Whitaker v. AMT Tech, Inc.
- James Donato
- 3:21-cv-03045
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Whitaker v. AMT Tech, Judge Donato denied AMT’s motion to dismiss Whitaker’s Americans with Disabilities Act claim.
Brian Whitaker’s ADA claim against AMT Tech, Inc. was not dismissed at this stage, and the case was directed toward scheduling further proceedings.
What happened
In Whitaker v. AMT Tech, Inc., Brian Whitaker alleged that AMT’s restaurant was inaccessible to wheelchair users because its outside dining surfaces lacked enough knee or toe clearance. AMT argued that an earlier case involving Whitaker required dismissal.
Judge Donato said this complaint included more specific facts than the earlier one, which had not explained why the service counters were inaccessible. The court also rejected AMT’s argument that the complaint had to say whether the dining table was fixed or built in, explaining that the Americans with Disabilities Act imposes a broader duty on public accommodations to provide disabled guests a comparable experience.
Judge Donato denied AMT’s motion to dismiss the ADA claim and denied AMT’s request for judicial notice of an online pamphlet. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and directed the parties to file a proposed case-scheduling order.
The detailed version
- Whitaker v. AMT Tech, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-03045
- James Donato
- Aug. 16, 2021
Background
Brian Whitaker sued AMT Tech, Inc. under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). He alleged that AMT’s restaurant was not accessible because its outside dining surfaces lacked sufficient knee or toe clearance for wheelchair users.
AMT moved to dismiss the ADA claim under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. AMT argued that an earlier appellate decision involving Whitaker barred this claim. In that earlier case, the complaint had alleged only that service counters were inaccessible without explaining whether they were too low, too high, or inaccessible for another reason.
AMT also argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it did not state whether the dining table or other surface was fixed or built in. AMT asked the court to take judicial notice of an online pamphlet from the Small Business Administration.
Court’s reasoning
The court concluded that Whitaker’s complaint contained enough factual detail to put AMT on notice of the alleged accessibility problem and to state a plausible ADA claim. Unlike the earlier complaint, this complaint identified the alleged problem as insufficient knee or toe clearance under the outside dining surfaces.
The court denied AMT’s request for judicial notice of the online pamphlet. It explained that, for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the sufficiency of a complaint is initially determined from the complaint itself. The court added that, even if it considered the pamphlet, AMT’s interpretation of the ADA regulations was incorrect.
The court said the regulations specify knee- and toe-clearance requirements for fixed or built-in seating and tables. It read those provisions as requiring fixed or built-in elements to meet those specifications, not as limiting the ADA’s general requirements to fixed or built-in architectural elements. The court relied on the broader duty of public accommodations to take reasonable steps to provide disabled guests with a comparable experience.
Disposition
The court denied AMT Tech, Inc.’s request to dismiss Whitaker’s ADA claim. It also denied AMT’s request for judicial notice of the online pamphlet. The hearing on the motion was vacated, and the parties were directed to file a joint proposed case-scheduling order by September 7, 2021.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.