Norkunas v. Seahorse Nb, LLC

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 11-12402 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
OCTOBER 25, 2011
Non-Argument Calendar
JOHN LEY
________________________ CLERK
D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00934-TJC-MCR
BILL NORKUNAS,
Individually,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SEAHORSE NB, LLC,
A Florida Limited Liability Company,
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(October 25, 2011)
Before HULL, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Bill Norkunas, who suffers from post-polio syndrome, brought an action
under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) 42 U.S.C. §§
12181–12189 against Seahorse NB, LLC (“Seahorse”), alleging the existence of
barriers at its property, the Seahorse Oceanfront Inn (“the Seahorse Inn”). The
Seahorse Inn was built in the 1950s prior to the enactment of the ADA, and
Seahorse constructed a non-accessible walkway to the beach in 1999. On June 16,
2010, the district court partially granted Seahorse’s Motion to Dismiss based on
lack of standing and limited the scope of the suit to exclude the two designated
accessible motel rooms. The district court conducted a bench trial on February 14,
2011. On May 23, 2011, the district court found that Norkunas failed to establish
continuing discrimination under Title III of the ADA and so entered judgment for
Seahorse.
Norkunas raises five issues on appeal: (1) whether the district court erred in
ruling that the Plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief over the
designated accessible rooms; (2) whether the district court applied the proper
standard and burden of proof in its analysis of the dune walkway claim; (3)
whether the district court applied the proper standard and burden of proof when
analyzing claims involving elements of the Seahorse Inn constructed before the
enactment of the ADA; (4) whether the district court properly admitted testimony
2
from Seahorse’s owner and expert at trial; and (5) whether the district court erred
in finding that the Seahorse Inn’s parking was ADA compliant.
DISCUSSION
Title III of the ADA provides that:
No individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability
in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities,
privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public
accommodation by any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or
operates a place of public accommodation.
42 U.S.C. § 12182(a).
Congress created two standards of compliance for the accessibility of public
accommodations by defining the term “discrimination” based on the age of the
building. Buildings that pre-existed the enactment of the ADA must meet the
“readily achievable” standard, and buildings constructed after the enactment of the
ADA must meet the new construction or alterations standard. 42 U.S.C. §§
12182(a), 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv), 12183(a).
For pre-existing places of public accommodation, failure to remove
architectural and structural barriers “where such removal is readily achievable”
constitutes discrimination. Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv). “Readily achievable” is
defined as “easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much
difficulty or expense.” Id. § 12181(9). When removing barriers, an entity should
3
strive to meet the new construction standard if readily achievable. If it is not
readily achievable, the entity may make its accommodations available through
alternative readily achievable means. Id. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(v); 28 C.F.R. §
36.304(d)(3). No public accommodation is required to make a modification or
alteration if permitting an individual to participate in or benefit from the facilities
would pose a “direct threat to the health or safety of others.” 42 U.S.C. §
12182(b)(3).
New construction (and alterations1 to a facility affecting its usability) built
after the enactment of the ADA must be designed to make the facility “readily
accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including individuals who
use wheelchairs” to the maximum extent feasible. Id. § 12183(a)(2). Failure to
make such construction (and alterations) accessible constitutes intentional
discrimination. Id.
We review findings of fact for clear error. Morrissette-Brown v. Mobile
Infirmary Med. Ctr., 506 F.3d 1317, 1319 (11th Cir. 2007). We review questions
1
Not every change to an existing facility is an “alteration” under the statute. Relevant
regulations define alteration as “a change to a place of public accommodation or a commercial
facility that affects or could affect the usability of the building or facility or any part thereof.” 28
C.F.R. § 36.402.
4
of law, including statutory interpretation, de novo. Corporate Mgmt. Advisors,
Inc. v. Artjen Complexus, Inc., 561 F.3d 1294, 1296 (11th Cir. 2009).
A. STANDING
Article III judicial power extends only to cases or controversies.2 U.S.
CONST. art. III, § 2. A federal court has an obligation to assure itself that a
litigant seeking an injunction has standing to do so. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.
Laidlaw Envtl. Servs., Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180, 120 S. Ct. 693, 703–04 (2000). To
satisfy the requirements of standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) an injury in
fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and conduct complained of; and
(3) that a favorable court ruling could redress the injury. Lujan v. Defenders of
Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560–61, 112 S. Ct. 2130, 2136 (1992). Injunctive relief
requires a further showing of a plaintiff’s actual or imminent injury. Id. at 564,
112 S. Ct. at 2138.
After an evidentiary hearing, the district court found that in addition to his
pre-filing visit, Norkunas attempted to visit the Seahorse Inn once after he filed
suit but was unable to stay due to a lack of available rooms. It further found that
2
Norkunas raises the issue of mootness, specifically that Seahorse should not win on the
merits since it failed to meet the “formidable burden” required to show that the case was moot at
trial. This argument is not well taken. Seahorse’s failure to prevail on a mootness argument
does not entitle Norkunas to judgment on the merits.
