Smith v. Golden China of Red Wing, Inc.

Background

Scott Smith, who has arthrogryposis and uses a wheelchair, sued Golden China of Red Wing, Inc. and Vu Thu Lam under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Smith visited the restaurant in May 2017 and alleged several accessibility violations involving its parking area and entrance. The court had previously dismissed the Minnesota Human Rights Act claim. It also determined that several parking issues were moot or did not require additional accessible spaces. The remaining issue was whether the incline from the parking lot to the walkway complied with the ADA.

The defendants conceded that the incline did not strictly comply with ADA standards. They argued, however, that correcting it was not “readily achievable,” meaning it could not be easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense. The defendants presented evidence that the work would cost between $29,000 and $39,000, and testimony that the renovations would likely put Golden China out of business. The opinion describes Golden China as a small business with two employees and one location, but some financial amounts in the opinion text are blank.

Standing

The defendants argued that Smith lacked standing to seek an order requiring future accessibility improvements because he did not try to leave his vehicle and enter the restaurant, and because he testified that he did not like or eat Chinese food. The court rejected those arguments. It credited Smith’s testimony that he visits the area, plans to return to Golden China if the barrier is removed, and was deterred from trying to enter because he believed doing so would be unsafe. The court also declined to adopt a rule that a person who can navigate a similar noncompliant barrier in daily life cannot be injured by that barrier elsewhere.

ADA standard

The court held that the ADA’s “readily achievable” barrier-removal standard applied. It found that Golden China’s 2001 or 2002 resurfacing of the parking lot was an alteration rather than ordinary maintenance, but concluded that the later regulation governing existing facilities controlled where the regulations conflicted. Under that standard, Smith had to provide evidence of a specific removal design, its cost, and its effect on the facility’s finances and operations.

Smith argued that Golden China could obtain a mortgage, use available tax benefits, spread the work over two years, or redirect money paid to Vu Thu Lam as wages and rent. He also argued that the defendants’ ability to pay litigation expenses showed they could pay for the work. The court found that these arguments did not establish that the work was readily achievable. In particular, Smith did not provide evidence showing that Golden China could afford the project, and the court found litigation expenses were not comparable to the cost of permanent barrier removal.

Rulings

The court concluded that Smith failed to carry his burden of showing that removing the parking-area barrier was readily achievable. It therefore granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in full and denied Smith’s motion for summary judgment.

The defendants’ combined motion for summary judgment and to strike Peter Hansmeier’s testimony was granted in part and denied in part: the summary judgment motion was granted in full, while the motion to strike was denied as moot. The court also denied the parties’ motions to exclude expert testimony as moot. In a footnote, the court stated that it would have granted the motion to strike because Hansmeier lacked training or experience in the ADA-compliance industry outside litigation, but that statement did not change the order’s disposition of the motion.

The court ordered the opinion filed under seal and required the parties to show cause within ten days why it should not be unsealed and to identify any portions needing redaction. The order states that judgment should be entered accordingly.