Title Iii Ada Claims

Title III ADA Claims

How to Prove A Title III ADA Claim

Title III of the ADA provides that “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.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)). A Plaintiff in a Title III ADA claim must prove 3 elements in order to prevail: (1) that Plaintiff is disabled within the meaning of the ADA; (2) that the Defendant’s owns, leases, or operates a place of public accommodation; and (3) that Plaintiff was denied public accommodation by the Defendant due to his or her disability. (Arizona ex re. Goddard v. Harkins Amusement Enters, Inc., 603 F.3d 666, 670 (9th Cir.2012); see also Dunlap v. Ass’n of Bay Area Gov’ts, 996 F.Supp. 962, 965 (N.D. Cal. 1998); see also, Shultz v. Hemet Youth Pony League, 943 F.Supp. 1222, 1225 (C.D. Cal. 1996). The third element – whether Plaintiff was denied access on the basis of disability – is met if there was a violation of applicable accessibility standards. (Chapman v. Pier I Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2011); Donald v. Cafe Royale, 218 Cal.App.3d 168, 183).

As to the first element, the ADA defines a disability as a “physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such an individual.” (42 U.S.C. § 12101(2)). The Justice Department defines an “impairment” as a condition affecting one or more of the bodies’ systems, including the musculoskeletal and neurological systems, and defines “major life activities” to include “functions such as caring for one’s self, performing manual tasks, walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, learning, and working.” (28 C.F.R. 36.104).

As to the second element, the ADA identifies 12 categories of facilities that are considered places of public accommodation for purposes of a Title III action. (42 U.S.C. § 12181). Generally every public place that is open to the general public is included, such as “a bakery, grocery store, clothing store, hardware store, shopping center, or other sales or rental establishment.” (42 U.S.C. § 12181(7)(E).

As to the third element, “Existing facilities”- places of public accommodation built prior to January 26, 1993- are required to remove architectural barriers that deny access to persons with disabilities, “where such removal is readily achievable.” (42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv)). Whether an architectural element at a facility denies full and equal access to persons with disabilities is determined based on the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (“ADAAG”). (Chapman v. Pier I Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945 (9th Cir.2011). Common examples of “readily achievable” barrier removal required by the ADA include: installing handicapped parking spaces; installing curb cuts in sidewalks; lowering dispensers in restrooms; installing grab bars in toilet stalls; installing ramps; rearranging tables, chairs, vending machines, display racks, and other furniture; repositioning telephones; adding raised markings on elevator control buttons; installing flashing alarm lights; widening doors; and installing accessible door hardware.

The California ADA attorneys at Custodio & Dubey LLP have proven the elements of Title III ADA claims on behalf of their clients in hundreds of cases. They are aggressive and innovative litigators dedicated to getting the best result for their clients. Call them toll free at (888) 200-9431 for a free consultation of your case, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week. You can also fill out our online consultation form and an attorney will contact you as soon as possible.

Enforcement of Title III of the ADA

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) provides that “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”. (42 U.S.C. § 12182(a)). There are two primary ways to enforce Title III of the ADA. First, private suits may be brought by individuals who are subjected to discrimination or who have reasonable grounds for believing that they are about to be subjected to discrimination. In a private action, the relief that may be granted is preventive and includes a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order or “other order,” including an order to alter the facilities to make such facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA. In such private suits, although the Justice Department is authorized to intervene, it rarely does so due to the sheer volume of such lawsuits.

Second, ADA Title III authorizes suits by the Justice Department whenever it has reasonable cause—ranging from anonymous complaints to verifiable facts—to believe that there is a pattern or practice of discrimination that raises an issue of general public importance. Obviously the Justice Department is limited by the number of attorneys and other resources at its disposal when deciding what Title III claims to pursue.

In a suit brought by the Justice Department, the court may grant equitable relief, including temporary, preliminary or permanent injunctive relief requiring that a facility be made readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. In addition, in Justice Department-initiated suits, the court may award monetary damages to aggrieved persons and assess a civil penalty payable to the U.S. Treasury—”to vindicate the public interest”—in an amount not exceeding $50,000 for a first violation or $100,000 for any subsequent violation.

In addition, the prevailing party (other than the United States) in any action or administrative proceeding under ADA Title III, a successful Plaintiff may recover reasonable attorney fees and litigation expenses in addition to any injunctive relief granted.

The Constitutionality of Title III ADA enforcement is not an issue as a U.S. District Court in California dismissed a constitutional challenge to ADA Title III, holding that Congress was empowered to enact ADA Title III pursuant to the Commerce Clause and that the terms of ADA Title III were neither unconstitutionally vague nor an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority by Congress to the Executive Branch.

The Title III attorneys at Custodio & Dubey LLP have handled hundreds of disability access cases. They are aggressive and innovative litigators dedicated to getting the best result for their clients.

If you are disabled and have encountered a non-accessible public accommodation, please call them toll free at (213) 632-3104 for a free consultation of your case, 24 hours a day, and 7 days a week. You can also fill out our online consultation form and an attorney will contact you as soon as possible.

TRUST THE RESULTS

Over $50 Million in Successful Verdicts & Settlements

  • Car Accident $625,000
  • Personal Injury $580,000
  • Unruh Act Class Action $450,000
  • Personal Injury $430,000
  • Environmental Litigation $400,000
  • Motor Vehicle Accident Settlement $163,000
  • Motor Vehicle Accident $122,000
  • Motor Vehicle Accident $107,000

client testimonials

Real Stories From Real People

    Very satisfied with Custodios and Dubey for handling my case. My attorney Miguel Custodio and paralegal Rosa were very helpful when it came to answering any questions or concerns I had about my case and made sure I was completely A-okay with my settlement

    - Fortino Gonzalez

    C&D was there to answer any and all of my questions. They handled everything from the moment I was assigned until recently to which the case was closed...I would definitely recommend to anyone and everyone.

    - Kevin M.

    I wasn't sure who to call when I got into a car accident so I found Custodio & Dubey LLP on Google. They listened to my situation and helped me out.

    - Rafael Delgado Jr.

    Miguel Custodio, my attorney called me personally to thank me for choosing them after working extremely hard to get me a settlement that was better than I ever expected. If you are hurt and need help, don’t hesitate to reach out to them now!

    - John Walker

    The amount of time they put into my case really made me feel like they were truly fighting for me. As a result, we won at trial. Miguel and Vineet are great attorneys!

    - Reynold D.

Schedule a Free Case Evaluation

Don't Wait. Contact Us Now.
  • Please enter your first name.
  • Please enter your last name.
  • Please enter your phone number.
    This isn't a valid phone number.
  • Please enter your email address.
    This isn't a valid email address.
  • Please make a selection.
  • Please enter a message.