5
Norkunas visited the Lemon Bar, located within the motel, on four separate
occasions. Additionally, the district court found that Norkunas sufficiently
demonstrated that he regularly travels to and through Jacksonville, and will
continue to do so. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Thus, we find that
Norkunas had standing to bring this suit.3
In addition to standing to bring suit, plaintiffs must have standing to bring
each claim in the lawsuit. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d 993,
1002–03 (11th Cir. 2004) (“[S]tanding must exist with respect to each claim.”).
Norkunas appeals the district court’s finding that he did not have standing to bring
claims involving two designated accessible rooms. At the evidentiary hearing on
standing, the district court accepted Seahorse’s testimony that an accessible room
would have been available to Norkunas, but he did not request one. Based on this
testimony, the district court found that Norkunas could not have encountered
discrimination in the accessible rooms, and he therefore does not have standing to
include those rooms in his discrimination case.
3
Seahorse objected to Norkunas’ standing partly because he visited the Seahorse Inn in
his capacity as an ADA “tester,” for the purpose of investigating ADA compliance. As the
district court noted, we have never addressed the issue of “tester standing” or “professional
plaintiff” standing under the ADA. We find that Norkunas had standing on the basis of his
continuing need to stay at hotels in Jacksonville when traveling between his two homes and in
conducting his work with post-polio patients. We therefore do not address “tester standing” here.
6
Norkunas argues that the statutory language of the ADA allows for standing
to bring an entire facility into compliance once one barrier is encountered. We
reject this construction. While the nature of a motel only allows people to stay in
one room per night, in this case Norkunas did not attempt to avail himself of an
accessible room. Because he did not experience discrimination as a result of his
stay in a designated accessible room, he was not discriminated against through
barriers contained therein and he does not meet the injury in fact requisite for
standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560–61, 112 S. Ct. at 2136.
B. DUNE WALKOVER
A plaintiff alleging Title III ADA discrimination must initially prove that
(1) he is a disabled individual; (2) the defendants own, lease, or operate a place of
public accommodation; and (3) the defendants discriminated against the plaintiff
within the meaning of the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a). For alterations of
premises, the ADA defines discrimination as “a failure to make alterations in such
a manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the altered portions of the facility
are readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities, including
individuals who use wheelchairs.” Id. § 12183(a)(2). For new construction and
alterations, the Attorney General’s ADA Accessibility Guidelines are construction
guidelines offering a safe harbor for new construction such that compliance with
7
the Accessibility Guidelines means compliance with the ADA. All new
construction should comply with the Attorney General’s regulations, and the
regulations require that all new construction (and alterations) shall comply with
the issued standards. Id. § 12186(b); 28 C.F.R. § 36.406(a).
The district court found that no federal or state regulations exist governing
the accessibility standards for beach access walkways. Seahorse argues that the
dune walkover did not have to be made accessible because it is not a path of travel
or a required accessible route. Absent federal or state scoping regulations
requiring accessible beach walkways, the district court could not find a legal basis
on which to require the walkway to be made accessible.
After a thorough review of the relevant laws and regulations, we agree.
Therefore, it is not necessary for Seahorse to bring the dune walkover into
compliance with the ADA, for regulations governing beach walkways do not exist.
C. PRE-EXISTING BARRIERS
1. Applicable Standard
While the plaintiff has the burden of proving discrimination in an ADA
claim, Norkunas argues that the burden shifts here because Seahorse completed
remedial measures before trial. We disagree. The ADA provides only prospective
injunctive relief for violations, and does not allow for damages for past
8
discrimination or past remedied violations. 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1). Seahorse’s
remedial work did not diminish or shift Norkunas’s burden of proof, and the
district court did not err in requiring Norkunas to prove discrimination.
2. Burden of Proof
As with the dune walkover, any plaintiff alleging Title III ADA
discrimination must make an initial showing of discrimination under the ADA. To
meet their burden of proof in discrimination cases focused on pre-existing
buildings, plaintiffs must present evidence of a barrier, and “sufficient evidence
so that a defendant can evaluate the proposed solution to a barrier, the difficulty of
accomplishing it, the cost [of] implementation, and the economic operation of the
facility.” Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc. 452 F.3d 1269, 1274
(11th Cir. 2006). When plaintiffs meet the burden of production showing that the
removal of barriers is “readily achievable,” the burden then shifts to the defendant
to prove the affirmative defense that the removal of a barrier is not readily
achievable. Id. Typically, litigation focuses on whether barrier removal is readily
achievable or not. Here, the focus is the continued existence of barriers at the time
of trial. The burden of proof does not change when remedial measures are
accomplished before trial. Evidence presented regarding the changes at the
Seahorse Inn is counter-evidence for the finder of fact to weigh in determining the
9
existence of the barriers—not an argument of mootness as the plaintiff contends.
The district court did not err in applying the Gathright-Dietrich burden-shifting
standard.
3. Sufficiency of Seahorse’s Evidence
All relevant evidence is generally admissible. FED. R. EVID. 402. We
review the admission of evidence by the district court for abuse of discretion.
