By Ashley Jenkins and Kristina Launey
Seyfarth Synopsis: A federal court recently held that a football stadium must make reasonable modifications to its seating policy to allow a wheelchair user with a ticket for a non-wheelchair accessible seat access to view the game in person.
The football season is well underway, and a recent decision from a federal California court serves as a reminder that stadiums must offer some form of reasonable modification for wheelchair users who do not have a ticket for an accessible wheelchair space at a game. The Complaint alleged the following: One of the plaintiffs — a 78-year old grandfather with polio who uses a wheelchair — received a ticket to see a game with his family. However, none of the family’s tickets were for wheelchair accessible seats (i.e., open spaces for a wheelchair) and could only be reached by stairs. As there were a number of unoccupied wheelchair seats nearby, the grandfather took one of those seats. Stadium security officers refused to let the grandfather remain in that seat, claiming it was against policy, and told the plaintiff he could watch the game on the TV in the concourse. When the family objected, the security officers threatened to eject the whole family if they did not stop complaining. The family had to carry the grandfather to a non-accessible seat which embarrassed him and prevented him from using the restroom during the game. Meanwhile, the wheelchair space remained empty for the entire game.
The grandfather and his son brought suit, alleging that the stadium owner had discriminated against them in violation of the ADA and California’s Unruh and Disabled Persons Acts. Plaintiffs argued that the stadium owner had failed to make a reasonable modification to its normal seating policy to allow the grandfather to watch the game in person in an accessible location and retaliated against them when they complained by threatening to eject them from the game.
The stadium owner moved to dismiss the case, arguing, among other things, that the ADA regulations have detailed ticketing requirements and none of them require stadiums to allow persons who do not have a ticket for a wheelchair seat to occupy such a seat. The Court disagreed, holding that: “Whether or not defendants were required to permit the [plaintiffs] to use the empty wheelchair seats [they] had identified, the ADA required them to offer [the plaintiff] some reasonable accommodation to account for his wheelchair-bound status.” In short, the Court found that the ADA required that the stadium make some reasonable modification beyond what was offered – watching the game in the concourse on a TV. The Court also held that the Complaint stated a claim for retaliation based on the alleged threatened ejection from the game.
It is important to keep in mind that this was just a decision on a motion to dismiss in which the Court had to assume that all the facts alleged by the Plaintiffs are true. What actually transpired and the legal decisions that flow from those facts, may be much different after discovery and an adjudication on the merits. Nonetheless, the decision provides some important reminders. First, adhering to specific regulatory mandates, such as the ADA’s ticketing rules, is not always sufficient. When there is a request, public accommodations must also make reasonable modifications to normal policies, practices and procedures, unless doing so would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods and services normally provided. The DOJ has made this clear in other cases. Second, responding to requests for reasonable modifications with empathy and a willingness to solve the problem at hand can often be a winning strategy for lawsuit avoidance.
