Lara v. Cinemark USA, LIGHTBOURNE-HARBEC

• Decision Date: 06 April 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-50204,P,LIGHTBOURNE-HARBEC,99-50204
• Citation: 207 F.3d 783
• Parties: (5th Cir. 2000) JOSE G. LARA, E.J. LOZANO, ALFREDO JUAREZ, G. TIM HERVEY, EARL L. HARBECK, VOLAR CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, LUIS ENRIQUE CHEW, DESERT ADAPT, MYRA MURILLO, MARGARITAlaintiffs-Appellees, v. CINEMARK USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit

Page 783

207 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2000)

JOSE G. LARA, E.J. LOZANO, ALFREDO JUAREZ, G. TIM HERVEY, EARL L. HARBECK, VOLAR CENTER FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING, LUIS ENRIQUE CHEW, DESERT ADAPT, MYRA MURILLO, MARGARITA LIGHTBOURNE-HARBECK, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CINEMARK USA, INC., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 99-50204

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

April 6, 2000

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Western District of Texas

Before POLITZ, GARWOOD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

W. EUGENE DAVIS, Circuit Judge:

Defendant-Appellant Cinemark USA, Inc. challenges the district court's determinations that the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") requires "stadium-style" movie theaters to offer wheelchair-bound patrons lines of sight comparable to those enjoyed by the general public and that Cinemark's theaters failed to provide such sight lines. ¹ For the reasons that follow, we hold that although the ADA does impose such a requirement, the district court erred in concluding that Cinemark failed to meet its obligations under the Act. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

I.

Cinemark owns and operates "Tinseltown," a twenty-screen theater complex located in El Paso, Texas. All twenty of the individual theaters in the complex provide "stadium-style" seating. Stadium-style theaters roughly emulate the seating configuration of a typical sports stadium, providing stepped-seating that rises at a slope of well over five percent. This elevated seating configuration eliminates the line-of-sight problems that typically occur, for example, when a tall individual sits in front of a shorter individual.

Tinseltown provides wheel-chair accessible seating in its theaters, but not as a part of the stadium-seating configuration. Because stadium seating requires a steep grade, which is virtually inaccessible to wheelchairs, Tinseltown placed its wheelchair seating on a flat portion of each theater, located near the front of the seating area. The wheelchair seating placements are surrounded on all sides by general public seating, which, according to Tinseltown, is used even when other seating is available.

In constructing the Tinseltown theaters, Cinemark submitted the architectural plans to the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation ("TDLR") and the City of El Paso. The city inspectors reviewed the design plans, including wheelchair placements, and granted the theater conditional approval to go ahead with the plans. The city submitted this conditional approval to the TDLR. Cinemark completed construction of the theater in September 1997, and the city and state inspected the completed facilities. The city and state inspectors approved the theaters' seating configurations, including the wheelchair placements.

Shortly after Tinseltown opened, a group of disabled individuals and two advocacy groups ("Plaintiffs") brought suit, alleging that eighteen of Tinseltown's twenty theaters violated the ADA. Plaintiffs alleged that in these theaters, Cinemark located the wheelchair accessible areas too near the screen and too far below screen-level to provide wheelchair-bound moviegoers with comfortable viewing. They contend that while Tinseltown's stadium seating affords non-disabled patrons improved lines of sight, the theaters relegate wheelchair-users to inferior seating areas, where they must uncomfortably crane their necks to watch movies.

Both parties filed motions for summary judgment and the district court entered judgment for the Plaintiffs. The court found that "a person seated in the 'wheelchair row' has to lift his or her eyes and/or crane his or her neck at a very uncomfortable angle in order to view the feature on the motion picture screen." Therefore, the court concluded that "the wheelchair-bound patron is denied the full and equal enjoyment of the movie going experience in these theaters."

Subsequently, the district court held two remedy hearings. After considering testimony and argument, the district court entered an "Order Awarding Damages and Granting Injunctive Relief." The order required Cinemark to modify eighteen of its theaters by moving the wheelchair seating location further back from the screen and higher off the floor, and by lowering the screen by approximately one foot. The court also granted attorneys fees to each of the plaintiffs and $100 in damages to each of the individual wheelchair-bound plaintiffs.

