## Facts

- Byron Chapman used a motorized wheelchair and visited a Pier 1 Imports store in Vacaville, California.
- Chapman sued Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc. under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and related California law, alleging that architectural features of the store denied him full and equal enjoyment.
- Chapman’s complaint attached an “Accessibility Survey” listing alleged ADA and California Building Code violations; only some items were tied to barriers Chapman said he personally encountered during his visit.
- More than a year into the case, Chapman submitted an additional report identifying further alleged access violations in the store, including items not listed in the initial complaint.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Pier 1 argued, among other things, that Chapman lacked Article III standing to seek injunctive relief.
- The district court rejected Pier 1’s standing challenge and granted and denied summary judgment in part on various alleged barriers.
- Pier 1 appealed. A Ninth Circuit panel concluded Chapman lacked standing, but the Ninth Circuit vacated that decision and reheard the case en banc.

## Issues

1. What must an ADA Title III plaintiff show to establish Article III injury in fact and a real and immediate threat of repeated injury sufficient to seek injunctive relief.
2. Whether a plaintiff who establishes standing based on at least one barrier may also seek injunctive relief for other barriers at the same facility that are related to the plaintiff’s disability and likely to affect the plaintiff on return, even if not personally encountered.
3. Whether a complaint and summary-judgment record must identify specific barriers and explain how each barrier denied the plaintiff full and equal access, rather than relying on a generalized list of regulatory violations.

## Decision

- The en banc Ninth Circuit held that Title III standing cannot rest on “ADA noncompliance” in the abstract; the plaintiff must show an injury in fact connected to the plaintiff’s disability.
- To establish injury in fact, the plaintiff must show that he encountered a barrier (or was deterred by a barrier) that interfered with full and equal enjoyment of the public accommodation because of his particular disability.
- For injunctive relief, the plaintiff must also show a real and immediate threat of repeated injury, which may be shown by deterrence from returning or by a likelihood of returning and again facing disability-related barriers.
- Once a plaintiff establishes standing based on at least one barrier at a facility, the plaintiff may seek injunctive relief addressing other barriers at that same facility that are related to the plaintiff’s disability and likely to cause future injury.
- Applying these standards, the court concluded Chapman’s pleadings and summary-judgment submissions did not sufficiently connect many alleged barriers to how they affected him as a wheelchair user, so standing was not established for much of the claimed relief.
- The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the required barrier-by-barrier standing and pleading analysis.

## Legal Principles

- Article III standing for ADA Title III injunctive relief requires injury in fact, causation, and redressability; past exposure alone is not enough without a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.
- An ADA Title III plaintiff must show a concrete access injury: a barrier that actually interfered with full and equal enjoyment due to the plaintiff’s specific disability (or deterrence based on that barrier).
- Future injury may be shown by deterrence from returning because of known barriers, or by an intent to return coupled with a likelihood of encountering disability-related barriers again.
- A plaintiff must identify the challenged condition with enough specificity to connect it to the plaintiff’s access limitations and to give fair notice of the basis for the claim; attaching or later producing broad lists of code violations, without explaining the access impact, is not enough.
- After standing is established for at least one barrier at a facility, the plaintiff may pursue injunctive relief for other barriers at the same facility that relate to the same disability and pose a likely future harm.

## Conclusion

Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) held that an ADA Title III plaintiff seeking injunctive relief must tie alleged access violations to a concrete, disability-related interference with full and equal enjoyment and must show a real and immediate risk of repeated injury; if standing exists based on at least one such barrier, the plaintiff may also seek removal of other related barriers at the same location that are likely to affect the plaintiff in the future.


Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), 631 F.3d 939 (2011)