Schlesinger v. Belle of Orleans L L C
6:14-cv-02593
W.D. La.Aug 19, 2015Background
- This is a Western District of Louisiana ADA Title III action by Schlesinger against Belle of Orleans, L.L.C. d/b/a Amelia Belle Casino.
- Schlesinger, a wheelchair user with spina bifida, frequented the Amelia Belle riverboat casino located in Amelia, Louisiana.
- Plaintiff alleges numerous architectural barriers (parking, ramp, restrooms, counters, seating, slopes) hinder access to goods and services at Amelia Belle.
- Amelia Belle moved for summary judgment arguing the riverboat is a passenger vessel and the DOJ ADA regulations, particularly Subpart D, do not apply; Subparts A-C are disputed in application.
- The court concluded Subpart C barrier-removal standards apply, Subpart D does not apply to vessels, and rejected Concorde Gaming as persuasive authority; Schlesinger may pursue Subpart C claims.
- The court recommended granting in part and denying in part both parties’ motions and allowing Schlesinger to proceed on Subpart C claims, with ready-achievability issues to be resolved at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of Subpart C to vessels | Schlesinger relies on Subpart C for barrier removal in existing facilities aboard vessels. | Amelia Belle argues Subpart C does not apply to cruise vessels; only Subpart D may apply in future. | Subpart C applies; Subpart D not required for vessels. |
| Whether Subpart D exclusions bar claims | DOJ regulations under Subpart D may be inapplicable but other ADA provisions under Subparts A-C still govern. | Because Subpart D does not apply to vessels, the claims fail. | Subpart D exclusion does not bar claims under Subpart C. |
| Readily achievable barrier removal standard | Existing barriers should be removed if readily achievable under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A). | Removal must meet the strict standards and feasibility considering multiple factors. | Schlesinger may pursue Subpart C claims; readiness of removal to be determined. |
| Concorde Gaming persuasive authority | Concorde Gaming rationale should be rejected as unpersuasive authority on access discrimination. | Concorde Gaming supports that assistance by staff may negate liability. | Court rejected Concorde Gaming as persuasive authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (U.S. 2001) (ADA public accommodations interpretation and scope)
- Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U.S. 119 (U.S. 2005) (cruise ships fall within public accommodations)
- Stevens v. Premier Cruises, Inc., 215 F.3d 1237 (11th Cir. 2000) (public accommodation aboard cruise ship treated as public accommodation)