Judge Ignores Other Case Law
AMC Loses Wheelchair Decision
by Steven John Fellman
NATO Washington Counsel
In an amazing
49-page decision, Judge Florence-Marie Cooper of the
U.S. District Court of the Central District of California
blasted AMC Theatres for knowingly discriminating against
wheelchair patrons in violation of the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Judge Cooper found that the wheelchair seating locations
in AMC’s stadium-style theatres were among the worst
seats in the house and that AMC officials knowingly designed
theatres that placed wheelchair-bound patrons in the front
rows of the auditorium even though AMC officials knew that
wheelchair patrons could not enjoy the movie from these
seating locations. Quoting from numerous statements in
depositions by current and former AMC employees and relying
on the authority of technical articles put in evidence
by the government, the judge showed no sympathy for one
of the nation’s largest and most respected exhibitors.
Although
the judge made it clear that she was unwilling to accept
wheelchair locations in the first several rows
of a stadium-style motion picture theatre, she never
specifically ruled where wheelchair locations must be
placed.
This
case will now go back before Judge Cooper and she will
evaluate each of AMC’s theatres and dictate
what, if any, changes must be made to bring these theatres
in compliance with her understanding of the requirements
of the ADA. Prior to Judge Cooper’s ruling, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the Lara case,
the U.S. District Court in Ohio in the Cinemark case, the
U.S. District Court in Oregon in the Regal case and the
U.S. District Court in New York in the Hoyts case all approved
wheelchair locations on the sloped floor section of a stadium-style
motion picture theatre. Indeed, the Lara court, the Cinemark
court, and the Regal court held that wheelchair locations
could be placed any place within the general seating pattern
of a motion picture theatre as long as there was an unobstructed
view of the screen. These courts relied on the meaning
of § 4.33.3 of the ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG)
regulations. Although each of these courts did a comprehensive
analysis of the legislative history of the ADA and the
ADAAG regulations before interpreting the language of § 4.33.3,
Judge Cooper wasn’t interested in this type of analysis.
She expressed her belief that it was discriminatory to
place wheelchair seating in a stadium-style theatre on
the sloped floor section of the auditorium where, under
her conclusions, wheelchair patrons could not properly
enjoy the movie. With regard to the language of the regulation,
she said that she would give deference to the Department
of Justice’s interpretation of its own regulation
regardless of what the prior court decisions had concluded.
In her decision, Judge Cooper was not only critical of
AMC, but also critical of AMC’s counsel. She went
out of her way to criticize counsel’s representations
to the court.
The
AMC opinion is an unfortunate opinion. However, the issue
of wheelchair seating in stadium-style theatres
is now being considered by the Ninth Circuit Court
of
Appeals.
This circuit includes the state of California. The
Ninth Circuit is reviewing an appeal from the opinion
of the
Oregon U.S. District Court in the Regal case. The
district court held that under § 4.33.3 of the ADAAG, wheelchair
seating in a stadium-style theatre can be located any place
within the general seating footprint of the theatre as
long as there is an unobstructed view of the screen. If
the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms the
District Court, Judge Cooper will be required to reevaluate
her opinion and conform to the ruling of the Ninth Circuit.
A decision from the Ninth Circuit is expected sometime
in late March or early April. 
