Thomas Stoutenborough v. National Football League, Inc.
4 Am. Disabilities Cas. (BNA) 1035, 59 F.3d 580, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 17012 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the services of a physical 'place of public accommodation.' This prohibition does not extend to the content of a television broadcast that originates from, but is not enjoyed within, such a place.
Facts:
- Thomas Stoutenborough is a hearing-impaired resident of Cleveland and the managing director of Self-Help for Hearing Impaired Persons.
- The National Football League (NFL) enforces a 'blackout rule' that prevents the live local television broadcast of home football games not sold out 72 hours prior to game time.
- This rule applied to the Cleveland Browns Football Club, preventing local broadcasts of their non-sold-out home games.
- Stoutenborough and his organization claimed this rule disproportionately harmed hearing-impaired individuals.
- They argued that while hearing individuals could listen to blacked-out games on the radio, hearing-impaired individuals had no comparable means of accessing the game via telecommunication.
Procedural Posture:
- Thomas Stoutenborough and Self-Help for Hearing Impaired Persons filed a class-action complaint in federal district court against the National Football League, the Cleveland Browns, and several television broadcasters.
- The defendants filed multiple joint motions to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- Two of the broadcasting defendants were voluntarily dismissed from the lawsuit by stipulation.
- The district court granted the remaining defendants' motions and dismissed the complaint.
- Stoutenborough and his organization, as appellants, appealed the district court's dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 National Football League's 'blackout rule,' which prohibits the local television broadcast of home games that are not sold out, violate the Americans with Disabilities Act by denying hearing-impaired individuals access to the games?
Opinions:
Majority - Boyce F. Martin, Jr.
No. The National Football League's 'blackout rule' does not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act because the rule is not discriminatory on its face and, more fundamentally, the protections of Title III of the ADA do not apply to the contents of a television broadcast. The court reasoned first that the blackout rule is not discriminatory, as it applies equally to hearing and hearing-impaired individuals, preventing both groups from viewing the game on television. The availability of a radio broadcast is irrelevant because the rule only impacts television. Second, and more importantly, the court held that Title III of the ADA applies only to discrimination within a physical 'place of public accommodation.' None of the defendants—the NFL, the team, or the television broadcasters—are themselves 'places of public accommodation' under the statute's definition. The service sought, the televised broadcast, is not a service offered by the public accommodation (the stadium) for enjoyment within that place. Therefore, the plain language of the statute restricts its application to physical facilities and does not extend to the content of broadcasts viewed elsewhere.
Analysis:
This decision narrowly interprets the scope of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, firmly linking its protections to physical locations. By finding that a television broadcast is not a 'service' of a 'place of public accommodation,' the court limited the ADA's reach into the realm of mass media and remote services. This ruling established an important precedent that differentiates between accessing a physical space and accessing content that originates from that space, a distinction that has become increasingly relevant in the digital age. It clarifies that for a Title III claim to succeed, the alleged discrimination must be connected to the offerings of a physical facility itself, not merely related to an entity that operates one.
