## Facts

- Margo Gathright-Dietrich and Bonnie Bonham, both wheelchair users and regular arts patrons, sued Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., the nonprofit owner and operator of Atlanta’s Fox Theatre, a historic venue and National Historic Landmark.
- Plaintiffs alleged that wheelchair patrons were denied access comparable to non-wheelchair patrons in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which applies to places of public accommodation.
- The Fox Theatre was built in the 1920s and preserved through a community “Save the Fox” effort; it contains significant historic elements tied to its seating layout and architectural features.
- The Fox is an “existing facility” for ADA purposes (i.e., it predated the ADA’s effective date), and the case centered on barrier removal obligations for existing (and historic) facilities.
- Plaintiffs compared the theatre’s conditions to the Department of Justice’s ADA Standards for Accessible Design and asserted that wheelchair seating was insufficient in number and/or distribution.
- Plaintiffs contended the theatre would need to add approximately 27–30 wheelchair-accessible seating locations and modify an additional 36 aisle seats to satisfy the standards.
- Plaintiffs did not present evidence of what the requested seating changes would cost.
- Plaintiffs also alleged that wheelchair-designated restrooms failed to meet technical requirements in the standards and that those restrooms lacked the “decor” and “ambiance” of restrooms available to other patrons.
- Plaintiffs further alleged that concessions access for wheelchair patrons was not comparable to concessions available to non-wheelchair patrons, and they raised complaints about other aspects of the theatre experience (including ticketing-related practices).
- The theatre presented evidence of numerous accessibility measures implemented over time, including wheelchair seating areas, accessible restrooms (with additions), an elevator serving certain areas, and accessibility features for patron services such as the box office and concessions.
- Atlanta Landmarks moved for summary judgment, arguing that plaintiffs failed to meet their initial burden to show that the specific additional changes they demanded were “readily achievable” barrier removal in an existing historic facility.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III plaintiffs challenging an existing facility met their initial burden to identify specific architectural barriers and show that the requested methods of removal (including major seating reconfiguration) were readily achievable.
2. Whether alleged restroom and concessions shortcomings—especially complaints focused on “ambiance” or qualitative differences—established actionable Title III discrimination absent proof that further structural changes were readily achievable.
3. How the theatre’s historic status affected the scope of structural changes that Title III could require.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for Atlanta Landmarks, Inc.
- The court held that plaintiffs failed to carry their initial burden of production to show that the additional barrier-removal measures they sought were readily achievable, emphasizing the absence of evidence (including cost evidence) supporting the extensive seating modifications requested.
- The court concluded that, given the ADA framework for existing facilities and the record of accessibility measures already implemented, plaintiffs’ remaining claims did not create a genuine dispute of material fact requiring trial.
- The court rejected the contention that Title III required equal “decor” or “ambiance” in wheelchair-designated restrooms as opposed to functional accessibility and comparable access within the statute’s readily-achievable limits, particularly in a historic building.

## Legal Principles

- Title III of the ADA prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in places of public accommodation, including by failing to remove architectural barriers in existing facilities when removal is “readily achievable.”
- “Readily achievable” barrier removal means action that is easily accomplishable and able to be carried out without much difficulty or expense, assessed in light of practical and financial considerations.
- In an ADA Title III barrier-removal case involving an existing facility, the plaintiff bears an initial burden of production to (1) identify an architectural barrier and (2) present a plausible, specific proposal showing that removal is readily achievable; without that showing, the defendant is entitled to judgment.
- The ADA Standards for Accessible Design may inform whether conditions constitute barriers and what changes might address them, but standards-based assertions do not substitute for evidence on feasibility and cost where readily-achievable removal is the governing test.
- Historic properties are addressed through regulations and guidance recognizing that some alterations may be limited where changes would threaten or destroy historic significance; the analysis considers the building’s historic features when assessing what is required.
- Title III requires comparable access and usability; it does not impose a general requirement of identical aesthetics or identical experience in every respect, especially where plaintiffs do not show a feasible, readily achievable modification.

## Conclusion

The court entered summary judgment for the Fox Theatre’s owner because, under Title III’s existing-facility standard, the plaintiffs had to do more than point to differences from the ADA Standards or describe an inferior experience: they had to identify specific barriers and support their requested remedies—particularly major seating changes—with evidence that removal was readily achievable. Without cost and feasibility proof for the proposed seating reconfiguration and related changes, and in light of the theatre’s historic character and the accessibility measures already in place, plaintiffs could not show actionable discrimination.


Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 435 F. Supp. 2d 1217 (2005)