## Facts

- Marc Fiedler, a quadriplegic who uses a wheelchair, attended movies at AMC’s Avenue Grand theater located in Union Station in Washington, D.C.
- The theater had 374 seats but only two wheelchair locations, both in the last row at the back, farthest from the screen.
- Fiedler alleged the wheelchair-only placement provided inferior viewing and denied “full and equal enjoyment” under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
- Fiedler sought injunctive relief requiring AMC to reconfigure seating to provide wheelchair spaces in better locations, such as the fourth or fifth rows, contending such changes were “readily achievable.”
- Union Station was federally owned and managed by the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), which leased the theater premises to AMC.
- AMC moved for summary judgment; the United States participated as amicus curiae supporting Title III coverage and dispersed seating requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether ADA Title III applies to a privately operated movie theater located in space leased from a federal agency within a federally owned facility, or whether the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) and related standards provide the exclusive accessibility regime.
2. Whether Title III and implementing regulations contemplate dispersed wheelchair seating in an existing assembly facility where providing more equivalent seating is “readily achievable,” rather than clustering all wheelchair spaces in the back row.
3. Whether AMC could defeat the claim as a matter of law by asserting that closer wheelchair seating would create a “direct threat” to the health or safety of others under 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(3).

## Decision

- The court denied AMC’s motion for summary judgment.
- The court held that Title III applied to AMC’s theater notwithstanding the federal ownership/lease context; the ABA did not displace Title III remedies against a private operator of a public accommodation.
- The court interpreted Title III’s “full and equal enjoyment” requirement and DOJ regulations/standards as inconsistent with automatic back-row segregation where more equivalent seating may be readily achievable.
- The court rejected AMC’s “direct threat” theory at the summary-judgment stage, concluding that generalized safety concerns did not establish a qualifying threat as a matter of law and required an evidence-based showing.
- The court left for further proceedings factual questions concerning feasibility, cost, and any genuine safety constraints related to adding or relocating wheelchair spaces.

## Legal Principles

- Title III governs discrimination in public accommodations by any entity that owns, leases (or leases to), or operates the facility; federal ownership of the building does not immunize a private operator from Title III obligations.
- ADA compliance for existing facilities may require modifications to achieve more equal access when the modifications are “readily achievable,” a fact-dependent inquiry.
- In assembly settings, equal access principles and ADA implementing standards support wheelchair seating that is not structurally relegated to inferior areas when comparable viewing locations can reasonably be provided.
- A “direct threat” defense requires an individualized, evidence-based assessment of significant risk; speculation or generalized assumptions about disabled patrons is insufficient to avoid Title III requirements.

## Conclusion

The court allowed the ADA Title III claim to proceed, holding that a privately operated theater in a federal facility is subject to Title III and that clustering wheelchair seating in the back row may violate the “full and equal enjoyment” mandate when more equivalent, dispersed locations are readily achievable, with any “direct threat” defense requiring concrete proof rather than generalized safety assertions.


Fiedler v. Am. Multi-Cinema, Inc., 871 F. Supp. 35 (D.D.C. 1994)