## Facts

- Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. (a nonprofit) and two wheelchair-using members (Daniel Ruiz and Luis Rodriguez) sued entities involved in owning and operating the Casino Princesa, a 200-foot casino vessel with four passenger decks.
- The vessel had two gaming decks and offered table games and slot machines.
- The second, third, and fourth decks were accessible only by stairs; the ship had no elevator, preventing wheelchair users from reaching upper-deck amenities.
- On the first deck, two blackjack/mini-baccarat tables were lowered for wheelchair access, but other tables remained inaccessible due to height and structure.
- The first-level cashier counter was approximately 41 inches high and not wheelchair accessible; defendants asserted the height was for security.
- The first-level bar was also too high for direct wheelchair access; defendants relied in part on waitstaff service to patrons away from the bar.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief under Title III of the ADA requiring (i) installation of an elevator to upper decks, (ii) lowering of the cashier counter and bar, and (iii) modifications to allow wheelchair access at the craps table.

## Issues

1. Whether a casino vessel operating as a place of entertainment is a place of public accommodation covered by Title III of the ADA.
2. Whether plaintiffs proved that requested accessibility changes—especially adding an elevator to an already-constructed vessel—were required under Title III, including as “readily achievable” barrier removal or reasonable modification.
3. Whether alternative service methods and partial structural changes provided sufficient access to the vessel’s goods and services to satisfy Title III.

## Decision

- The court held that Title III applied to the casino vessel as a place of public accommodation.
- The court found some Title III noncompliance but declined to order all requested remedies.
- The court denied injunctive relief requiring an elevator because plaintiffs did not show the retrofit was “readily achievable” in light of the evidence of cost, operational downtime, and Coast Guard recertification implications.
- The court granted more limited relief aimed at improving access where changes were less burdensome or could be addressed through reasonable operational measures.

## Legal Principles

- Title III requires public accommodations to provide individuals with disabilities full and equal enjoyment of goods and services, subject to statutory limits on required modifications.
- For barrier-removal and modification disputes, plaintiffs must make a prima facie showing that a proposed change is reasonable on its face; the defendant may then show infeasibility, undue burden, or other statutory defenses.
- Structural retrofits involving substantial expense, service interruption, and significant regulatory consequences may fall outside what Title III requires when not shown to be “readily achievable.”
- Title III does not necessarily require accessibility to every feature or location if compliant access to the public accommodation’s goods and services is otherwise provided without imposing prohibited burdens or fundamental alterations.
- Alternative methods of providing access to services may satisfy Title III when structural changes are not required or are not readily achievable.

## Conclusion

The court treated the casino vessel as a Title III public accommodation but limited injunctive relief to measures supported by the ADA’s reasonableness and “readily achievable” standards, rejecting an elevator retrofit where plaintiffs failed to prove it was required given cost, disruption, and regulatory effects.


Ass’n for Disabled Ams., Inc. v. Concorde Gaming Corp., 158 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2001)