Stiner v. Brookdale Senior Living, Inc.

Background

Plaintiffs are current or former residents, or their successors in interest, of six Brookdale facilities in California: Brookhurst, Fountaingrove, Hemet, San Ramon, Scotts Valley, and Tracy. They allege that the facilities contain physical access barriers violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. They also challenge Brookdale’s former Fleet Safety Policy, which allegedly required scooter and power-wheelchair users to transfer to a manual wheelchair or vehicle seat, as well as Brookdale’s emergency evacuation plans.

The court had certified four groups under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2): a wheelchair and scooter users group challenging the Fleet Safety Policy, and facility-specific groups for San Ramon, Scotts Valley, and Brookhurst seeking injunctive and declaratory relief. The pending motions concerned the remaining individual and group claims. The order addressed the plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and Brookdale’s cross-motion for summary judgment.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court may not weigh evidence or decide which witnesses are credible at this stage.

Unruh Act claims based on California standards

The Unruh Act can provide protections and remedies in addition to the ADA. A disability-access claim may be based on California accessibility requirements, such as the California Building Code (CBC), or on an ADA violation. The court rejected Brookdale’s argument that the plaintiffs could not pursue CBC-based theories because their complaint did not specifically cite the CBC. Brookdale had notice of those theories through class-certification proceedings and the parties’ lengthy discovery.

The court nevertheless held that the CBC-based Unruh Act claims failed as a matter of law. Unlike an Unruh Act claim based on an ADA violation, an independent Unruh Act claim requires proof of intentional discrimination, including willful affirmative misconduct. The plaintiffs argued that Brookdale’s failure to correct access barriers showed intentional discrimination, but the court found no evidence that Brookdale sought to discriminate against people with disabilities. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claims predicated on alleged violations of California law, including the CBC. The ruling did not apply to Unruh Act claims based on alleged ADA violations, for which intentional discrimination is not required.

ADA access-barrier claims

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination by an owner, lessor, or operator of a place of public accommodation. The court had previously determined at the motion-to-dismiss stage that Brookdale’s assisted-living facilities, as alleged, were public accommodations under the ADA.

The court granted Brookdale’s motion for summary judgment on the San Ramon and Scotts Valley facility-based subclasses’ ADA access-barrier claims and on their Unruh Act claims based on alleged ADA violations. The court explained that the plaintiffs had represented during class certification that their theory was limited to new-construction claims, but San Ramon and Scotts Valley were existing facilities. The Brookhurst facility was the only certified facility that qualified as a new-construction facility under the court’s analysis. The court also held that the CBC-based Unruh Act claims failed for the certified subclasses, consistent with its separate analysis.

The court denied Brookdale’s motion for summary judgment on the individual plaintiffs’ ADA access-barrier claims involving the existing facilities—Scotts Valley, San Ramon, and Tracy. Whether removing barriers at existing facilities was “readily achievable” is a fact-intensive question that could not be resolved on this record. Related Unruh Act claims based on alleged ADA violations also survived.

The court also denied Brookdale’s motion for summary judgment on the access-barrier claims involving new facilities. Brookdale argued that a successor owner or operator could not be liable for new-construction discrimination if it did not design or build the facility. The court rejected that argument, concluding that, under Ninth Circuit precedent, a successor owner such as Brookdale may be liable when a newly constructed facility does not comply with the applicable ADA Architectural Guidelines. The court acknowledged that this conclusion created a split within the district and noted that the Ninth Circuit, rather than the district court, could reconsider the governing precedent.

The court deferred ruling on the plaintiffs’ request for summary judgment concerning the alleged existence of particular barriers at Brookhurst, Fountaingrove, and Hemet. The court could not determine whether the plaintiffs sought factual findings, legal conclusions that the barriers violated the ADA, or both, and the plaintiffs had not explained how the requested ruling would operate at trial. The deferral applied to both the ADA and related Unruh Act claims involving the new facilities.

Fleet Safety Policy claims

Both sides sought summary judgment on claims concerning Brookdale’s former Fleet Safety Policy. Brookdale argued that a 2024 policy change made the claims for injunctive relief moot. The court rejected that argument because Brookdale had not shown that the challenged conduct could not reasonably recur; the policy change was recent and occurred years into the litigation.

The court also rejected Brookdale’s argument that the federal transportation regulation governing the purchase or lease of vehicles by entities not primarily engaged in transporting people displaced the regulation stating that a transportation provider may recommend, but may not require, a wheelchair user to transfer to a vehicle seat. The court viewed the regulations as addressing distinct subjects, so the regulation concerning wheelchair lifts and securement could provide a basis for liability.

Brookdale also raised a “direct threat” defense, arguing that safety concerns excused the challenged policy. The court found that Brookdale had not provided evidence of the individualized assessment required for that defense and stated that the defense would not preclude summary judgment for the plaintiffs. However, the court did not grant summary judgment to the plaintiffs because the parties disputed what the Fleet Safety Policy required or recommended and the policy’s text could support both interpretations. The court denied both parties’ motions on these claims.

Emergency evacuation claims

Brookdale argued that the ADA and its regulations contain no specific emergency-evacuation requirements. The court held that the plaintiffs’ claims could not be rejected as a matter of law because the ADA’s broad prohibition on disability discrimination may reach the alleged emergency-planning deficiencies. Factual disputes concerned the regularity of drills, residents’ ability to participate, accessible emergency transportation, updates to emergency procedures, and whether the plans discriminated against residents with disabilities. The court denied Brookdale’s motion for summary judgment on the emergency-evacuation claims.

Jeanette Algarme’s standing

Brookdale sought summary judgment on Jeanette Algarme’s claims for injunctive relief, arguing that she lacked standing to seek prospective relief because she formerly lived at Brookhurst. Algarme stated under oath that she would return to visit the facility if current access barriers were removed. The court held that this statement was sufficient at the summary-judgment stage to show an intent to return and denied Brookdale’s motion as to her injunctive-relief claims. The court noted that Brookdale could still challenge her standing at trial and did not resolve its separate argument concerning a memory-care unit she had not visited.

Disposition

The court granted Brookdale’s cross-motion for summary judgment as to: (1) the ADA and Unruh Act claims brought by the San Ramon and Scotts Valley subclasses; and (2) the plaintiffs’ Unruh Act claims based on alleged CBC violations. The court deferred ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment concerning new-facility access-barrier claims brought by the individual plaintiffs and the Brookhurst subclass under the ADA and Unruh Act. The motions for summary judgment were otherwise denied.