Fortyune v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc. - 364 F.3d 1075 (9th Cir. 2004)

Rule:

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and establishes a "general rule" 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 by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation. 42 U.S.C.S. § 12182(a).

Facts:

The patron, a quadriplegic who required both a wheelchair and an aide to attend movie theaters, and his wife were prevented from viewing a movie when a man and his son refused to vacate the wheelchair companion seats that they occupied. The theater manager informed the patron that pursuant to written policy, he could not require the man and his son to change seats. Spurned and publicly humiliated, the patron and his wife left the theater. Consequently, the patron sued defendant movie theater company, alleging discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The district court granted the patron summary judgment and injunctive relief, requiring the company to make companion seats available, even if a non-companion refused to move. The company appealed. 

Issue:

Did the patron establish a viable claim of discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The appellate court determined that the patron had standing because he demonstrated a real and immediate threat that the injury would be repeated due to the written policy. The court further held that the patron established a claim under the ADA because the company's policy had a discriminatory effect and the company failed to made a reasonable modification in the policy necessary to accommodate the patron's disability. The patron's requested modification did not impose undue financial or administrative burdens. Finally, the injunction did not result in preferential treatment to the disabled and it satisfied Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(d)'s specificity requirements.