SAMUEL LOVE v. MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation
No. 21-15458
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
July 22, 2022
D.C. No. 3:20-cv-07137-TSH. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District
Before: M. Margaret McKeown and William A. Fletcher, Circuit Judges, and Kathryn H. Vratil,* District Judge.
Opinion by Judge McKeown
* The Honorable Kathryn H. Vratil, United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.
SUMMARY**
Americans with Disabilities Act
The panel affirmed the district court‘s dismissal, for failure to state a claim, of an action under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, alleging that a hotel‘s reservation website failed to comply with the “Reservations Rule,”
Addressing ”Auer deference” to an agency‘s construction of its own regulation, the panel concluded that the Reservations Rule was ambiguous in its directive that hotels “[i]dentify and describe accessible features” in “enough detail to reasonably permit individuals with disabilities to assess independently” whether the hotel‘s offerings suit their needs. To resolve that ambiguity, the panel deferred to the Department of Justice‘s sound and reasonable interpretation of that rule (the “DOJ Guidance“), published in an appendix to the Code of Federal Regulations. The panel concluded that the defendant‘s website satisfied the DOJ Guidance and thus the Reservations Rule, which contains different requirements depending on the age of a building. The panel concluded that this distinction did not matter here because defendant‘s website passed muster under either set of requirements.
** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.
COUNSEL
Dennis Price (argued) and Russell Handy, Center for Disability Access, San Diego, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Philip H. Stillman (argued), Stillman & Associates, Miami Beach, Florida, for Defendant-Appellee.
Minh N. Vu (argued), Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Washington, D.C.; Michael E. Steinberg, Boston, Massachusetts; for Amicus Curiae American Hotel & Lodging Association.
OPINION
McKEOWN, Circuit Judge:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA“) bars discrimination in public life against people with disabilities. See
I. BACKGROUND
Samuel Love has paraplegia and uses a wheelchair for mobility. His condition makes it difficult or impossible for Love to stand, walk, reach objects above his shoulders, transfer from his wheelchair to other equipment, and maneuver around fixed objects. Preparing to travel to San Francisco in February 2021, Love tried to book a room at the downtown Marriott Marquis using the hotel‘s online reservation website. According to Love, the website lacked sufficient information about the hotel‘s accessibility features, which prompted him to sue Marriott Hotel Services Inc. (“Marriott“) under the ADA. Love takes issue with the website‘s description of “Accessible Hotel Features,” and its list of accessible features in some guestrooms. In addition to that list, the website provided information for different types of rooms, including the size and number of beds, the type of accessible bathing facility, and the accessible communications features available in the room. The website listed a phone number for prospective guests to call with inquiries about “the physical features of [the hotel‘s] accessible rooms, common areas, or special services relating to a specific disability.”
Love contends that this information was insufficient to permit him to assess whether a given hotel room would meet his accessibility needs. Because Love uses a wheelchair, he alleges he needed to know whether there was at least 30 inches of maneuvering space beside the bed, whether the sink and mirror had enough clearance to be used from a wheelchair, whether there were grab bars mounted near the toilet and shower, whether the shower had a seat and detachable hand-held wand, and whether the heights of the toilet and bathing facilities were appropriate.
Love claims that Marriott‘s failure to post this information on the reservation website violated the ADA and its implementing regulations. The district court granted Marriott‘s motion to dismiss under
II. ANALYSIS
In our de novo review of the district court‘s dismissal under
Title III of the ADA requires public accommodations, including hotels, to afford disabled individuals “the opportunity ... to participate in or benefit from the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of an entity.”
The ADA delegates rulemaking authority to DOJ, which must “issue regulations ... to carry out the provisions of” Title III relating to hotel accommodations.
From this extended process of notice-and-comment rulemaking emerged the final Reservations Rule. Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities Final Rule, 75 Fed. Reg. 56236, 56251-52 (Sept. 15, 2010) (codified at
Concurrent with the final Reservations Rule, DOJ published an appendix with interpretive guidance. See
The parties dispute how much deference we should afford the DOJ‘s interpretation of the Reservations Rule in the DOJ Guidance. Under the familiar principle of ”Auer deference,” we defer to an agency‘s construction of its own regulation. Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2412 (2019) (explaining the “presumption that Congress would generally want the agency to play the primary role in resolving regulatory ambiguities.“). But Auer deference is warranted “only if a regulation is genuinely ambiguous,” and only after we make “an independent inquiry into whether the character and context of the agency interpretation entitles it to controlling weight.” Id. at 2414, 2416.
Applying the “‘traditional tools’ of construction,” considering the regulation‘s “text, structure, history, and purpose,” we conclude that the Reservations Rule is genuinely ambiguous. Id. at 2415 (first quoting Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n.9 (1984)). The Rule requires hotel reservation websites to “[i]dentify and describe accessible features ... in enough detail to reasonably permit” customers “to assess independently whether a given hotel or guest room meets his or her accessibility needs.”
