Love v. O'Reilly Auto Enterprises, LLC

Background

Samuel Love, who uses a wheelchair for mobility, visited an O’Reilly Auto Parts store in San Mateo, California, in June 2019. The store had a lowered sales counter for transactions involving customers with disabilities. Love said he asked to be helped there, but an employee refused because the counter was not usable. Love then completed his transaction at a higher counter, which he said was inaccessible and caused difficulty and discomfort.

After Love’s visit, investigator Corey Taylor inspected the store and reported that the lowered counter was crowded with boxes and inventory. Love sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the California Unruh Civil Rights Act. He argued that O’Reilly failed to provide a reasonable modification to accommodate him and failed to maintain the lowered counter in usable condition.

Standing

O’Reilly argued that Love lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he had not shown a sufficiently concrete plan to return to the store. The court rejected that argument. It held that Love had established standing based on “tester standing,” which allows an ADA plaintiff to return to a facility to test whether it complies with disability-access requirements, even if that is the plaintiff’s only reason for returning.

Summary-Judgment Analysis

Summary judgment is a ruling without a trial that is appropriate only when no genuine dispute exists about a fact that could affect the outcome. The court concluded that Love met his initial burden by submitting evidence that an employee declined to assist him at the lowered counter and that O’Reilly did not maintain the counter in an accessible manner on more than one occasion.

The court found that O’Reilly had not adequately supported some alleged factual disputes. In particular, O’Reilly’s general policies requiring ADA compliance did not by themselves establish that the store complied with the law. The court also treated several proposed disputes as legal questions, undisputed facts, or facts that would not affect the outcome. It denied Love’s objection to a declaration from an O’Reilly employee, concluding that evidence at the summary-judgment stage need not yet be presented in the exact form required for trial if its contents could later be admitted through other means.

The court nevertheless identified genuine and material factual disputes concerning whether the counter’s unavailability resulted from a temporary payment-terminal malfunction, whether Love’s requested modification was reasonable, and whether customers were regularly assisted at the lowered counter. The court explained that temporary interruptions caused by maintenance or repairs are treated differently under the ADA, and that whether a requested modification is reasonable requires a fact-specific inquiry. A reasonable jury could resolve these disputes in O’Reilly’s favor.

Disposition

Because genuine disputes of material fact remained, the court denied Love’s motion for summary judgment. The opinion did not enter judgment resolving the ADA or Unruh Act claims on the merits.