|
 | |
|
Under ADA, Movie Theaters Must Provide a Variety of Seating Locations for Wheelchair Patrons
|
| |
|
June 6, 2005
|
| |
|
|
|
Thelen LLP
An association of disabled veterans and individual wheelchair users brought suit against two movie theater companies alleging that the location of wheelchair seats in their theaters violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 USC §12182.
The movie patrons had attended movie theaters with "stadium seating," a type of seating in which patrons sit on stadium-style risers. The theaters implemented the seating in order to create better views for moviegoers. In implementing the stadium seating, the theaters concentrated wheelchair seating into a limited area at the front rows of theaters where wheelchairs could easily enter and exit. Because the wheelchair seating was close to the screen, wheelchair patrons had to view movies with their heads at viewing angles that many found to be uncomfortable. Experts said the difference in line of sight between the majority of the non-wheelchair seats and that of the wheelchair seats was a "tremendous disparity." This was exacerbated because wheelchair-bound patrons cannot "slump in their seats and recline their bodies in order to adjust for the unfavorable viewing area" in the way that non-wheelchair patrons could when using front-row seats.
The movie patrons based their claim on the ADA, which mandates: "No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation...." In enacting ADA, Congress directed the Department of Justice ("DOJ") to issue regulations interpreting the ADA. DOJ did so by adopting guidelines provided by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or Access Board, which was charged with establishing minimum guidelines for compliance with the ADA. DOJ adopted a guideline providing: "Wheelchair areas shall be an integral part of any fixed seating plan and shall be provided so as to provide people with physical disabilities a choice of admission prices and lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public."
The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendant movie theaters. In doing so, it examined what the regulatory term "comparable lines of sight" meant. DOJ, in an amicus brief in an earlier case, had asserted that "comparable lines of sight" required evaluating a variety of factors, including viewing angle. The trial court disagreed, concluding that "lines of comparable sight" did not require wheelchair accessible seating with a selection of comparable viewing angles but only that wheelchair users needed to have "unobstructed views." The trial court primarily based its conclusion on the fact that the Access Board regulation was adopted four years before stadium seating became common in theaters. The plaintiff moviegoers appealed.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment against plaintiffs. Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America, 339 F.3d 1126 (9th Cir. 2003), cert. den., 124 S.Ct. 2903. By granting summary judgment, it held, the trial court had concluded that DOJ's interpretation of "comparable lines of sight" was unreasonable. The 9th Circuit disagreed. It looked to the common definition of "line of sight," noting that Webster's Dictionary defined it as "a line from an observer's eye to a distant point... toward which he is looking." It reasoned, "In the theaters at issue in this case, wheelchair-bound movie theater patrons must sit in seats that are objectively uncomfortable, requiring them to crane their necks and twist their bodies in order to see the screen, while non-disabled patrons have a wide range of comfortable viewing locations from which to choose. We find it simply inconceivable that this arrangement could constitute 'full and equal enjoyment' of movie theater services by disabled patrons."
One judge on the three judge panel dissented, arguing that requiring theaters to make allowances for differences in lines of sight already had been addressed in larger theaters, was not necessary in smaller theaters, and amounted to seating choices based on personal and subjective preferences.
If you would like to receive legal reports and updates more quickly, by e-mail, click here and fill out the mailing list form.
For more information about the issues covered in this report, please contact Paul Berning in our San Francisco office at 415-369-7229 or at pwberning@thelen.com or contact your Thelen attorney. For more information about Thelen's Construction and Government Contracts Department, click here.
©2005 Thelen LLP
|
| | |