Chrysler Int’l Corp. v. Chemaly, 280 F.3d 1358, 1362 (11th Cir. 2002).
Generally, this Court will not consider an issue not raised in the district court.
Access Now, Inc. v. Southwest Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004).
Thus, to preserve evidentiary issues on appeal in civil cases, parties must object to
the challenged testimony under the contemporaneous-objection rule. See Sec. &
Exch. Comm’n v. Diversified Corp. Consulting Group, 378 F.3d 1219, 1227 (11th
Cir. 2004) (“In a case such as this—where the party foregoes an opportunity to
object—we do not entertain the objection on appeal.”). However, in a rare,
exceptional civil case, we review evidence admitted without a contemporaneous
objection for plain error if the error would result in a fundamental miscarriage of
justice. Christopher v. Cutter Labs., 53 F.3d 1184, 1192 (1995). “Plain errors are
obvious and substantial errors which seriously affect the fairness, integrity or
public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Hope, 901 F.2d 1013,
10
1020 (11th Cir. 1990) (citation omitted). We need not decide if this is such a rare
case because there is no plain error in any event.
a. Cole’s Testimony
Norkunas argues that the district court erroneously considered the testimony
of Seahorse’s owner David Cole on matters of ADA compliance. Norkunas
argues that ADA compliance is technical and therefore requires an expert to testify
as to matters of compliance. He appeals the admission of Cole’s testimony
regarding the curb ramp by the registration office, the gates on the property, the
door thresholds to Room 118, the alterations made to the restrooms in the Lemon
Bar, and the parking space in front of the registration office.
Reviewing the record and testimony appealed, we find that Cole’s testimony
was limited to facts within his personal knowledge, as permitted by the Rules of
Evidence.4 See FED. R. EVID. 602. The district court therefore did not commit
error in admitting this testimony.
b. Defense Expert’s Testimony
4
Cole testified that he smoothed an area outside an office (curb ramp); added pavers
around the gate latches; leveled a threshold of a door and narrowed the size of the bump by at
least one-half inch; moved grab bars an inch or two, took away part of an apron under the
lavatories, and did work in the area of the Lemon Bar restrooms; and made a parking space “as
level as possible.” Brief for Appellant at 37–38, 42, 45.
11
Here, Norkunas challenges the testimony of Seahorse’s expert Barley, but
no objection was raised at trial. Therefore, we review for plain error.
Christopher, 53 F.3d at 1192. Barley is a licensed architect with more than forty
years of architectural experience and extensive experience in ADA compliance.
He is a member of the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Architects
and has served as President of AIA Florida and as a member of the AIA Board of
Directors.
We do not find plain error in the district court’s admission of Barley as an
expert for the defense or in the district court’s reliance on his testimony in his
report and at trial.
D. PARKING
Norkunas also appeals the district court’s finding that the Seahorse Inn’s
parking complied with the ADA. The district court found that Seahorse owned
two parking lots: one exclusively for the use of guests of the Seahorse Inn
containing twenty-three spaces (“the close lot”); and the other for use by the
public, guests of the Seahorse Inn, and patrons of the Lemon Bar, containing sixty
spaces (“the far lot”). Norkunas argues that these lots should be considered
together when determining the number of required accessible parking spaces for
the Seahorse Inn.
12
The district court found that the two accessible parking spaces in the close
lot satisfied the requirements of the ADA. The district court’s conclusion analyzes
the close lot as the Seahorse Inn’s only parking lot and the far lot as a separate
entity. There is evidence in the record indicating that even though Seahorse owns
both lots, they serve different functions and can be analyzed separately. We find
no clear error in the district court’s conclusion that the close lot was the Seahorse
Inn’s parking lot for analysis of ADA compliance. Morrissette-Brown, 506 F.3d
at 1319. We agree therefore with the district court’s conclusion that the Seahorse
Inn’s parking complied with the ADA.
The district court also found that the additional accessible parking spots
across the street were not improper since they complied with the ADA
requirements for size, striping, and signage. We find no clear error in the district
court’s finding that these additional accessible spaces in a separate lot did not
violate the ADA. Since Norkunas objects only to the Seahorse Inn’s parking,
which the district court found to include only the close lot, we do not address the
compliance of the far lot with the ADA.
CONCLUSION
The district court properly found that Norkunas had standing to bring this
suit against Seahorse. It also properly ruled that his standing did not allow him to
13
include the accessible rooms in his suit. The district court did not err in requiring
Norkunas to prove the existence of discrimination under the ADA and in applying
the Gathright-Dietrich burden-shifting standard of proof. The district court did
not err in its finding that the dune walkway is not required to be made accessible
since it is not a required accessible route, nor did it err in admitting testimony from
Seahorse’s owner and expert witness. The district court properly considered this
testimony when considering the accessibility of the Lemon Bar restrooms, curb
ramp, parking, gate latches, and door thresholds on this testimony. The district
court did not err in construing the Seahorse Inn’s parking as consisting of the lot
closest to the Seahorse Inn only, and in finding its parking compliant.
AFFIRMED.
14