Cinemark's principal argument on appeal is that the district court incorrectly interpreted and applied the ADA and the ADA Guidelines promulgated pursuant to the Act. We now turn to those arguments.

II.

We review the district court's interpretation of the statute de novo. See Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354, 358 (5th Cir. 1999).

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 by any person who owns . . . or operates a place of public accommodation." 42 U.S.C. 12182(a). Congress delegated to the Department of Justice the responsibility for issuing regulations in order to enforce this mandate. 42 U.S.C. 12186(b). Accordingly, the DOJ, in conjunction with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board ("Access Board"), issued ADA Accessability Guidelines ("ADAAG"). ² At the center of this litigation is Section 4.33.3 of the ADAAG, which provides that in assembly areas:

Wheelchairs shall be an integral part of any fixed seating plan and shall be provided so as to provide people with physical disabilities a choice of admission prices and lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public. They shall adjoin an accessible route that also serves as means of egress in case of emergency. At least one companion fixed seat shall be provided next to each wheelchair seating area. When the seating capacity exceeds 300, wheelchair spaces shall be provided in more than one location. Readily removable seats may be installed in wheelchair spaces when the spaces are not required to accommodate wheelchair users.

EXCEPTION: Accessible viewing positions may be clustered for bleachers, balconies, and other areas having sight lines that require slopes of greater than 5 percent. Equivalent accessible viewing positions may be located on levels having accessible egress.

ADAAG, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. A at 4.33.3 (1999).

The district court held that Cinemark violated section 4.33.3 because its Tinseltown theaters failed to provide wheelchair-bound patrons with "lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public." The court noted that while the general public could choose to sit in any row, Tinseltown confined wheelchair-bound patrons to an area with an "average viewing angle . . . [of] above thirty-five degrees, which the Plaintiff's expert witness has properly described as 'well into the discomfort zone.'"

Cinemark argues both that section 4.33.3 does not apply to its theaters and, alternatively, that it provides wheelchair-users with comparable lines of sight.

A.

Cinemark first argues that the "lines of sight comparable" provision of section 4.33.3 only applies to theaters with a capacity of over 300 seats. Cinemark posits that section 4.33.3, when read as a whole, requires only that theaters with over 300 seats provide handicapped patrons with "the choice of admission prices and lines of sight comparable to" to those enjoyed by the general public. Emphasizing the phrase "choice of," Cinemark argues that section 4.33.3 simply imposes a dispersal requirement, requiring larger auditoria to provide wheelchair-users with a variety of admission prices and viewing locations. Cinemark explains that the DOJ's goal of dispersal could not be accomplished by simply requiring a "choice of admissions prices," because many large auditoria, such as college sports venues, charge a single admission price even for different viewing locations. Cinemark concludes that because the regulation explicitly permits theaters with seating capacities under 300 to provide wheelchair seatingin a single area, its theaters are exempt from dispersal, and hence, the entire regulation.³

In interpreting a statute or regulation, we first look to the statute or regulation's plain language. See United States v. Raymer, 876 F.2d 383, 389 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover, we must consider the regulation as a whole, with the assumption that the Department intended each of the regulation's terms to convey meaning. United States v. Bailey, 516 U.S. 143, 145 (1995). Based on such a reading of the regulation, we cannot agree that the "lines of sight language" demands nothing more than mere dispersal.

First, the "lines of sight" language is entirely divorced from the dispersal requirement. The provision requiring multiple seating locations comes at the end of the regulation and does not in any way modify the earlier requirements.

Second, the phrase "choice of" modifies only "admissions prices" and not "lines of sight." Indeed, the DOJ has consistently treated "comparable choice of admission prices" and "comparable lines of sight" as two separate requirements. See, e.g., ADAAG, 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, App. B at 650 (1999)("the final rule adds . . . a requirement that . . . wheelchair seating provide lines of sight and choice of admission prices comparable to those for the general public"); 1994 DOJ Technical Assistance Manual ("TAM") Supp. III-7.5180 (In addition to requiring . . . dispersion of wheelchair locations, ADAAG requires that wheelchair locations provide people with disabilities lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public."). Regardless of whether the DOJ's interpretation demands deference, these statements demonstrate that, since the inception of section 4.33.3, the Department has consistently treated "choice of admissions...