Publications
District Court Orders Macy’s To Widen Its Aisles
Most people associate the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA") with prohibiting workplace discrimination against the disabled. Although the ADA most frequently arises in the workplace context, its scope is actually broader. A recent case in federal court in San Francisco reminds us that the ADA also prohibits discrimination against the disabled in places of "public accommodation." Macy’s is a well-known department store chain. It owns and operates a large department store in the Union Square section of San Francisco. The building is old, and does not conform to current accessibility guidelines for those who are mobility challenged. Although the ADA does not require that existing buildings undergo costly renovation to meet current accessibility guidelines, it does require updating when an older building undergoes alterations. The Macy’s building in San Francisco is a historic building. In the mid-1990’s, it undertook a major renovation, but made no effort to renovate its entrances, ramps, customer displays, restrooms, or pay phones. Accordingly, some individuals with mobility disabilities sued, alleging that the ADA required Macy’s to update its accessibility. Macy’s responded that it offered "alternative methods" of accommodating the mobility disabled other than making physical changes to its building; it offered sales assistance to assist customers in retrieving merchandise. It also argued that contracts with certain of its vendors dictated how merchandise was to be displayed. Lastly, it argued that the accommodations sought by plaintiffs would cause fundamental changes to its sales practices. The federal district court in San Francisco found that Macy’s was a place of "public accommodation" and rejected Macy’s "defenses." It held that Macy’s was obligated to comply with regulations issued by the U.S. Department of Justice pursuant to Title III of the ADA regarding accessibility for those with mobility disabilities. Not only did the Court order Macy’s to modify its building, but it also ordered that Macy’s and the plaintiffs were to meet and confer to develop compliance plans to insure that Macy’s would in fact meet its obligations under the ADA. Macy’s learned a costly lesson. By ignoring the ADA at the beginning of renovation, it enjoyed a public relations nightmare, and must now contract for significant additional work, which the plaintiffs have the right to oversee. |
