Johnson v. Mai

Background

Scott Johnson sued Chi Mai, Kim Hang Thi Bui, and Hong Thuy Thi Hoang, identified in the opinion as the owners and proprietors of Sunflower Nails & Hair in San Jose. He alleged that the business violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. He sought an injunction, statutory damages, attorney fees, and litigation costs.

Johnson is a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair and has significant manual-dexterity impairments. During two visits to Sunflower Nails & Hair in October and November 2018, he encountered several accessibility barriers. The reserved parking space and access aisle were not level with each other, and the ramps had slopes of 14.8 percent and 13.3 percent. The entrance door had a pull-bar handle requiring tight grasping. The restroom sink lacked knee clearance, and the toilet-seat-cover and paper-towel dispensers were mounted too high for wheelchair users. Johnson also identified faded parking markings and missing warning signage.

The defendants filed an answer but did not meaningfully participate afterward and did not respond to Johnson’s motion for summary judgment. The court considered the motion without oral argument and viewed the facts in the light most favorable to the defendants.

ADA claim

Title III of the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation. For an architectural-barrier claim, a plaintiff must show that the facility contains an ADA-prohibited barrier and that removing it is readily achievable, meaning it can be done without much difficulty or expense under the circumstances.

The court found that Johnson established each required element. He was disabled under the ADA, Sunflower Nails & Hair was a place of public accommodation, and the identified barriers denied him access because of his disability. The court relied on Johnson’s uncontested testimony and evidence that he had difficulty opening the door, could not reach the dispensers, and had difficulty using the sink. The defendants did not contest that removing the barriers was readily achievable. The court therefore granted Johnson’s motion for summary judgment on the ADA claim.

Unruh Act claim

The court stated that an ADA violation necessarily constitutes a violation of the Unruh Act. Because Johnson established ADA violations involving the parking aisle and ramp, entrance door, and restroom, the court also granted summary judgment on his Unruh Act claim.

Injunctive relief

Johnson requested an order requiring the defendants to provide and maintain accessible parking, a restroom, and door hardware consistent with the 2010 ADA Accessibility Guidelines. The court granted that request for the parking aisle and access ramp, door hardware, and restroom. The court required Johnson to submit a proposed injunction directing the defendants to bring those features into compliance.

The court rejected Johnson’s request for an order requiring specific parking signs stating “Minimum Fine $250” and warning that unauthorized vehicles could be towed. It concluded that the absence of those signs did not itself violate the ADA because the cited California Building Code provisions were not the applicable basis for establishing an ADA architectural barrier.

Statutory damages

The Unruh Act provides minimum statutory damages of $4,000 for each occasion on which a person is denied equal access to a covered establishment. Because Johnson personally encountered access barriers during his visits, the court found him entitled to statutory damages.

Johnson sought $8,000, arguing that the property owners and business owners should be separately liable for the full statutory amount. The court rejected that interpretation and determined that the defendants were jointly responsible for the same access barriers. It awarded Johnson $4,000.

Disposition

The court ordered that: (1) Johnson’s motion was granted as to his ADA claim; (2) Johnson’s motion was granted as to his Unruh Act claim; (3) Johnson had to submit a proposed injunction by September 2, 2020 addressing the parking aisle and ramp, door hardware, and restroom; and (4) Johnson was awarded $4,000 in statutory damages.