Landis v. Wash. State Major League Baseball Stadium Pub. Facilities Dist.

• Decision Date: 01 September 2021
• Docket Number: No. 19-36075,19-36075
• Citation: 11 F.4th 1101
• Parties: Clark LANDIS; Robert Barker ; Grady Thompson ; Kayla Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WASHINGTON STATE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT; Baseball of Seattle, Inc., a Washington corporation; Mariners Baseball, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; The Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP, a Washington limited liability limited partnership, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

11 F.4th 1101

Clark LANDIS; Robert Barker ; Grady Thompson ; Kayla Brown, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v.WASHINGTON STATE MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL STADIUM PUBLIC FACILITIES DISTRICT; Baseball of Seattle, Inc., a Washington corporation; Mariners Baseball, LLC, a Washington limited liability company; The Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP, a Washington limited liability limited partnership, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 19-36075

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2020 Seattle, Washington

Filed September 1, 2021

Conrad Reynoldson (argued) and Michael Terasaki, Washington Civil & Disability Advocate, Seattle, Washington; Christopher H. Knauf, Alexandra M. Robertson, and Anthony Pinggera, Disability Rights Legal Center, Los Angeles, California; for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Stephen C. Willey (argued) and Sarah Gohmann Bigelow, Savitt Bruce & Willey LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Defendants-Appellees.

Stephen A. Hylas (argued) and John D. Maher, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amicus Curiae Disability Rights Organizations.

Before: M. Margaret McKeown, Danielle J. Forrest^* , and Patrick J. Bumatay, Circuit Judges.

Concurrence by Judge Bumatay

FORREST, Circuit Judge:

The question presented is whether spectators using wheelchairs at T-Mobile Park in Seattle, Washington (the Stadium) have adequate sightlines under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as implemented by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) 1996 Accessible Stadiums guidance document.¹ Following a bench trial, the district court concluded that the Stadium's sightlines are adequate, but it failed to explain how the Stadium satisfies all the Accessible Stadiums requirements. Therefore, we vacate and remand.

BACKGROUND

A. Wheelchair Accessibility Requirements for Sports Stadiums

Congress enacted the ADA to address discrimination suffered by individuals with disabilities. The ADA prohibits anything less than the full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation by individuals with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). Accordingly, sports stadiums—which are places of public accommodation—must be "readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities." Id. § 12183(a)(1). The DOJ is responsible for implementing the ADA by promulgating regulations. Id. § 12134(a). The DOJ's regulations must comply with the minimum standards set by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, see id. §§ 12186(c), 12134(c), commonly known as the "Access Board."

Miller v. Cal. Speedway Corp. , 536 F.3d 1020, 1024 (9th Cir. 2008).

The Access Board is an independent federal agency charged with "develop[ing] advisory information for, and provid[ing] appropriate technical assistance to, individuals or entities with rights or duties" under Titles II and III of the ADA and establishing "minimum guidelines and requirements for the standards issued" by Titles II and III of the ADA. 29 U.S.C. § 792(b)(2), (3)(B). The Access Board published its first "ADA Accessibility Guidelines" in 1991 (1991 Accessibility Guidelines). Miller , 536 F.3d at 1025. In relevant part, section 4.33.3 of the 1991 Accessibility Guidelines requires that "[w]heelchair areas 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." 28 C.F.R. Part 36, App. A § 4.33.3 (1991) (emphasis omitted).

The DOJ adopted the 1991 Accessibility Guidelines the same day they were published. Miller , 536 F.3d at 1026. The DOJ published technical assistance guidance in 1993 and 1994, id. , and in 1996, it published the guidance document at issue in this case. See Dep't of Just., Accessible Stadiums (1996), https://www.ada.gov/stadium.pdf (Accessible Stadiums ). Accessible Stadiums "highlights key accessibility requirements of the ADA that apply to new stadiums," including sightline requirements for wheelchair seating. Id. at 1. Regarding sightlines, Accessible Stadiums interprets section 4.33.3 of the 1991 Accessibility Guidelines as requiring that:

Wheelchair seating locations must provide lines of sight comparable to those provided to other spectators. In stadiums where spectators can be expected to stand during the show or event (for example, football, baseball, basketball games, or rock concerts), all or substantially all of the wheelchair seating locations must provide a line of sight over standing spectators. A comparable line of sight, as illustrated in the figure below, allows a person using a wheelchair to see the playing surface between the heads and over the shoulders of the persons standing in the row immediately in front and over the heads of the persons standing two rows in front.

