| Whether providing a tactile interpreter would fundamentally alter Cinemark’s services | McGann: tactile interpretation does not change movie content or theater physical systems; thus no fundamental alteration | Cinemark: providing tactile interpreters would fundamentally alter its services because it does not offer them in normal course | Held: Cinemark did not carry its burden to show fundamental alteration; record lacked showing that tactile interpretation would alter the essential nature of the service |
| Whether providing tactile interpretation would be an undue burden (significant difficulty or expense) | McGann: argued availability and necessity; did not concede undue burden | Cinemark: asserted undue burden as alternative defense (cost, staffing, novelty) | Held: Trial court did not assess undue-burden on record; remanded for District Court to decide undue-burden with the required fact-intensive inquiry |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (recognizing Title III’s remedial purpose to integrate individuals with disabilities)
- Arizona ex rel. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enter., Inc., 603 F.3d 666 (9th Cir. 2010) (movie-theater context recognizing auxiliary aids like captioning)
- McNeil v. Time Ins. Co., 205 F.3d 179 (5th Cir. 2000) (insurance-policy cases limiting Title III obligations to alter goods/services)
- Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000) (Title III does not require different goods/services; cited as background but not controlling for auxiliary-aid issue)
- Doe v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 179 F.3d 557 (7th Cir. 1999) (similar insurance-context holding)
- Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d 601 (3d Cir. 1998) (discussing limits on altering goods/services)
- Starbucks Corp. v. Wolfe’s Borough Coffee, Inc., 736 F.3d 198 (2d Cir. 2013) (statutory interpretation principle: give effect to statutory text and not render provisions meaningless)
- Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (noting cultural importance of motion pictures)