## Facts

- Ellen Lieber and Glen Vinton, wheelchair or scooter users, sued Macy’s West, Inc. on behalf of a class, alleging denied access at Macy’s Union Square in San Francisco.
- The facility was a large, multi-building, multi-level department store complex (Main Store and Men’s Store) with extensive retail floor space open to the public.
- Plaintiffs identified alleged barriers including inaccessible sales counters, fitting rooms, and restrooms; blocked or narrowed aisles; inadequate clear floor space between fixtures; and other access obstacles.
- A principal dispute concerned whether the spacing and placement of merchandise racks and fixtures provided adequate clearance for wheelchair users to move through sales areas and reach merchandise.
- Macy’s presented testimony that widening aisles or increasing clearances would reduce selling space and harm revenue, but the estimates were not supported by measurements or financial analysis.
- Macy’s also presented testimony acknowledging alternative fixture designs could hold more merchandise while increasing aisle space, reducing any claimed loss of selling area.
- The store had recently completed a major renovation costing over $130 million, relevant to the feasibility and expense of further accessibility changes.
- After a bench trial, the court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law and considered injunctive relief.

## Issues

1. Whether Macy’s Union Square, as a place of public accommodation, denied individuals with mobility disabilities full and equal enjoyment through architectural and operational barriers.
2. Whether removal or modification of the identified barriers in an existing facility was “readily achievable” under Title III of the ADA.
3. How ADA Accessibility Guidelines and related regulations apply to interior retail circulation, including accessible routes, aisle clearances, and access to key elements (counters, fitting rooms, restrooms).

## Decision

- The court found that Macy’s Union Square contained multiple access barriers that violated Title III of the ADA and parallel California access requirements.
- The court determined that many requested changes—including reconfiguration of aisles and interior circulation—were readily achievable given Macy’s resources and available design alternatives.
- The court rejected Macy’s claimed economic hardship where the defense was supported by generalized estimates rather than reliable measurements or analysis and was undercut by evidence of feasible alternatives.
- The court entered judgment for plaintiffs on key claims and issued injunctive relief requiring Macy’s to retrofit and modify noncompliant areas, including entrances, sales counters, fitting rooms, restrooms, and interior paths of travel.

## Legal Principles

- A department store open to the public is a place of public accommodation subject to Title III’s requirement of full and equal enjoyment of goods and services.
- ADA Accessibility Guidelines and implementing regulations supply enforceable technical standards for evaluating routes, clearances, counters, fitting rooms, and restrooms.
- For existing facilities, Title III imposes a continuing duty to remove architectural barriers where removal is “readily achievable,” meaning easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.
- Assertions that compliance would significantly impair business operations require credible evidentiary support; speculative estimates may be discounted.
- Retail merchandising choices (fixture selection, rack placement, and aisle planning) must accommodate accessible routes and clear floor space so that customers using wheelchairs can shop with meaningful independence rather than relying on ad hoc assistance.

## Conclusion

The court held that Macy’s maintained unlawful accessibility barriers in a major retail store and ordered injunctive relief requiring readily achievable modifications to interior circulation and key customer facilities, applying ADA technical standards and rejecting unsupported hardship claims.


Lieber v. Macy’s W., Inc., 80 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (N.D. Cal. 1999)