Suit brought by moviegoers who use wheelchairs tests limits of ADA.

Movie theaters that have stadium-style seating meet the Americans with Disabilities Act's (ADA) requirement for accommodating patrons who use wheelchairs, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in April. (Lara v. Cinemark USA, Inc., 207 F.3d 783 (5th Cir. 2000).)

Cinemark USA owns and operates Tinseltown, a 20-screen theater complex in El Paso, Texas. All 20 of the complex's theaters provide seating like that in a typical sports stadium--stepped seating that rises at a slope of about 5 percent. The elevated seating eliminates line-of-sight problems that typically occur, for example, when a tall person sits in front of a shorter one.

Tinseltown provides wheelchair-accessible seating in its theaters but not as a part of the stadium-seating configuration. Stadium seating requires a steep grade, which is virtually inaccessible to wheelchairs, so Tinseltown placed its wheelchair seating on a flat part of the floor at the front of the theater. The wheelchair seating is surrounded on all sides by general seating, which, according to Tinseltown, is used even when other seating is available.

Shortly after Tinseltown opened, several people with disabilities and two advocacy groups filed suit, claiming that 18 of Tinseltown's 20 theaters violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. According to court documents, the plaintiffs alleged that wheelchair-accessible areas in those theaters were too near the screen and too far below screen level to provide comfortable viewing. They claimed that the stadium seating gave patrons without disabilities improved sight lines but "relegate[d] wheelchair-users to inferior seating areas, where they must uncomfortably crane their necks to watch movies."

The plaintiffs also argued that the lines of sight offered to moviegoers who use wheelchairs are "so inferior" that they deprive those patrons of the "full and equal enjoyments" of stadium-style seating. And they said that the wheelchair-seating area denies patrons with disabilities the "enhanced viewing experience" Cinemark advertises.

A district court granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the ADA requires stadium-style theaters to offer patrons who use wheelchairs sight lines comparable to those enjoyed by the general public and that Cinemark's theaters failed to do so.

Reversing, a three-judge panel for the Fifth Circuit held that "the district court erred in concluding that Cinemark failed to meet its obligations." Judge W. Eugene Davis wrote that the act's text provides little guidance as to whether theaters must provide moviegoers who use wheelchairs with comparable viewing angles or just unobstructed sight lines.

He noted that many courts have considered whether the act requires theaters to provide wheelchair-seating areas with lines of sight that are unobstructed, but no court has considered whether theaters must provide those seating areas with viewing angles that are as comfortable as those enjoyed by the general public. And he pointed out that the plaintiffs did not allege that the view from Tinseltown's wheelchair-seating area was obstructed or that the area should be interspersed with the general seating.

"In the absence of specific regulatory guidance, we must hold that [the ADA] does not require movie theaters to provide disabled patrons with the same viewing angles available to the majority of nondisabled patrons," Davis wrote.

Not everyone agrees. Monica McFadden, a Chicago attorney who represents plaintiffs in ADA cases, said, "This decision is yet another example of a federal court interpretation of the act that is contrary to Congress's intentions. The intent is to provide equal opportunities to people with disabilities. This decision is the equivalent of telling African Americans that sitting in the back of the bus is equal opportunity."

"The Fifth Circuit's opinion is shortsighted and legally problematic," said Chai Feldblum, a law professor at Georgetown University, who played a leading role in drafting and negotiating the ADA. "The act is designed to provide equal opportunities to people with disabilities. Inherent in that principle--without any need for explicit regulatory guidance--is that theaters cannot provide patrons who use wheelchairs with second-class seating and still call that equality."

In a motion for rehearing en banc, the plaintiffs argued that the panel's ruling "involves a construction of the Americans with Disabilities Act that effectively restricts the `full and equal enjoyment' provision of the ADA." The lawyers also argued that the Fifth Circuit ignored Texas disability law, which offers specific guidance directly on point, when it made its decision. A ruling on a rehearing is pending.