Whitaker v. San Francisco Airport South TL, L.P.

Background

Brian Whitaker alleged that San Francisco Airport South TL, L.P. and Ongerth Hospitality Management, Inc. violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide sufficient accessibility information on the Dylan Hotel’s reservation website. Whitaker alleged that he uses a wheelchair and sought to book an accessible room through the website on January 6, 2021.

He claimed the website did not let him independently determine whether a room would meet his needs. He also alleged that a photograph from the website showed a shower without the clearance and foldable seat he believed were required for accessibility. His initial complaint focused on the ADA’s hotel-reservation rule, 28 C.F.R. § 36.302(e)(1). His operative complaint added the photograph allegations and also included an Unruh Civil Rights Act claim.

Stay and judicial notice

The court declined to stay, or pause, the case while similar appeals were pending. It found that Whitaker had not shown that continuing the case would cause him hardship or unfairness, and it noted that the motion to dismiss was already fully briefed. The court also considered the defendants’ asserted harm from leaving the case open.

The court granted the defendants’ request to take judicial notice of the website pages, a consent decree, dismissal orders, and another accessibility webpage. It denied the request as to a list of Whitaker’s previously filed federal cases because the court found that list irrelevant to the pending motions.

ADA reservation-information claim

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss. It concluded that the website supplied the kinds of information identified in Department of Justice guidance, including the general room type, bed type, accessible bathing facility, and communication features. The website also described accessible doorways and routes, clear floor space, lowered outlets, bathroom grab rails, shower features, toilet-seat height, and an accessible sink with a lever faucet.

The court rejected the argument that the website needed to provide additional specific measurements or function as a detailed accessibility survey. It also rejected the argument that describing features as “accessible” provided no meaningful information. The court concluded that the website satisfied the reservation-information rule and that the ADA claim failed as a matter of law.

Photograph allegations and standing

The court held that Whitaker lacked standing to sue over the alleged barriers shown in the photograph because he had not established a violation of the reservation-information rule and had not actually encountered the photographed barrier or another barrier. The court also stated that it was not apparent that a violation could be established from a photograph when a plaintiff had not visited the facility. It noted that Whitaker had not explained where the photograph came from or otherwise established that it showed a noncompliant room intended to be accessible.

Disposition

Judge Kandis Westmore dismissed the claims with prejudice, including the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim. The court explained that the Unruh claim depended on the unsuccessful ADA claim. The conclusion states that the defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice.