Baughman v. Walt Disney World Company
2012 WL 2914249, 26 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1167, 685 F.3d 1131 (2012)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a public accommodation must make reasonable modifications to its policies when necessary to afford a disabled individual 'full and equal enjoyment' of its facilities, not merely physical access. The necessity of a modification is measured by whether it enhances the disabled person's experience to be more akin to that of non-disabled patrons.
Facts:
- Tina Baughman suffers from limb girdle muscular dystrophy, which makes it difficult for her to walk or to stand up from a seated position.
- To celebrate her daughter's eighth birthday, Baughman planned a trip to Disneyland.
- She contacted Disneyland to request permission to use her Segway, a two-wheeled mobility device she uses while standing, to accommodate her disability.
- Disneyland's policy prohibits 'two-wheeled vehicles or devices,' including Segways, but allows wheelchairs and motorized scooters.
- Disneyland refused to grant Baughman an exception to its policy.
- In three prior, separate lawsuits against other defendants, Baughman had made claims that she relied upon a power scooter or wheelchair for mobility.
Procedural Posture:
- Tina Baughman filed a lawsuit against Disney in the U.S. District Court, alleging a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Disney.
- The district court's ruling was based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, concluding there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether it was 'necessary' for Baughman to use a Segway.
- Baughman, as the appellant, appealed the summary judgment ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, with Disney as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a public accommodation's policy that prohibits the use of a Segway, while permitting wheelchairs and scooters, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act's requirement to provide a reasonable modification when that modification is necessary for a disabled individual to achieve 'full and equal enjoyment' of the facility?
Opinions:
Majority - Kozinski, Chief Judge
Yes. A public accommodation's refusal to modify its policies may violate the ADA because the statute requires more than mere physical access; it mandates modifications necessary to provide 'full and equal enjoyment.' The court first addressed judicial estoppel, holding that Baughman was estopped from claiming she cannot use a wheelchair due to her contrary positions in prior lawsuits. However, the court found this was not dispositive of her ADA claim. The central error of the district court and Disney was misinterpreting 'necessary' to mean 'essential for entry.' The court clarified that the ADA's 'full and equal enjoyment' standard requires public accommodations to provide disabled guests with an experience comparable to that of non-disabled guests. If using a wheelchair would be painful and onerous for Baughman, while a Segway would allow her to experience the park more comfortably and with more dignity—akin to an able-bodied patron—then allowing the Segway may be a 'necessary' modification. The court gave deference to Department of Justice regulations that classify Segways as 'other power-driven mobility devices' that must generally be permitted unless the accommodation can demonstrate legitimate safety concerns based on actual risks, not speculation.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the interpretation of 'necessary' modifications under Title III of the ADA, shifting the focus from bare physical access to the quality of the disabled individual's experience. It establishes that 'full and equal enjoyment' is the guiding standard, compelling public accommodations to consider how their policies affect a disabled person's ability to experience a facility in a manner comparable to non-disabled patrons. The ruling also embraces technological evolution, signaling that businesses must assess new mobility devices on their individual merits rather than relying on blanket prohibitions. This creates a precedent that places a higher burden on facilities to justify the exclusion of devices like Segways, requiring them to prove specific, demonstrable safety risks rather than citing general policy or speculation.
