897 F.3d 953
8th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim, a wheelchair user, sued Myron’s Cards and Gifts under the ADA and Minnesota Human Rights Act, alleging store aisles were obstructed by displays and merchandise so that clear width was under 36 inches.
- The original complaint was dismissed; Hillesheim sought leave to amend adding that he visited the store about 15 times over four years and encountered obstructions on those visits, and that violations were ongoing.
- Myron’s moved to dismiss and argued the obstructions were temporary/removable (e.g., restocking) and thus not actionable under the ADA’s exceptions for isolated or temporary interruptions.
- The district court denied leave to amend as futile, holding temporary objects blocking aisles do not violate the ADA.
- The Eighth Circuit reversed, holding the district court’s categorical statement was too broad and that obstructions are actionable unless they are isolated/temporary and promptly removed; the case was remanded for further proceedings (including consideration of mootness evidence).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether amendment was futile under Rule 12(b)(6) | Hillesheim alleged repeated encounters and ongoing barriers; amendment states a plausible ADA claim | Myron’s: alleged obstructions were temporary/removable so not a violation | Reversed: amendment not futile; allegations plausibly state an ADA claim |
| Whether temporary/removable obstructions are per se nonactionable | Temporary obstructions can violate ADA if not isolated/promptly removed | Temporary obstructions (e.g., restocking) fall within §36.211(b) safe harbor | Court: temporary/isolated interruptions excused, but district court erred in broadly holding all temporary objects nonviolative; facts must show prompt removal/isolation |
| Proper standard for pleading ADA accessibility claims | Allegations plus photos can raise plausible claim of inaccessible route | Opposes sufficiency, says pleadings admit temporary placement | Court: accept factual allegations and attached photos; construe in plaintiff’s favor at motion-to-dismiss stage |
| Mootness (remand issue) | Not decided at appellate level | Myron’s raised affidavit arguing mootness | Left to district court to address factually on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Anthony, Inc., 886 F.3d 674 (8th Cir.) (discusses ADAAG and structural accessibility requirements)
- Brown v. Medtronic, Inc., 628 F.3d 451 (8th Cir.) (documents attached to complaint may be considered on a motion to dismiss)
- Foley v. City of Lafayette, Ind., 359 F.3d 925 (7th Cir.) (occasional/intermittent service failures not ADA violations where promptly repaired)
- Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc., 779 F.3d 1001 (9th Cir.) (affirming injunction where aisles were inaccessible due to large items/displays and no evidence of maintenance-type interruption)
- Silva v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 762 F.3d 711 (8th Cir.) (futility standard for amended pleadings)
- Geier v. Missouri Ethics Comm’n, 715 F.3d 674 (8th Cir.) (denial of leave to amend reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S.) (pleading must state a plausible claim to survive dismissal)