Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc.
481 F.3d 724 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff's motive or history of frequent litigation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) is irrelevant to their status as a protected 'individual' under the statute. A jury verdict that ignores uncontradicted evidence of architectural barriers is against the clear weight of the evidence and justifies a new trial.
Facts:
- Jarek Molski, a paraplegic who uses a wheelchair, has a history of filing hundreds of lawsuits against public accommodations for ADA violations.
- On January 26, 2003, Molski dined at Cable's Restaurant.
- After his meal, Molski attempted to use the restroom and encountered numerous architectural barriers, including excessive door pressure, a lack of grab bars in the stall, an unreachable toilet seat cover dispenser, and uninsulated pipes under the sink.
- Molski testified that these barriers prevented him from safely and hygienically using the facilities, posing a risk to his health due to his medical condition.
- An accessibility expert later inspected the restaurant and confirmed Molski's observations of the ADA violations.
- Anthony Dalkas, the vice president of Cable's, admitted in his testimony that the company had not attempted to identify or remove any architectural barriers for disabled patrons.
- Dalkas stated that Cable's 'weren’t compelled to do it' and feared that starting repairs would 'open a can of worms that will cost a lot of money.'
Procedural Posture:
- Jarek Molski sued M.J. Cable Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, alleging violations of the ADA and California's Unruh Act.
- A jury trial was held.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Cable's.
- Molski filed a motion for a new trial, arguing that the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
- The District Court denied the motion for a new trial.
- Molski (appellant) appealed the District Court's denial of his motion to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 plaintiff's history of filing numerous lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) negate their status as a protected 'individual' under the statute, thereby justifying a jury verdict for the defendant despite uncontradicted evidence of architectural barriers?
Opinions:
Majority - Ferguson, J.
No. A plaintiff's history of litigiousness does not strip them of their status as an 'individual' protected by the ADA. The court reasoned that the jury's verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence, as the record contained 'no evidence in support of the verdict.' Both the plaintiff's and the defendant's witnesses provided uncontradicted testimony that architectural barriers existed and that Cable's had made no effort to identify or remove them. The district court's rationale for upholding the verdict—that the jury could have concluded Molski was a 'business' and not an 'individual'—was legally flawed. The plain language of the ADA broadly protects 'individuals' with disabilities, and this term is not limited in the way the defendant suggested. Even if the ADA's protections were limited to 'clients or customers,' Molski plainly qualified as one because he purchased a meal at the restaurant. Therefore, the defendant's strategy of attacking the plaintiff's motive was irrelevant to the legal question of whether the restaurant complied with the ADA.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that the focus in an ADA Title III case is on the defendant's compliance with accessibility standards, not on the plaintiff's character or motives. By rejecting the 'litigious plaintiff' defense, the court prevents defendants from deflecting from their own non-compliance by attacking the person who brought the violation to light. This reinforces the role of private litigants, including so-called 'serial litigants,' as a primary enforcement mechanism for the ADA. The case serves as a strong precedent against attempts to invalidate an ADA claim based on the plaintiff's litigation history.
