Whitaker v. Cesano, Inc.

Background

Brian Whitaker, who is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair for mobility, alleged that he planned to travel to the Palo Alto area and visited the Country Inn Motel’s reservation website while seeking an accessible room. He alleged that Cesano, Inc. owned and operated the website, which allowed guests to reserve rooms at the Country Inn.

Whitaker claimed that the website did not provide enough information for him to independently determine whether a room met his accessibility needs. The information he said was missing included measurements and details about door clearances, space beside the bed, desk clearance, toilet height and grab bars, sink dimensions, mirror height, and shower features. He asserted claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.

Legal standard

Cesano moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally recognizable claim or does not allege enough facts to make the claim plausible. The court accepted well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of the motion but did not accept unsupported legal conclusions.

Americans with Disabilities Act claim

Whitaker’s first claim alleged that Cesano violated the federal regulation governing hotel reservation systems, known as the Reservations Rule. The rule requires a lodging provider to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail to reasonably allow people with disabilities to independently assess whether a hotel or room meets their needs.

The court gave substantial deference to guidance issued by the Department of Justice in 2010. That guidance explains that a reservation system is not intended to be a complete accessibility survey. For hotels built in compliance with the applicable standards, the guidance stated that it may be enough to identify that the hotel is accessible, describe the general room type, state the size and number of beds, identify the type of accessible bathing facility, and describe available communications features. More detailed information may be provided after a reservation or by trained staff when requested.

The court found that the website provided sufficient information under the Reservations Rule as interpreted by the guidance. The website listed “ADA accessible rooms,” “In room accessibility,” “Roll in shower,” “ADA pool lift,” and “Accessible Parking.” It also identified two types of accessible rooms, included photographs showing their layouts and the placement of beds in relation to walls and furniture, and supplied a telephone number and office hours for obtaining more detailed information.

The court rejected Whitaker’s argument that the website had to provide all of the specific measurements and other details he identified. It also noted that Whitaker cited no authority establishing that describing features as “accessible” was insufficient under the rule. The court therefore held that the first cause of action was subject to dismissal and that amendment would be futile. It dismissed that claim without leave to amend.

Unruh Civil Rights Act claim

Whitaker’s second claim alleged that Cesano violated California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act by failing to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act in its reservation policies and practices. The court found that this claim was wholly dependent on the first claim. Because the ADA claim failed, the court dismissed the Unruh Act claim as well, without leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted Cesano’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the action. The order did not state that the action was dismissed with or without prejudice; it specifically stated that both causes of action were dismissed without leave to amend.