Id. at 2 (emphasis omitted). The Accessible Stadiums comparable-sightline figure is included below.

?

B. Plaintiffs’ Claims

Plaintiff-Appellants Clark Landis, Robert Barker, Grady Thompson, and Kayla Brown (collectively, Plaintiffs) are baseball fans with qualifying disabilities under Title II and Title III of the ADA who use wheelchairs for mobility. Defendants-Appellees are four entities that own and operate the Stadium, home to the Seattle Mariners: (1) Washington State Major League Baseball Stadium Public Facilities District; (2) Baseball of Seattle, Inc. (3) Mariners Baseball, LLC; and (4) The Baseball Club of Seattle, LLLP (collectively, Owners and Operators). The Stadium was designed in 1996 and built between 1997 and 1999. It has four vertically stacked seating levels sloped toward the field. There is wheelchair accessible seating on each level.

Plaintiffs sued the Owners and Operators, alleging the Stadium fails to comply with multiple requirements of the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12134 and 12181 – 12189, and the Washington Law Against Discrimination, Wash. Rev. Code § 49.60.010 et seq. Plaintiffs opted for a bench trial, and by the time trial began, only four issues remained, including whether spectators using wheelchairs have adequate sightlines over standing spectators.

The Owners and Operators relied on their expert William Endelman in asserting that the Stadium's sightlines were adequate. Endelman utilized the Accessible Stadiums guidance in reaching his opinion. Specifically, he compared two sections of the Stadium with the Accessible Stadiums figure provided above. Based on this comparison, Endelman concluded that spectators using wheelchairs are "able to see over the shoulders and between the heads of people in the row immediately in front, and over the heads of people in the second row in front of the accessible seating."

Plaintiffs’ expert James Terry disagreed. Terry evaluated the sightlines of spectators in wheelchairs by estimating the shoulder height of a spectator standing one row forward of the wheelchair-accessible seating and the full height of a spectator standing two rows forward of wheelchair-accessible seating. Using this same process, Terry also estimated sightlines of spectators not using wheelchairs in comparable locations. Terry determined that the sightlines of spectators using wheelchairs were nearly always more obstructed than the sightlines of spectators not using wheelchairs. Specifically, Terry concluded that the heads of standing spectators two rows forward caused the most obstruction. In seating section 135, for example, when viewing the side of the field, spectators using wheelchairs could see 8% of the field while spectators not using wheelchairs could see 41% of the field; when viewing the infield, spectators using wheelchairs could see 31% of the field while spectators not using wheelchairs could see 100% of the field; when viewing the outfield, spectators using wheelchairs could see 66% of the field while spectators not using wheelchairs could see 86% of the field; and when viewing the field generally, spectators using wheelchairs could see 36% of the field while spectators not using wheelchairs could see 71% of the field.

After considering the testimony and evidence presented by the parties’ competing experts, the district court rejected Plaintiffs’ sightline claim and held that the Stadium complies with the ADA. Regarding the Accessible Stadiums standard, the district court concluded:

[W]hen the Court reviews the illustrations considering what can be seen over the line representing the standing spectator's shoulders, i.e. , "over the shoulders and between the heads," more of the field is visible from the accessible seat, making the views comparable. For example, when considering the shoulder line in Mr. Terry's illustrations, several of the locations have 100% visibility of the field. For the others, the percentage of field viewable is close to 100%. Thus, the [c]ourt concludes that when taking into account what percentage of the field that can be seen utilizing the standard set by the Accessible Stadiums guideline, the sightlines are comparable.

Plaintiffs timely appealed, and we have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We review the district court's findings of fact for clear error. OneBeacon Ins. Co. v. Haas Indus., Inc ., 634 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir. 2011). This is deferential review; we reverse only if we are left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Gainza , 982 F.3d 762, 765 (9th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted). The district court's legal conclusions are reviewed de novo, Lentini v. Cal. Ctr. for the Arts, Escondido , 370 F.3d 837, 843 (9th Cir. 2004), as are mixed questions of fact and law, OneBeacon Ins. Co. , 634 F.3d at 1096.

DISCUSSION

The first question we must answer is whether the Accessible Stadiums guidance interpreting section 4.33.3 of the 1991 Accessibility Guidelines governs this case. This question is easily resolved given how the parties litigated this case.

As a general rule, courts defer to an agency's interpretation of its own "genuinely ambiguous" regulation. Kisor...