Barajas v. Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC

Background

Kathleen Barajas alleged that she has cerebral palsy, uses a wheelchair, and stayed for several days in December 2018 at an Embassy Suites Hotel owned by Ashford TRS Walnut Creek LLC. She alleged that the accessible room she booked had four problems: the guest-room door required excessive force to open; a ramp between the bedroom and bathroom had a 24.2% gradient; a closet shelf was 69 inches high and obstructed; and the toilet lacked grab bars, causing her to fall while trying to use it.

Barajas also alleged that the hotel’s lowered check-in counter was covered by signs, pamphlets, and newspapers, making it unusable, and that this was an ongoing practice. She further alleged that the hotel’s reservation website did not describe accessibility features in enough detail for her to determine whether a room would meet her needs. She sought injunctive relief, equitable nominal damages, and attorney’s fees and costs under the ADA, as well as statutory damages under the Unruh Act.

Arguments and standing

Ashford TRS moved to dismiss all claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. It factually challenged Barajas’s standing, arguing that she had not shown an injury caused by the hotel. Ashford TRS argued that Barajas had not booked an accessible room, that the hotel had accessible rooms, and that she could have avoided any injury by notifying hotel staff and requesting relocation.

The court held that Barajas adequately alleged past and continuing injuries. Her allegations of accessibility barriers connected those injuries to her disability and supported her request for nominal damages. For injunctive relief, the court acknowledged that her allegations about returning to the area were vague and that she had not explained why she preferred this hotel. But Ninth Circuit precedent allowed such allegations at the pleading stage, including when a person intends to visit an establishment to assess compliance with the ADA.

The court also held that Ashford TRS’s factual arguments were intertwined with the merits—that is, deciding them would require deciding whether the hotel violated the ADA. The court therefore declined to resolve those factual issues on the motion to dismiss, while noting that Ashford TRS might raise similar arguments later with evidence appropriate to a later stage of the case.

ADA claims

The court concluded that Barajas adequately pleaded ADA claims based on the room, service counter, and website. The court noted that the ADA prohibits disability discrimination in the full and equal enjoyment of places of public accommodation and requires compliance with applicable accessibility standards.

For the room’s ramp, the court applied the ADA Accessibility Guidelines’ 12.5% maximum running slope for ramps. Because Barajas alleged a 24.2% gradient and described the feature as a ramp between the bedroom and bathroom—not merely a roll-in shower threshold—the court held that she adequately pleaded an ADA violation.

For the closet shelf, the court applied the accessibility requirements for storage elements, including the 48-inch maximum forward-reach height. Because Barajas alleged that the shelf was 69 inches high, the court held that she adequately pleaded an ADA violation based on the shelf.

For the service counter, the court reasoned that an accessible-height counter must include some usable space. Barajas alleged that the lowered section was completely covered by materials and that this was an ongoing practice. The court held that she adequately pleaded an ADA violation.

For the reservation website, the court applied the rule requiring hotels to identify and describe accessible features in enough detail to allow people with disabilities to independently assess whether accommodations meet their needs. The court held that Barajas adequately pleaded a violation because the website’s descriptions were insufficient and did not reliably identify the features available in a particular accessible room.

Unruh Act claim and disposition

The court stated that an ADA violation is also a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, regardless of whether the discrimination was intentional. Because Barajas adequately alleged ADA violations, the court held that she adequately alleged an Unruh Act violation as well.

The court denied Ashford TRS’s motion to dismiss. The opinion did not enter a final judgment on liability; it allowed Barajas’s claims to go forward. Under the classification convention, this is a procedural order because it ruled on a motion to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).