## Facts

- Tina Baughman has limb girdle muscular dystrophy, making walking and rising from a seated position difficult; she uses a Segway for daily mobility.
- Walt Disney World Company operates Disneyland, a public accommodation under ADA Title III.
- Disney allowed wheelchairs and motorized scooters but banned two-wheeled devices, including Segways.
- Before a planned visit, Baughman requested an exception to use her Segway; Disney refused.
- Baughman sued under ADA Title III, alleging the refusal denied her full and equal enjoyment and that Disney had to reasonably modify its policy.
- The district court relied on Baughman’s statements in prior lawsuits that she used a power scooter or wheelchair and held she was judicially estopped from asserting that those devices were impractical or painful for her.

## Issues

1. Whether judicial estoppel barred Baughman from asserting that a wheelchair or scooter was impractical, painful, or difficult, and that she needed a Segway in the park.
2. Whether ADA Title III’s reasonable-modification requirement can be defeated merely because wheelchairs and scooters are available, or instead may require allowing a Segway to provide full and equal enjoyment, subject to safety and fundamental-alteration limits.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed summary judgment and remanded.
- The district court abused its discretion in applying judicial estoppel because Baughman’s current position was not clearly inconsistent with prior statements that she used wheelchairs or scooters.
- The ADA Title III “necessary” inquiry is not limited to bare-minimum access; it concerns whether a modification is reasonably needed to afford full and equal enjoyment.
- Disney could not defeat the claim at summary judgment solely by pointing to the availability of wheelchairs and scooters.
- On remand, the court directed further consideration of whether permitting Segways would be a reasonable modification and whether Disney could justify restrictions based on legitimate safety requirements or fundamental alteration.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial estoppel is discretionary and generally requires a clearly inconsistent later position that risks misleading courts or producing unfair advantage; prior statements about using an assistive device do not necessarily bar later claims that the device is painful or impractical.
- Under ADA Title III, public accommodations must make reasonable modifications in policies when necessary to afford individuals with disabilities full and equal enjoyment of goods and services.
- “Necessary” under Title III is not confined to minimal physical entry; it may include modifications reasonably required to avoid materially inferior or substantially more burdensome access for disabled patrons.
- A public accommodation may refuse or condition a requested modification if it proves the modification would fundamentally alter the nature of the goods or services or if restrictions are grounded in legitimate, non-speculative safety requirements.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Baughman was not judicially estopped from claiming a Segway was needed and that ADA Title III may require policy modifications to provide full and equal enjoyment, not merely minimal access; the case was remanded to assess reasonableness, necessity, and any proven safety or fundamental-alteration defenses.


Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., 685 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir. 2012)