Love v. Barcelino Continental Corp.

Background

Samuel Love, who is paraplegic and uses a wheelchair, sued Barcelino Continental Corp. He alleged that the company’s men’s clothing store did not provide an accessible sales counter or accessible writing surface, violating Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Act. He sought an injunction under the ADA and an injunction and statutory damages under the Unruh Act.

Love visited the store on September 24, 2019, to buy shoes and assess the business’s compliance with access laws. He looked for a sales counter about 36 inches high but saw only a higher counter with a lower surface beneath it. Because the lower surface did not have a cash register or card reader, Love believed he would need to reach up to an employee at the higher counter to complete a transaction. He stated that this caused difficulty and discomfort, deterred him from buying anything, and that he would return after access violations were removed.

Summary Judgment Standard and Evidence

The court considered the parties’ declarations, photographs, pleadings, and other materials submitted with the motion. It overruled as moot Love’s objection to part of the declaration of Barcelino’s expert because the court did not rely on that material.

Summary judgment is appropriate when the evidence shows that no genuine dispute exists over a fact that could affect the result and the moving party is entitled to judgment under the law. The court viewed reasonable inferences in Love’s favor but concluded that his arguments were not supported by sufficient evidence.

ADA Sales-Counter Claim

The ADA prohibits discrimination based on disability in the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations at a covered public-accommodation business. The parties did not dispute that Love was disabled or that Barcelino owned the store. The dispute concerned whether the store denied him full and equal treatment because of his disability.

The court applied ADA Accessibility Guidelines section 904.4.1, which requires a sales or service counter with a portion at least 36 inches long and no more than 36 inches high, with the required adjacent floor space for a parallel wheelchair approach. The court found that the lower counter was slightly less than 36 inches high, more than 36 inches long, and roughly the same depth as the higher counter. Love offered no measurements or other evidence creating a genuine factual dispute about the counters’ depth.

Love argued that the lower surface could not be treated as a sales counter because it lacked a card reader and cash register, employees stood behind the higher counter, and customers would have to reach over the higher counter to pay. The court found that argument speculative. Love had not alleged that he attempted to make a purchase, and the complaint did not explain how salespeople interacted with customers. The store’s expert stated that employees used portable point-of-sale machines and could make sales anywhere on the floor, so employees did not have to stand behind the higher counter and customers did not have to reach it. Love offered no evidence that this was not the store’s practice when he visited.

The court therefore held that the lower counter complied with the applicable requirements and that the evidence was insufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the higher counter was the store’s actual sales counter. Because the higher counter was not shown to be where sales occurred, it did not need to comply with the sales-counter requirements for this lawsuit. The court granted Barcelino judgment on this ADA claim.

ADA Check-Writing-Surface Claim

ADA Accessibility Guidelines section 904.3.3 governs check-writing surfaces in checkout aisles. Check-writing surfaces are not required, but when provided, accessible ones must be between 28 and 34 inches high. Barcelino’s expert stated that the store did not provide a check-writing surface because it did not accept checks. Love disputed this only by asserting that the lower surface was more like a customer writing surface and therefore violated the rules because it was 36 inches high.

The court held that section 904.3.3 applies to checkout aisles, not sales and service counters. Love offered no evidence or argument showing that the lower counter was part of a checkout aisle. The court concluded that no reasonable factfinder could find that the lower counter was a checkout-aisle check-writing surface and granted Barcelino judgment as a matter of law on this ADA claim.

Unruh Act Claim

The court explained that, under California law, an ADA violation also violates the Unruh Act. Because Love’s state-law claim was based on the same alleged conduct as his ADA claims, the court concluded that the Unruh Act claim failed along with the ADA claims. The court granted summary judgment on that claim as well.

Disposition

Judge Jacquelyn Scott Corley granted Barcelino Continental Corp.’s motion for summary judgment. The court also vacated the August 12, 2021 hearing and stated that the order disposed of Docket No. 42.