Customer Must Show Denial of Request for Reasonable Accommodations

Facts: While shopping, a wheelchair-bound mall customer encountered architectural barriers that she claimed discriminated against her on the basis of her disability. The customer sued the mall's owner and property manager for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including the “absence of auxiliary aids and services” for disabled customers.

The owner and property manager asked a Texas court for a judgment in their favor without a trial, arguing that the customer hadn't been able to name any auxiliary aid or service that was required for handicapped customers to take advantage of the mall's benefits. They also contended that she hadn't requested that the mall change a specific allegedly discriminatory policy.

Decision: The court granted the owner's and property manager's request for a judgment in their favor without a trial.

Reasoning: The court stated: “The ADA prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by places of public accommodation and services operated by private entities, including retail establishments” [emphasis added]. Moreover, under the ADA, no individual could 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,” said the court.

Under the terms of the ADA, injunctive relief—that is, an order from the court compelling or prohibiting a defendant from doing something—against an act or condition that has been requested is available to anyone who is being subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability in violation of that law. (Injunctive relief includes an order to alter facilities to make these facilities readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA.)

The court noted that, although it was undisputed that architectural barriers existed at the time the customer sued the owner and property manager, she did not prove that there had been a failure to make reasonable modifications to any policies, practices, or procedures that allowed those barriers to exist, or that she had requested and been denied the use of auxiliary aids and services. “Auxiliary aids and services are generally things such as interpreters, note-takers, transcription services, written materials, telephone handset amplifiers, assistive listening devices or systems, and open and closed captioning,” the court pointed out. Because the customer could not show: (1) that she had made a request for an auxiliary aid or service that had been denied by the owner or property manager; (2) the existence of a discriminatory policy; (3) that she had requested a modification of such a policy; (4) that the requested modification was reasonable; or (5) that it was denied, the court dismissed her case.

• Betancourt v. Ingram Park Mall, L.P., August 2010