Bailey v. Bd. of Commissioners of the La. Stadium

• Decision Date: 21 February 2020
• Docket Number: CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 18-5888
• Citation: 441 F.Supp.3d 321
• Parties: Shelby BAILEY v. BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana

441 F.Supp.3d 321

Shelby BAILEY

v.BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF the LOUISIANA STADIUM AND EXPOSITION DISTRICT, et al.

CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 18-5888

United States District Court, E.D. Louisiana.

Signed February 21, 2020

Andrew David Bizer, Emily A. Westermeier, Garret S. DeReus, Bizer & DeReus, LLC, New Orleans, LA, for Shelby Bailey.

H. Michael Bush, Edward Nicholas George, Chaffe McCall LLP, Jeffery Alan Wheeler, Louisiana Department of Justice, Loretta G. Mince, Michael Ryan Dodson, Fishman Haygood, LLP, New Orleans, LA, Christopher Neal Walters, Louisiana Department of Justice, Baton Rouge, LA, for Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District.

SECTION: "G"(2)

ORDER AND REASONS

NANNETTE JOLIVETTE BROWN, CHIEF JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Defendants, the Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (the "Board") and Kyle France's, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board ("France") (collectively "LSED Defendants"), "Motion for Summary Judgment on all of Plaintiff's Remaining Claims."¹ Plaintiff Shelby Bailey ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint alleging that the owners and operators of the Mercedes-Benz Superdome (the "Superdome"), failed to provide him with handicap accessible seating during New Orleans Saints (the "Saints") football games.² In the instant motion, the LSED Defendants argue that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because both the Board and France are entitled to sovereign immunity.³ Considering Defendants' motion, the memoranda in support and opposition, the record, and the applicable law, the Court grants the motion in part and denies the motion in part.

I. Background

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in this Court naming as defendants SMG as the operator of the Superdome, the Board as the owner of the Superdome, and France in his official capacity as chairman of the Board.⁴ Plaintiff brings claims against the Board and France for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. , and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.⁵ Plaintiff brings claims against SMG for declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to Title III of the ADA.⁶ Plaintiff also seeks recovery of attorneys' fees and costs.⁷

According to the Complaint, Plaintiff has a disability and relies on an electric wheelchair for mobility.⁸ Plaintiff alleges that he has been a Saints season ticket holder for over 30 years.⁹ Plaintiff alleges that prior to 2011, his seat was located on a wheelchair accessible raised platform in the 100 Level section of the Superdome.¹⁰ Plaintiff alleges that in 2011, Defendants began extensive renovations on the Superdome and reconfigured the accessible seating section for patrons with disabilities.¹¹ Plaintiff alleges that as a result of the renovations, the wheelchair accessible seating at the Superdome was moved to other positions where the views are obstructed by barriers and other patrons or players standing during the game, or the seating is not fully accessible by wheelchair.¹²

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have been on notice of ongoing accessibility issues for many years.¹³ According to the Complaint, in 2008 the United States Department of Justice conducted an inspection of the Superdome and issued a report detailing violations of ADA regulations.¹⁴ Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants were sued by private litigants in 2018 regarding ongoing accessibility violations.¹⁵

As a result, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have failed to comply with various parts of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act.¹⁶ Plaintiff seeks compensatory and nominal damages along with declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees.¹⁷

On December 13, 2019, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant SMG's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings.¹⁸ Accepting as true the allegations in the Complaint, the Court found that SMG could be held liable as an operator of the Superdome because SMG controls modification of the Superdome and could cause the Superdome to comply with the ADA.¹⁹ Additionally, viewing the allegations in the Complaint in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the Court found that Plaintiff's claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were timely because the Complaint was filed within one year of SMG allegedly denying Plaintiff "the full and equal enjoyment" of a place of public accommodation.²⁰ However, the Court found that Plaintiff's claim regarding future renovations was not ripe for judicial review.²¹ Accordingly, the Court granted the motion to the extent it sought dismissal of Plaintiff's claim regarding future renovations but denied the motion in all other respects.²²

The LSED Defendants filed the instant motion on December 30, 2019.²³ Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 7, 2020.²⁴ The LSED Defendants, with leave of Court, filed a reply in further support of the motion on January 17, 2020.²⁵ Plaintiff, with leave of Court, filed a sur-reply to the motion on January 27, 2020.²⁶

