Rules That Viewing Angles Should Be Considered
6th Circuit Court of Appeals Looks At
Wheelchair Seating
In Stadium-Style Theatres
by Steven John Fellman
NATO Washington Counsel
The Court of Appeals for
the 6th Circuit became on Nov. 6 the fourth U.S. appeals
court to look
at the question
of where wheelchair seating should be located in stadium-style
motion picture theatres. In the case of United States v.
Cinemark, the appellate court ruled that the U.S. District
Court had applied the wrong test in granting a motion for
summary judgment in favor of Cinemark. The District Court
judge had looked at Section 4.33.3 of the Americans With
Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) and decided
that if wheelchair seating locations in motion picture
theatres offer an unobstructed view of the screen and are
located within the general seating pattern of the theatre,
the requirements of the law have been met. The 6th Circuit
ruled that Section 4.33.3 requires not only an unobstructed
view of the screen, but also consideration of the viewing
angles provided to wheelchair patrons as compared to viewing
angles provided to the other patrons in the auditorium.
The case was remanded to the District Court with instructions
to review whether Cinemark’s wheelchair locations
meet the expanded test criteria.
In 1999 NATO filed a citizen’s petition with the
Department of Justice arguing that the language in Section
4.33 of the ADAAG, which requires that wheelchair spaces
provide wheelchair patrons with “comparable lines
of sight,” did not mean what the Department of Justice
claimed that it meant. NATO argued that a complete notice
and comment rulemaking was required and a new rule should
be published by the Department of Justice that gave theatre
owners specific instructions and directions regarding where
wheelchair locations must be placed in stadium-style theatres.
The Department of Justice rejected NATO’s application
for a rulemaking proceeding and decided to rely on litigation
in the courts to define the meaning of Section 4.33.3.
Let’s look at what has happened
in the litigation:
1. Lara v. Cinemark. The District Court ruled that the
wheelchair locations in certain Cinemark theatres did not
meet the requirements of the ADA and issued an order that
was specific as to where the wheelchair locations must
be placed. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit
overruled the District Court and held that as long as the
wheelchair locations had an unobstructed view of the screen
and were within the general footprint of the auditorium,
the requirements of the ADA were met. The industry understands
what this means.
2. Meineker v. Hoyts. A U.S. District
Court judge in New York held that although wheelchair
locations in the first
row of a motion picture theatre did not meet the requirements
of the ADA, Hoyts had moved the wheelchair locations to
the rear row of the sloped floor section of its theatres
and by doing so, it met the requirements of the ADA. This
case was appealed to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals.
The 2nd Circuit held that although the Department of Justice
was not a party to this action, the Trial Court Judge should
have given greater deference to the opinion of the Department
of Justice with regard to the meaning of the ADA regulations.
The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District
Court for review and asked the Court to specifically determine
how much deference it should give to the Department of
Justice and when did the industry actually have notice
of the Department of Justice’s position, whatever
that position might be. Until the District Court rules,
we have no definite understanding of what will be required.
3. OPVA v. Regal. The District Court agreed with the 5th
Circuit Court of Appeals Lara v. Cinemark decision and
granted summary judgment for Regal. The 9th Circuit Court
disagreed. In a 2-to-1 decision, the 9th Circuit granted
summary judgment for the plaintiff and remanded the case
to the District Court to come up with an order telling
Regal what it must do to bring its theatres into compliance.
Regal asked the 9th Circuit for a stay in the implementation
of its decision and filed a petition for certiorari asking
the Supreme Court to hear the case. The 9th Circuit agreed
to stay implementation of its order until the Supreme Court
decides whether or not to hear the appeal. Until action
is taken by the Supreme Court, there is no direction as
to how to comply with the law.
4. United States v. AMC. A district
judge in California issued an opinion finding AMC’s
wheelchair locations did not meet the requirements of
the ADA. However, the
court did not order a specific remedy and a hearing on
a remedy was postponed pending a decision of the 9th Circuit
Court of Appeals in the Oregon Paralyzed Veterans v. Regal
case. Again, no specific understanding as to exactly what
is required to comply.
5. United States v. Cinemark. As described above, this
case has now been referred back to the District Court judge
for consideration of what, if any, remedial action would
be appropriate.
6. United States v. Hoyts and National
Amusements. In this case, a U.S. District
Court judge in Boston ruled
that the wheelchair locations in certain Hoyts and National
Amusements theatres did not meet the requirements of the
ADA, but also ruled that the companies did not have adequate
notice of the Department of Justice’s position as
to what the regulation meant and therefore the ruling would
not be applied to theatres built prior to the time the
complaint in the case was filed. Both sides have appealed
the judgment of the District Court in this case and the
matter is now pending before the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals.
There is no clear understanding as to what would constitute
compliance with the District Court’s order.
In looking at all the district and
appellate court decisions, one common thread with limited
exceptions is that no court
has been willing to specifically define what an exhibition
company must do to comply with the Americans With Disabilities
Act on a nationwide basis. Clearly the Lara decision in
the 5th Circuit court, the U.S. District Court in the Paralyzed
Veterans v. Regal case, the U.S. District Court in the
United States v. Cinemark case and the District Court in
the Meineker v. Hoyts case all ruled that the theatres
in question were in compliance with the law. However, in
the appellate opinions in the 2nd Circuit, the 6th Circuit,
and the 9th Circuit, and in the District Court opinion
in California, there were no specific guidelines as to
what constituted compliance with the law. It is quite probable
that after the District Courts review these cases on remand,
any decisions reached at the District Court level may again
be appealed to the appellate court.
From a common sense standpoint, the
idea of regulating in this area by litigation rather
than rulemaking has proved
to be absurd. The Department of Justice should recognize
the need to sit down with the industry members and come
up with a practical way of dealing with this issue. NATO
has scheduled discussions with the Department of Justice
and hopefully these discussions will lead to the establishment
of a safe harbor so that all theatre owners will have a
full understanding of where wheelchair seating should be
located in stadium-style auditoria. 
