## Facts

- Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., a nonprofit, owns and operates the Fox Theatre in Atlanta, a late-1920s venue with multiple historic designations (including National Register listing and National Historic Landmark status) and identified historic features, including its seating configuration and interior design elements.
- Two wheelchair-using patrons sued under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the Fox denied wheelchair users access comparable to non-disabled patrons, focusing on seating location/quality, ticket pricing/availability for accessible seats, and access to restrooms and concessions.
- The Fox had implemented numerous accessibility measures before and after the ADA, including removable seating to create wheelchair spaces, wheelchair-accessible restrooms, an elevator for access to additional areas, an accessible box office and telephone, additional accessible restrooms, an accessible mezzanine concession area, and a ramp providing wheelchair access to the stage.
- The Fox also created an “Ambassador Program” to train volunteer ushers to assist disabled patrons.
- Plaintiffs proposed structural and seating changes to increase or improve wheelchair seating locations and sight lines, including removing and reconfiguring seats (including some season-ticket seats) and adding raised platforms.
- The proposals were presented without detailed architectural specifications, cost estimates, or analysis of effects on historic features.
- Atlanta Landmarks submitted evidence, including expert and preservation-related materials, that plaintiffs’ proposals would be difficult, expensive, and would adversely affect historic features.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs produced sufficient evidence that additional barrier removal they sought was “readily achievable” under ADA Title III for a historic property.
2. Whether any work at the Fox triggered ADA “alterations” requirements that would mandate greater accessibility than the “readily achievable” barrier-removal standard.
3. Whether, given the Fox’s historic status, the ADA’s historic-property provisions excused the requested changes because they would threaten or destroy historic significance or otherwise were not required on this record.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Atlanta Landmarks.
- The court held plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact that the specific modifications they demanded were required by Title III.
- The court relied on the Fox’s substantial accessibility efforts and plaintiffs’ lack of concrete evidence on feasibility, costs, and historic impact.
- The court accepted defendant’s evidence that the requested seating and structural changes would affect historic features and could be cost-prohibitive, with no adequate rebuttal from plaintiffs.

## Legal Principles

- In a Title III ADA case challenging barriers in an existing facility, a plaintiff must present evidence that proposed barrier removal is “readily achievable,” considering feasibility and expense in light of the facility and proposed work.
- Where a plaintiff seeks structural changes, conceptual proposals without specific design details, cost analysis, and competent evidence of feasibility may be insufficient to survive summary judgment.
- For historic properties, ADA regulations permit limits on modifications when compliance would threaten or destroy the historic significance of a building feature and no feasible alternative method of access is shown.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when plaintiffs do not produce evidence sufficient for a reasonable factfinder to conclude the defendant is required by Title III to implement the demanded modifications.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the operator of a historic theater because the plaintiffs did not substantiate, with specific and competent evidence, that their proposed seating and structural changes were readily achievable or otherwise required under ADA Title III in light of the theater’s historic features and existing accessibility measures.


Gathright-Dietrich v. Atlanta Landmarks, Inc., 452 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2006)