II. Parties' Arguments

A. The LSED Defendants' Arguments in Support of the Motion

In the instant motion, the LSED Defendants argue that Plaintiff's ADA claims and Rehabilitation Act claims should be dismissed.²⁷ The LSED Defendants contend that Plaintiff's claim against them under Title II of the ADA should be dismissed because both the Board and France are entitled to sovereign immunity.²⁸ The LSED Defendants argue that the Rehabilitation Act claim should be dismissed because the Board is not a recipient of federal financial assistance, which LSED Defendants argue is required under the Rehabilitation Act.²⁹ Lastly, the LSED Defendants contend that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed as untimely.³⁰

1. LSED Defendants Assert they are Entitled to Sovereign Immunity

The LSED Defendants argue that Plaintiff's claim under Title II of the ADA fails for four reasons: (1) the Board is an arm of the State of Louisiana; (2) Plaintiff has failed to state a valid claim under Title II of the ADA; (3) Plaintiff cannot, as a matter of law, demonstrate that the alleged conduct of the Board violated the Fourteenth Amendment; and (4) Congress did not validly abrogate the states' sovereign immunity with respect to Plaintiff's claim when it passed Title II of the ADA.³¹

a. The Board is an Arm of the State of Louisiana.

The LSED Defendants argue that the Fifth Circuit has developed a six-factor test for determining whether a state entity is entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, which includes:

1. Whether state statutes and case law view the agency as an arm of the state;

2. The source of the entity's funding;

3. The entity's degree of local autonomy;

4. Whether the entity is concerned with primarily local as opposed to statewide problems;

5. Whether the entity has the authority to sue and be sued in its own name; and

6. Whether the entity has the right to hold and use property.³²

First, the LSED Defendants contend that constitutional and legislative pronouncements show that the Board is a state agency within Louisiana's executive branch.³³ Second, the LSED Defendants argue that any judgment against the Board would be paid from the state treasury; therefore the second factor, which is the most important factor, is met.³⁴ Third, the LSED Defendants contend that the seven member Board is appointed by and serve entirely at the pleasure of the Governor of Louisiana, and therefore does not have any significant local autonomy.³⁵ Fourth, the LSED Defendants argue that while the Superdome is located in Orleans Parish, it was built for the benefit of all the people of the State of Louisiana, making its primary concern "statewide" in satisfaction of the fourth factor.³⁶ Finally, the LSED Defendants acknowledge that the Board has the authority to sue and be sued and does have the right to hold and use property, and therefore, does not satisfy the fifth and sixth factors.³⁷ In sum, the LSED Defendants argue that because four of the six factors weigh in favor of the Board, the Board is entitled to the protection of Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity.³⁸

b. Congress did not Abrogate Sovereign Immunity Under Title II of the ADA as to Plaintiff's Claims.

Next, the LSED Defendants contend that sovereign immunity protects the Board from Plaintiff's claims unless Congress validly abrogated the state's immunity as to those claims.³⁹ The LSED Defendants argue that applying the three-part test from U.S. v. Georgia to this case demonstrates that the state's sovereign immunity was not abrogated.⁴⁰

i. Failure to Show A Violation of Title II of the ADA.

The LSED Defendants contend that to sustain a claim for damages under Title II of the ADA, a plaintiff is required to show intent.⁴¹ The LSED Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not presented any evidence showing that the LSED Defendants intended to discriminate against him because of his disability in renovating the Superdome.⁴²

ii. Failure to Show A Violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The LSED Defendants contend that under the Equal Protection Clause, disabled persons are not a suspect class; therefore, any classifications on the basis of disability are subject to rational-basis scrutiny.⁴³ The LSED Defendants argue that the renovations to the Superdome bore a rational relationship to a legitimate governmental purpose, and therefore Plaintiff cannot show that the LSED Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment.⁴⁴

iii. Congress Did Not Validly Abrogate Sovereign Immunity as to the Conduct Involved Here.

The LSED Defendants contend that if the Court concludes that Plaintiff failed to carry his summary-judgment burden as to either of the first two elements of Georgia test, the Court need not reach the third element.⁴⁵ However, the LSED Defendants argue that if the Court reaches the third element, it should find that the Title II violations Plaintiff alleges neither implicate nor violate any right guaranteed by...