## Facts

- Hermanson Family Limited Partnership I owned several historic commercial buildings in Larimer Square, a shopping and restaurant area in downtown Denver.
- Kevin W. Williams, a power-wheelchair user, regularly visited Larimer Square and encountered steps and other architectural barriers that prevented entry to certain storefronts.
- At the Crawford Building, an iron stoop of approximately 5.5 inches and a recessed doorway created additional height obstacles.
- Williams and the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition sued under ADA Title III and state law, alleging Hermanson failed to remove architectural barriers or provide alternative accessible methods where removal was readily achievable.
- The claimed principal remedy was installing ramps or comparable modifications to address one- to two-step entrances.
- After a bench trial in consolidated actions, the district court entered judgment for Hermanson, concluding plaintiffs had not proved that removal of the barriers was readily achievable due to insufficiently specific and reliable evidence on feasibility, approvals, safety, and constraints tied to the buildings’ historic setting.

## Issues

1. Under ADA Title III, who bears the burden of proving that removal of an architectural barrier in an existing facility is “readily achievable”?
2. Did the plaintiffs present sufficiently specific evidence and proposals to establish that installing ramps or similar modifications at the relevant entrances was readily achievable?

## Decision

- The Tenth Circuit affirmed the judgment for Hermanson.
- The court held that “readily achievable” barrier removal is an element of the plaintiff’s Title III claim, not an affirmative defense.
- The plaintiff bears the initial burdens of production and persuasion to make a prima facie showing that the proposed method of barrier removal is readily achievable.
- If the plaintiff makes a plausible, reasonably specific proposal supported by evidence, the burden shifts to the defendant to show the proposal is not readily achievable under the circumstances.
- Plaintiffs did not meet the prima facie burden because their ramp proposals and supporting proof were too speculative and imprecise to permit a finding of technical feasibility, code compliance, and practical viability.

## Legal Principles

- For an ADA Title III claim based on failure to remove architectural barriers in an existing public accommodation, the plaintiff must prove both the existence of a barrier and that removal is readily achievable.
- “Readily achievable” means easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense, assessed using statutory factors such as nature and cost, resources of the facility and covered entity, and legitimate safety requirements.
- A plaintiff must present a concrete, plausible barrier-removal proposal with enough specificity (e.g., dimensions, placement, slope, materials, and related feasibility considerations) to permit evaluation of achievability in the particular setting.
- Unresolved uncertainties about permits, historic-review constraints, and pedestrian safety can bear on whether a proposal is readily achievable, and a plaintiff’s failure to address them may prevent burden shifting.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the property owner because ADA Title III plaintiffs must initially prove that barrier removal is readily achievable through specific, feasible proposals; generalized or speculative ramp concepts do not satisfy that burden, so the defendant need not disprove achievability.


Colorado Cross-Disability Coal. v. Hermanson Fam. Ltd. P’ship I, 264 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 2001)