Robin Fortyune v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc.
2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 7235, 15 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 780, 364 F.3d 1075 (2004)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), a public accommodation's failure to modify a policy to ensure that designated companion seats are available for the companions of wheelchair-bound patrons constitutes discrimination, as such a modification is reasonable and necessary for providing equal access.
Facts:
- Robin Fortyune, a C-5 quadriplegic, requires a wheelchair and the assistance of a companion to attend movie theaters.
- On June 25, 2000, Fortyune and his wife Felicia attempted to attend a well-attended, 'over-sold' screening of the film 'Chicken Run' at an American Multi-Cinema (AMC) theater.
- They arrived approximately twenty minutes before the showtime.
- Auditorium 12 had four wheelchair spaces, each adjoined by a companion seat marked with a sign indicating its intended purpose.
- Upon entering, they found a man and his son, who were not disabled nor accompanying a disabled person, occupying two of the designated companion seats.
- Mrs. Fortyune and the theater manager, Jason Kulbel, asked the man to move, but he refused, stating he and his son had arrived early to sit together.
- The manager informed the Fortyunes that, according to AMC's written policy for sold-out shows, he could not require the man to vacate the companion seat.
- Unable to sit together, the Fortyunes left the theater without seeing the film.
Procedural Posture:
- Robin Fortyune filed a complaint against American Multi-Cinema, Inc. (AMC) in federal district court, alleging violations of the ADA.
- After mediation failed, both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Fortyune and denied AMC's motion.
- The district court issued a permanent injunction ordering AMC to modify its companion seating policy to give priority to companions of wheelchair-bound patrons.
- AMC, the defendant-appellant, appealed the district court's order 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 movie theater's policy of not requiring a non-disabled patron to vacate a designated wheelchair companion seat during a sold-out screening violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by failing to make a reasonable modification necessary to afford a disabled patron full and equal enjoyment of its services?
Opinions:
Majority - Wardlaw, Circuit Judge
Yes, the movie theater's policy violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. A public accommodation's failure to make reasonable modifications to its policies when necessary to afford services to individuals with disabilities constitutes discrimination. The court reasoned that Fortyune established a valid ADA claim by showing: (1) he is disabled; (2) AMC is a place of public accommodation; (3) AMC's policy has a discriminatory effect because Fortyune cannot attend a movie without a companion; and (4) AMC failed to make a necessary and reasonable modification. The modification is 'necessary' because without his wife seated next to him, Fortyune cannot enjoy the service. The modification is 'reasonable' because it does not impose undue financial or administrative burdens on AMC, which already enforces other policies that may require asking patrons to move. Finally, the modification does not 'fundamentally alter' the nature of AMC's business, which is to screen films.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the ADA's requirement for 'reasonable modifications' extends beyond physical structures to operational policies that govern the use of accessible features. It establishes that a public accommodation has an affirmative duty to ensure that designated accessibility features, such as companion seats, are available for their intended users. The ruling moves the focus from merely providing the physical accommodation to ensuring its practical usability, placing a burden on businesses to enforce access for disabled patrons even if it inconveniences other customers. This precedent strengthens the ADA's mandate by requiring businesses to actively manage their facilities to provide equal, not just theoretical, access.
