Range, Jr. v. 230 West 41st Street LLC

Background

King Range, Jr., who has cerebral palsy and uses an electric wheelchair, challenged access to a Domino’s restaurant operated by Hat Trick Pizza, Inc. in a building owned by 230 West 41st Street LLC. The restaurant’s floor was about one to two feet above the sidewalk, and two steps prevented wheelchair access through the front entrance. Range visited the restaurant in 2016, saw the steps, and left without asking employees about a portable ramp or contacting the defendants later.

Range asserted claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the New York State Human Rights Law, the New York City Human Rights Law, the New York State Civil Rights Law, and common-law negligence. All defendants moved for summary judgment, which is judgment entered without a trial when the evidence shows no genuine dispute over a fact important to the result.

Domino’s motion

Range did not oppose Domino’s motion and offered no evidence from which a reasonable jury could find Domino’s liable. The evidence showed that Domino’s had no role in operating the restaurant and did not own, lease, or manage it. The court therefore granted Domino’s motion for summary judgment in full on all claims against Domino’s Pizza LLC and Domino’s Pizza Franchising LLC.

ADA alteration claim

The court held that reasonable jurors could find that three changes made by Hat Trick were ADA “alterations”: replacing the exterior double doors with a wider single door, sealing the second entrance to the lobby, and installing a new steel floor plate near the entrance. The court found that other changes, such as replacing signage, storefront glass, and interior laminates, were cosmetic and did not qualify as alterations.

The court nevertheless granted summary judgment to Hat Trick and 230 West on the alteration claims. It concluded that the store could not have been made wheelchair-accessible through the challenged alterations because the actual obstacle was the elevation difference between the store floor and the sidewalk. The court also rejected liability based on closing the second entrance because, when it was closed, a step between the sidewalk and lobby already prevented wheelchair users from reaching that entrance. The court separately dismissed as abandoned Range’s claim concerning alterations to an area containing a “primary function,” because he did not address that claim in opposition to summary judgment.

ADA barrier-removal proposals

The ADA requires removal of architectural barriers when removal is “readily achievable,” meaning easily accomplished without much difficulty or expense. The court considered five proposals:

1. Reopening the second entrance: Summary judgment was denied. The court found that reasonable jurors could view removing the sheetrock and reopening the entrance as a simple, plausible solution, and the defendants had not established as a matter of law that its cost would exceed its benefits.

2. Installing a platform lift: Summary judgment was granted. The proposed lift would require major structural work, cost between $199,000 and $233,230 before additional expenses, and require the restaurant to close for several weeks. The court held that no reasonable juror could find this solution easily achievable without much difficulty or expense.

3. Installing an interior ramp while raising the sidewalk or installing a lift: Summary judgment was granted because Range provided too little information to evaluate the proposal.

4. Installing a ramp from the sidewalk into the store based on his architect’s designs: Summary judgment was granted. The designs were incomplete, had errors, lacked needed structural analysis, and were not accompanied by a cost estimate.

5. Raising the sidewalk to the level of the store floor: Summary judgment was granted because Range did not provide enough evidence to show that this was a plausible and cost-effective proposal.

New York claims

The parties agreed that the New York State Human Rights Law claim used the same standard as the ADA claim. The court therefore granted Hat Trick and 230 West’s motion on the New York State claim for injunctive relief to the same extent as on the ADA claim.

The court did not grant summary judgment on the New York City Human Rights Law theories of disparate impact and aiding-and-abetting liability because the defendants’ argument was too briefly developed. The court did grant summary judgment on Range’s New York City claim for failure to provide a reasonable accommodation. Before the lawsuit, the defendants had no notice that Range had visited the restaurant or that he was disabled, and the law required that the disability be known or reasonably knowable to the covered entity.

Range withdrew his common-law negligence and New York State Civil Rights Law claims in his opposition brief. The court therefore dismissed those claims.

Disposition

Judge Loretta A. Preska granted Domino’s motion for summary judgment in full. She granted Hat Trick and 230 West’s motion with respect to the negligence claims, the New York State Civil Rights Law claims, the ADA alteration claims, the ADA and New York State Human Rights Law barrier-removal claims concerning proposals 2 through 5, and the New York City Human Rights Law reasonable-accommodation claim. She otherwise denied Hat Trick and 230 West’s motion. The court directed the Clerk to close the two pending motions.