Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America v. Regal Cinemas, Inc.
339 F.3d 1126 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulation requiring public accommodations to provide wheelchair seating with "lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public" encompasses the quality of the view, including the vertical viewing angle, and is not limited to merely providing an unobstructed view. An agency's reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation, even when advanced in litigation, is entitled to judicial deference.
Facts:
- Regal Cinemas, Inc. and Eastgate Theatre, Inc. own and operate six movie theaters in Oregon featuring modern "stadium-riser seating."
- In this design, most seats are on stepped risers for better views, while the first few rows are on a traditional sloped floor.
- In five of the six theaters, all wheelchair-accessible seating is located exclusively in these first few rows on the sloped floor.
- Patrons in these wheelchair-accessible locations must look up at the screen at a significantly sharper vertical angle (average 42 degrees) than patrons in the stadium seats (average 20 degrees).
- According to industry standards from the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE), vertical viewing angles exceeding 35 degrees cause physical discomfort for most viewers.
- Plaintiffs Kathy Stewmon, Tina Smith, and Kathleen Braddy, who are wheelchair-bound, experienced physical discomfort, including dizziness, nausea, headaches, and neck pain when attempting to watch movies from the designated wheelchair seating.
- One plaintiff, Stewmon, found the front-row position so intolerable that her family had to carry her up the stairs to a non-accessible seat to watch the movie.
Procedural Posture:
- Three disabled individuals and the Oregon Paralyzed Veterans of America sued Regal Cinemas, Inc. and Eastgate Theatre, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' stadium-seating designs violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), an Oregon statute, and constituted negligence.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment.
- The district court, following the reasoning of the Fifth Circuit in Lara v. Cinemark, granted summary judgment to the defendant movie theaters on all claims.
- The three individual plaintiffs appealed the district court's adverse ruling on their ADA claim 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 the ADA regulation requiring wheelchair seating in public accommodations to have "lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public" (28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. A, § 4.33.3) require theaters to provide comparable viewing angles, not just an unobstructed view?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Betty B. Fletcher
Yes. The ADA regulation requiring "lines of sight comparable to those for members of the general public" requires more than just an unobstructed view and includes providing comparable viewing angles. The court must give substantial deference to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) interpretation of its own regulation because it is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation's purpose. The plain meaning of "line of sight" in the context of a theater includes the viewing angle, a factor the movie industry itself recognizes as critical to the viewing experience. The fact that stadium-style seating was not prevalent when the regulation was promulgated does not prevent the broadly-worded rule from applying to this new factual scenario. Forcing patrons with disabilities into objectively uncomfortable seats that deny them the "full and equal enjoyment" of the theater, while able-bodied patrons have a wide choice of comfortable locations, violates the core principles of the ADA.
Dissenting - Judge Kleinfeld
No. The regulation should not be interpreted to include viewing angles, and the court should not defer to the DOJ's litigation position. This decision creates a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit, imposes a vague and retroactive financial burden on thousands of theaters, and usurps the regulatory authority of the Access Board, which is already considering creating new, specific rules for stadium seating. The regulation's use of the vague term "comparable," in contrast to other highly specific, millimeter-level requirements in the surrounding regulations, suggests an intent for a looser standard, such as the unobstructed view interpretation adopted by the Fifth Circuit. The majority provides no clear guidance for compliance, leaving theater owners uncertain about how to lawfully design or reconstruct their facilities. The court is effectively creating new law by judicial fiat, which is an unjust and improper approach.
Analysis:
This decision established a key precedent within the Ninth Circuit, creating a circuit split with the Fifth Circuit's ruling in Lara v. Cinemark. By giving deference to the DOJ's interpretation, the court significantly broadened the meaning of "comparable lines of sight" from a simple "unobstructed view" to a qualitative standard that includes viewing comfort and angle. This ruling forces theater owners in the Ninth Circuit to integrate wheelchair seating throughout their auditoriums, rather than segregating it to the front rows, likely requiring costly redesigns and retrofitting. The case serves as an important example of how courts may apply broad anti-discrimination statutes to new technologies and architectural designs that were not contemplated when the original regulations were written.
