Bailey v. Bd. of Comm'rs of La. Stadium & Exposition Dist.
| Decision Date | 19 February 2020 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION CASE NO. 18-5888 SECTION: "G"(2) |
| 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 |
Pending before the Court is Defendants the Board of Commissioners of the Louisiana Stadium and Exposition District (the "Board"), Kyle France, in his official capacity as Chairman of the Board ("France"), and SMG's (collectively "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, Defendants argue that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proving discrimination as defined in Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") and the Rehabilitation Act.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.
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 officialcapacity 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 formany 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 claimregarding 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
Defendants filed the instant motion on December 30, 2019.23 Plaintiff filed an opposition on January 7, 2020.24 SMG, with leave of Court, filed a reply in further support of the motion on January 17, 2020.25 The Board and France, with leave of Court, filed a reply in further support of the motion on January 27, 2020.26 At the request of the parties, the Court heard oral argument on this motion on February 4, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.27
In the instant motion, Defendants argue that all of Plaintiff's claims should be dismissed because Plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of proving discrimination as defined in Title II and III of ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.28 Defendants contend that for Plaintiff to succeed on a claim for discrimination under Title II or Title III of the ADA, or under the Rehabilitation Act, he must show that (1) he requested an alteration and (2) the alteration was readily achievable.29Furthermore, Defendants argue that Plaintiff bears the initial burden of producing evidence to show that an alteration is readily achievable.30 Defendants contend that Plaintiff has failed to show that the alterations Plaintiff's expert, James Terry, recommended in his report are plausible or that the costs of the other proposed alterations do not exceed their benefits.31 Accordingly, Defendants argue that because Plaintiff cannot establish an element of the claims on which he bears the burden of proof, summary judgment is appropriate.32
Defendants contend that Marradi v. Galway House, Inc., a case decided by a district court judge in the United States District Court for the District Court of Massachusetts, is analogous to the case here.33 In Marradi, Defendants argue that the court granted summary judgment after noting that a plaintiff in an architectural barrier case must provide a defendant with evidence of a proposed solution so the defendant may consider the difficulty of implementation as well as the cost.34 Defendants contend that the court found that a photograph and an unsworn declaration of an expert insufficient to survive summary judgment without more information, such as cost estimates.35 Defendants argue that here, Plaintiff has not provided any evidence to show that removal of the architectural barriers in the Superdome is readily achievable or that the costs associated with the proposed alterations do not facially exceed the benefits.36 Defendants liken the solutions offered by Plaintiff's expert, Mr. Terry, to the solutions offered in Marradi, in that costsare not taken into consideration.37 Defendants further argue that Plaintiff's failure to provide evidence in support of the recommended alterations is even more problematic as it relates to Plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief.38 Defendants contend that to be entitled to injunctive relief, a plaintiff must identify each architectural barrier that they contend violates the ADA and offer evidence as to why the removal of the barrier is readily achievable and beneficial to the plaintiff.39
Next, Defendants contend that Plaintiff did not provide the recommended alterations in his pre-suit correspondence to Defendants.40 Defendants argue that in addition to identifying a readily achievable modification, Plaintiff must also demonstrate that he requested the modifications.41 Defendants contend that here, the "pre-suit conciliation letter" sent by Plaintiff does not mention any proposed modifications and that therefore, Plaintiff failed to provide any such pre-suit notice.42
Finally, Defendants argue that, to the extent the Court allows any of Plaintiff's claims to proceed, "Defendants are entitled to an order limiting Plaintiff's claims to those centered on sightlines from the accessible seating he has actually occupied for Saints games, in the front row and in Row 36 of the 100 level / lower bowl of the Superdome."43 Defendants contend that Plaintiff is only entitled to relief that would remedy individualized harms, not for harms he has not personally suffered.44
In opposition to the motion, Plaintiff argues that the motion for summary judgment should be denied because Defendants have grossly misstated the law.45 Plaintiff asserts that he is bringing a claim against all Defendants under the "alteration standard" and against France under the "program access" standard, but that Defendants failed to analyze either standard.46 Plaintiff contends that he has established a violation of the ADA because: (1) Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability; (2) Plaintiff is being denied the benefits of a public entity and a place of public accommodation; and (3) the discrimination against Plaintiff is by reason of his disability.47 Finally, Plaintiff argues that Defendants' request to restrict Plaintiff's case to the sightline issues at the 100 Level is baseless.48 Accordingly, Plaintiff asserts that the motion for summary judgment should be denied in its entirety.49
First, Plaintiff argues that he is a qualified individual with a disability.50 Plaintiff contends that under the ADA, an individual has a disability if he or she has a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.51 Plaintiff argues that he has muscular dystrophy and is substantially limited in walking and breathing, and therefore qualifies as an individual with a disability under the ADA.52
Second, Plaintiff contends that he is being denied the benefits of a public entity (as to France and the Board), and a place of public accommodation (as to SMG).53 Plaintiff first...
To continue reading
Request your trial