Summary
The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court judgment awarding $4,000 in statutory damages under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act after finding that 7-Eleven violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act by maintaining accessibility barriers. The court held that 7-Eleven’s voluntary remodeling established that barrier removal was readily achievable, and that a mobility-impaired plaintiff need not prove that the barriers affected him differently from an able-bodied person. The court also held that a person who personally encounters an ADA violation while transacting with a brick-and-mortar business has standing under the Unruh Act, regardless of litigation motivation or alleged lack of bona fide intent, and remanded for issues arising from substitution of the plaintiff’s successors.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether 7-Eleven's voluntary remodeling established that removal of the challenged architectural barriers was readily achievable under Title III of the ADA even though Gilbert did not present evidence satisfying the plaintiff's initial burden under the burden-shifting framework.
- Whether an ADA plaintiff who personally encounters accessibility barriers must prove that the barriers affected the plaintiff differently from an able-bodied person in order to establish that the barriers related to the plaintiff's particular disability.
- Whether a person who personally encounters a construction-related ADA violation while transacting with a brick-and-mortar business has standing under California's Unruh Civil Rights Act without proving a litigation-independent motivation or bona fide intent to be a customer.
- Whether the district court's award of Unruh Act statutory damages should be affirmed and whether remand was required to address substitution of Gilbert's successors in interest.
Holdings
- Under Title III of the ADA, the plaintiff initially must articulate a plausible proposal for barrier removal whose costs facially do not clearly exceed its benefits, but the defendant bears the ultimate burden of persuasion to prove that removal is not readily achievable. When the defendant voluntarily removes the challenged barriers and presents no competing evidence, the voluntary remodeling establishes that barrier removal was readily achievable, even if the plaintiff presented no evidence satisfying the initial burden.
- A plaintiff need not prove that the plaintiff's experience was different from that of an able-bodied person to establish that an accessibility barrier related to the plaintiff's particular disability. A plaintiff who personally encounters a barrier related to the plaintiff's disability is deprived of full and equal enjoyment of the facility.
- Under California law, an individual who personally encounters a construction-related ADA violation while transacting with a brick-and-mortar business has standing under the Unruh Act.
- A plaintiff's motivation in visiting a business or initiating litigation does not defeat standing or the ability to recover under the Unruh Act when the plaintiff personally encountered discrimination while transacting with the business.
- A plaintiff who personally encounters a construction-related accessibility violation and experiences difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment because of it need not additionally prove a bona fide intent to use the defendant's services under California Civil Code § 55.56(c).
Key quotations
“Because 7-Eleven’s voluntary remodeling demonstrates that barrier removal was readily achievable, nothing further was required of Gilbert.” (9)
“That was all that Gilbert needed to establish standing under the Unruh Act.” (11-12)
“Thus, if the plaintiff personally encountered the construction-related accessibility violation, they need to show they were affected by the violation, but they do not need to show they intended to use the defendant’s services on a particular occasion.” (20-21)
“By requiring a plaintiff who personally encountered a construction-related accessibility violation to show they experienced some difficulty, discomfort, or embarrassment as a result, § 55.56(c) adequately ensures the plaintiff was personally injured by the violation and thus has a concrete interest in pursuing their claim.” (22-23)
Factual background
Darren Gilbert, who had lost his lower left leg and two toes on his right foot, used a prosthetic leg and wheelchair for mobility. In August 2021, he visited a 7-Eleven store in a wheelchair-accessible van, encountered an unavailable van-accessible parking space, and personally experienced an excessively sloped curb ramp and other route-of-travel barriers while entering the store. He purchased items from the store, after which 7-Eleven remodeled the parking lot and entryway to provide an ADA-compliant parking stall, access aisle, curb ramp, and entry walkway.
Procedural history
Darren Gilbert sued 7-Eleven and related defendants under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, California's Unruh Civil Rights Act, and California's Health and Safety Code after encountering accessibility barriers at a 7-Eleven store. Following a two-day bench trial, the district court found an ADA violation, held the ADA injunctive-relief claim moot because 7-Eleven had remodeled the premises, and awarded $4,000 in Unruh Act statutory damages. The district court ruled for 7-Eleven on the Health and Safety Code claim, and defendants timely appealed. After Gilbert's death, his successors were substituted on appeal.
Remand instructions
Remand to the district court to address any issues raised by the substitution of Gilbert's successors in interest during the pendency of the appeal. 7-Eleven shall pay costs on appeal.