## Facts

- Blockbuster-Sony Music Entertainment Centre at the Waterfront (the “E‑Centre”) is a large concert venue in Camden, New Jersey, with a fixed-seat pavilion (about 6,200 seats) and an uncovered lawn area (about 18,000 spectators who stand or use portable chairs/blankets).
- William Caruso, a wheelchair user, attended a concert at the E‑Centre on July 13, 1995.
- Caruso and Advocates for Disabled Americans sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging (1) wheelchair seating in the pavilion lacked adequate lines of sight because standing spectators blocked views and (2) the lawn area was not wheelchair accessible.
- Paralyzed Veterans of America intervened as a plaintiff, also challenging the venue’s compliance with ADA accessibility requirements, including wheelchair-seat numbers and dispersal.
- The district court granted summary judgment to defendants on the lines-of-sight and lawn-access claims.
- Plaintiffs appealed; after panel rehearing, the Third Circuit vacated its prior opinion and issued an amended opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III and implementing standards require wheelchair locations in assembly areas to provide lines of sight comparable to other spectators, including sightlines over standing spectators when standing is expected.
2. Whether and to what extent Title III requires the venue’s uncovered lawn area to be made accessible and usable by wheelchair users.
3. Whether ADA standards require wheelchair seating locations to be sufficiently numerous and dispersed throughout seating areas, including across different ticket-price levels and viewing angles.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the grant of summary judgment for defendants and remanded.
- The court held that Title III, DOJ regulations, and incorporated ADAAG standards require wheelchair seating lines of sight comparable to other spectators, which can include sightlines over standing spectators where standing is a normal and expected condition.
- The court rejected a categorical rejection of the lawn claim, holding that lawn areas are not exempt from Title III; while full uniform accessibility of the entire lawn is not necessarily required, reasonable accessibility and usable viewing opportunities must be considered.
- The court held that wheelchair locations must be dispersed, including across seating locations tied to different prices and viewing options, rather than concentrated in limited or inferior sections.

## Legal Principles

- Title III requires places of public accommodation to provide “full and equal enjoyment,” and new construction must be “readily accessible to and usable by” individuals with disabilities, subject to limited exceptions (e.g., structural impracticability).
- For assembly areas, accessibility is functional as well as physical; “usable” seating can include the ability to view performances under typical conditions.
- “Comparable lines of sight” for wheelchair seating may require accommodation for standing spectators when standing is an anticipated part of the event experience.
- DOJ regulations and ADAAG standards function as primary benchmarks for Title III facility-design compliance, and reasonable agency interpretations of those standards warrant substantial judicial deference.
- Wheelchair seating must be dispersed to provide wheelchair users access to a range of sightlines and amenities, including the range associated with varied ticket prices.
- Non-fixed seating areas (such as lawns) may require flexible, context-specific measures to ensure reasonable accessibility and usable viewing, rather than a rigid requirement to make every portion uniformly accessible.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that ADA Title III can require wheelchair seating in entertainment venues to provide comparable sightlines that account for standing spectators and to be dispersed across seating and price ranges, and it rejected a categorical dismissal of accessibility obligations for lawn seating; the case was remanded for further proceedings under the correct legal standards.


Caruso v. Blockbuster-Sony Music Ent. Ctr., 193 F.3d 730 (3d Cir. 1999)