Private group that organized rodeo at publicly owned facility must comply with ADA

Law Reporter, Dec 2004

Disabled Rights Action Comm. v. Las Vegas Events, Inc., 375 F.3d 861 (9th Cir. 2004).

A private entity that stages a rodeo in a publicly owned arena must comply with the physical accessibility requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held.

Here, a rodeo competition was sponsored by a private organization and presented by an events company at a public university system's arena. Several persons with disabilities were charged higher seat prices, got substandard seating, and were subjected to discriminatory access to the event.

A nonprofit organization that advocates for the rights of persons with disabilities filed suit against the sponsor and the presenter of the rodeo on behalf of those who suffered discriminatory treatment. Suit alleged violations of Title III of the ADA. The trial court dismissed.

Reversing, the Ninth Circuit noted that Title III makes lessors and operators of places of public accommodation, as well as owners, responsible for compliance. Further, the statute makes it clear that private entities otherwise covered by Title III may not avoid the responsibility to retrain from discrimination by contracting or licensing with venues they do not own, the court said. To allow private entities to do this would go against the purposes of the ADA, which are to prevent discrimination and bring persons with disabilities into the social mid economic mainstream, the court noted. Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that a private entity that stages an event at a facility owned by a third party falls under Title IH. PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin, 532 U.S. 661 (2001), 44 ATLA L. Rep. 243 (Aug. 2001 ). Accordingly, the sponsor and presenter in mis case "operated" the facility for the purposes of Title III, even though they did not own it.

Turning to defendants' contention that a publicly owned facility cannot qualify as a "public accommodation" under the ADA, the court noted that the statute itself is ambiguous as to how public ownership of a facility aflects the applicability of Title III, but that outside sources clarify it. First, by definition, an "entity" is an organization-such as a business or a governmental unit-that has a legal identity apart from its members. Thus, the arena itself is merely a facility, and not an "entity," for the purposes of the statute, the court said. Further, a U.S. Department of Justice regulation, 28 C.F.R, 36.104, makes it clear that a private entity that operates a public accommodation is subject to Title III where the facility is not privately owned. Operation of a facility, irrespective of the facility's ownership, renders a private entity responsible under Title III, the court reasoned. Here, the sponsor and presenter operated the arena for the purposes of Title III, and their dismissal was improper.

Accordingly, the court remanded.

Plaitiff's Counsel

Richard F. Armknccht III, Lindon, Utah