Rush v. Hyun Suk Kim
908 F. Supp. 2d 1117
C.D. Cal.2012Background
- Rush, a paraplegic, sues Forever 21 and others under the ADA and California statutes for alleged barriers in a Forever 21 store in Anaheim.
- The dressing room bench at issue is at least 60 inches long and spans the entire wall, leaving no space for diagonal transfers.
- Rush contends the bench length prevents a diagonal transfer and thus violates ADA accessibility requirements.
- Rush also contends the ISA at the store entrance is located and heighted improperly, reducing accessibility.
- Forever 21 argues the bench complies with the 1991 ADAAG (24 by 48 inches) and that longer benches can be “equivalent facilitation.”
- The court grants in part and denies in part Forever 21’s motion for summary judgment and discusses applicable ADAAG rules and the 2010 ADAAG safe harbor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bench length and equivalent facilitation | Longer bench harms diagonal transfers; 48-inch requirement is exact. | Longer bench provides equivalent facilitation under 1991 ADAAG. | Genuine issue of material fact as to equivalent facilitation. |
| ISA posting requirements | Sign must meet specific placement/height rules under 1991 ADAAG and CBC. | Entrances with automatic doors are accessible; sign requirements do not apply. | No violation; ISA complied with applicable equations; state-law issue not shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007) (elements of Title III claim and disability discrimination framework)
- Kohler v. Flava Enterprises, Inc., 826 F. Supp. 2d 1221 (S.D. Cal. 2011) (equivalent facilitation rejected for diagonal transfers in dressing rooms)
- Martinez v. Columbia Sportswear USA Corp., 859 F. Supp. 2d 1174 (E.D. Cal. 2012) (followed Kohler on dressing room bench analysis)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2011) (ADAAG guidance and interpretation by Ninth Circuit)