968 F.3d 866
8th Cir.2020Background
- Plaintiff Zach Hillesheim, a wheelchair user, visited O.J.’s Cafe in June 2017 and sued under Title III of the ADA alleging noncompliant slopes in an accessible parking space and its access aisle.
- ADA Accessibility Guidelines permit slopes no steeper than 1:48 (≈1.19°) and the industry tolerance here allowed up to ≈1.48°.
- After suit was filed, the restaurant reconfigured the space; inspector Peter Hansmeier measured 49 slope points and found 7 points in the space and 8 in the aisle exceeding 1.48°.
- Restaurant expert Larry Fleming inspected the site and testified that the remaining slopes in excess of guideline limits were outside the path of travel or transfer areas for a wheelchair user.
- The district court held a bench trial, found Fleming’s testimony persuasive, concluded the excess slopes did not create a risk of ongoing or future harm to Hillesheim, and dismissed the claims as moot for lack of Article III standing.
- The Eighth Circuit affirmed, reasoning that noncompliant features that do not affect the plaintiff’s access cannot sustain a live ADA controversy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remaining noncompliant slopes in the accessible parking space and access aisle create a live case or controversy (standing/mootness). | Excess slopes (measured at multiple points >1.48°) create a risk of future injury and thus preserve Article III standing. | The restaurant’s post‑remediation configuration removed barriers in the path of travel; remaining noncompliant slopes lie outside transfer/path areas and do not affect plaintiff’s access. | Affirmed: no live controversy. Court found excess slopes were outside Hillesheim’s path of travel, so no ongoing injury and case is moot. |
Key Cases Cited
- Already, LLC v. Nike, Inc., 568 U.S. 85 (Article III requires a live case or controversy throughout litigation)
- Davis v. Morris-Walker, Ltd., 922 F.3d 868 (8th Cir. 2019) (permanent corrective improvements can moot ADA claims if they provide requested relief)
- Hillesheim v. Holiday Stationstores, Inc., 900 F.3d 1007 (8th Cir. 2018) (bare ADA violations without actual or threatened injury insufficient for standing)
- Steger v. Franco, Inc., 228 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2000) (plaintiff cannot obtain relief for violations that do not affect his access)