1. The Rule‘s Structure, History and Purpose
The Rule‘s structure and its placement within Part 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations’ chapter dedicated to the requirements for public accommodations’ nondiscrimination of people with disabilities does not resolve the text‘s ambiguity, nor do its history and purpose. During the regulatory process, commenters asked DOJ “to focus on previously unregulated areas, such as ... reservations for hotel rooms.” 75 Fed. Reg. 56236, 56239. In 2008, commenters observed that “now, more than seventeen years after enactment of the ADA, as facilities are becoming physically accessible to individuals with disabilities, the Department needs to focus on second generation issues that ensure that individuals with disabilities can actually gain access to and use the accessible elements,” such as reservations for hotel rooms. Id. While the history makes clear that the Rule‘s purpose was to address concerns that it was often “difficult or impossible to obtain information about accessible rooms and hotel features” from a reservation system, it does not clarify what level of detail is sufficient or which accessibility features must be described. 75 Fed. Reg. 56236, 56273.
2. Additional Considerations
Having concluded that the Rule‘s text, structure, history, and purpose each point to the Reservation Rule‘s ambiguity, we ask whether the “character and context of the agency interpretation” suggest such deference is appropriate. Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2416. The DOJ Guidance was promulgated pursuant to DOJ‘s “substantive expertise” in ADA compliance, making DOJ an “authority” on the Rule‘s meaning. Kisor, 139 S. Ct. at 2417; cf. Miller v. California Speedway Corp., 536 F.3d 1020, 1025-26 (9th Cir. 2008) (describing DOJ‘s technical expertise on related ADA provision); see also Fortyune v. City of Lomita, 766 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2014) (concluding the court was “bound to defer” to DOJ‘s interpretation of ADA implementing regulations). The Guidance was published in the Federal Register alongside the Rule
C. THE RESERVATIONS WEBSITE COMPLIES WITH THE DOJ GUIDANCE
Although the Rule contains different requirements depending on the age of a building,1 that distinction does not matter here, because the Marriott‘s website passes muster under either set of requirements.
Newer hotels built in compliance with ADA Standards should “specify that the hotel is accessible” and provide key information about accessible rooms per the DOJ Guidance.
Marriott‘s website complies with this guidance. First, it “specif[ies] that the hotel is accessible,” id., and lists accessible features available in certain guest rooms, including 32-inch wide doorways; accessible routes from the public entrance to accessible guest rooms; alarm clock telephone ringers; bathroom and bathtub grab bars; bathtub seats; lowered deadbolt locks; door night guards, electrical outlets, and viewports; doors with lever handles; flashing
door knockers; hearing accessible rooms and/or kits; roll-in showers; adjustable shower wands; text telephones; closed-captioning television service; wheelchair-height toilet seats; transfer showers; and accessible vanities. The website also describes the accessible guest rooms themselves, displaying information about (1) “the general type of room“; (2) “the size and number of beds“; (3) “the type of accessible bathing facility“; and (4) “communications features available in the room” in accordance with the DOJ Guidance. Id. For example, the page describing the Hotel‘s “Guest room, 2 Queen, Low floor” room type stated that such rooms offered “2 Queen” beds, “roll in showers” and hearing-accessible communications features including “visual alarms and visual notification devices for door and phone.”
Love correctly observes that certain features may be described as “accessible” but differ in key ways. The DOJ Guidance provides the example of an “accessible” bathroom, which could contain either a roll-in shower or a bathtub. Id. (“[H]otel rooms that are in full compliance with current standards may differ“). In such cases, hotels must explain the accessible features so that individuals with disabilities can evaluate whether those features meet their needs. Id. Marriott also complied with this requirement. For example, Marriott‘s website stated that one accessible guestroom offered a “roll-in shower” (as opposed to a transfer shower or tub) in
“Older hotels” not built in accordance with ADA Standards “should include, at a minimum, information about accessible entrances to the hotel, the path of travel to guest check-in and other essential services, and the accessible route to the accessible room or rooms.” Id. app. A. Marriott‘s website provides that information and more: The “Hotel Details” page includes an “Accessibility” section describing the “Accessible Areas with Accessible Routes from Public Entrance.” Those areas include the business center, the fitness center, the public entrance alternative, the registration desk pathway, the registration desk, and the restaurant lounges. The page also describes “Accessible Hotel Features” including parking areas and elevators.
These older hotels should also indicate when “important features ... do not comply with the [ADA] Standards” and “provide a way for guests to contact the appropriate hotel employee for additional information.” Id. Love has neither alleged that the Hotel fails to comply with the ADA Standards, nor has he indicated that any information is missing from the website regarding noncompliant features. In any event, Marriott‘s website provides a phone number for prospective guests to call with inquiries about “the physical features of [Marriott‘s] accessible rooms, common areas, or special services relating to a specific disability.” Id. (requiring hotels to make “trained staff” available to provide additional accessibility information).
To sum up, Marriott‘s website comports with DOJ‘s Guidance.
III. CONCLUSION
Because we afford the DOJ Guidance controlling weight in interpreting the Reservations Rule, and because Marriott has complied with that Guidance, Love cannot prevail on his ADA claim. We affirm the district court‘s dismissal of the complaint.