Whitaker v. Brighton Collectibles, LLC

Background

Brian Whitaker, who has a spinal cord injury and uses a wheelchair, visited a Brighton store in January 2021. He alleged that Brighton violated Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act. His theory was that Brighton’s sales counters were more than 36 inches high and that the lowered counter section was completely obstructed, denying him full and equal access to the store.

Brighton moved for summary judgment, which is a request for judgment without a trial because the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact that could affect the result. Whitaker missed the deadline to oppose the motion. The court denied his later request to file a late opposition, finding that his counsel’s failure to check emails was carelessness and error, not excusable neglect.

Analysis

For a Title III ADA discrimination claim, the plaintiff must show that he has a disability covered by the ADA, that the defendant operates a place open to the public, and that the defendant denied him access because of his disability. The court also explained that, because Whitaker’s Unruh Act claim was based on the alleged ADA violation, the two claims stood or fell together.

Brighton presented evidence that it did not conduct sales transactions at the counters. Instead, sales associates took customers’ selected items to be wrapped or boxed, returned to the customers, and completed purchases on an iPad on the sales floor. Whitaker acknowledged at his deposition that he could have completed a transaction using that process. He did not dispute that all transactions occurred on the sales floor, and the court found no evidence contradicting Brighton’s account.

The court concluded that Brighton had shown that Whitaker was not denied a public accommodation and that Whitaker had not produced evidence creating a genuine dispute of material fact. Relying in part on a prior decision involving sales completed on the floor with portable point-of-sale machines, the court determined that the height of Brighton’s counters could not support an ADA violation because the counters were not used for sales transactions.

Disposition

The court granted Brighton’s motion for summary judgment on Whitaker’s ADA claim and, as a result, granted summary judgment on his Unruh Act claim as well. The order was signed by United States District Judge Edward J. Davila.