Question

The wheelchair confined plaintiff alleged that the restaurant had discriminated against him and others by failing to remove architectural barriers in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Listing seventeen violations related to accessibility, his complaint stated that he was denied full and safe access to the hamburger shop. He said that he “would like to return and enjoy the goods and/or services” at the restaurant “on a spontaneous but full and equal basis,” but was unable to do so because of the structural barriers.

1. Basis of action of plaintiff against the hotel.

a. Discuss the specific legal basis for seeking damages.

b. Why would the plaintiff be entitled to recover damages?

2. How might the hotel defend its position or actions?

a. Discuss the legal basis of a possible defense.

b. What factors not discussed in the summary of the incident might provide a valid defense?

3. What steps might management have taken that may have prevented a legal issue?

Answer 1

a. The plaintiff might seek damages based on the  Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) which requires every public place to make suitable arrangements to be fully accessible to all,including people with disabilities. unless it is structurally impratcticable to do so. The rule of being " fully acessible" does not allpy on those establishments which came into being before January 1993, but they need to remove all barriers that may hinder them to provide accessibility to the people with disability to the greatest feasibility.

b. The plaintiff would be able to claim damages if the restaurant failed to remove the barriers in compliance with act ( if it was commissioned before the date mentioned in the part a), provided it was feasible to do so,  or if it constructed the structure in wrong way which made the entry of disabled difficult or impossible, ( if the property was commissioned after the said date).

2.a. The Hotel's best defense can be a proof which indicates that the structural barriers were the essential foundations of the property and it was impossible to alter them in the interests of safety and well being of guests and employees.

b. The points which might prove to be vital would be the date of construction of the establishment and the structural feasibility of the removal of barriers.

3. The hotel owners should have designed the property in compliance with the mandates of the  Americans with Disabilities Act. They should have got it corrected to the greatest feasibility limits to provide safe and full access to the disabled even if it was constructed before the said date to avoid legal issues. If it was commissioned  after the said date, it should have known the provisions of law and made up for the mistakes.