## Facts

- Jarek Molski, a wheelchair user, visited Foley Estates’ wine-tasting cottage and encountered architectural barriers, including a steep ramp, a raised threshold, narrow doorways, a round doorknob, and a tasting counter too high for wheelchair access.
- Molski and Disability Rights Enforcement, Education, Services (DREES) sued under ADA Title III seeking injunctive relief and damages to remove barriers.
- Foley did not modify the cottage during the case; instead, it provided wine-tasting service at an accessible gazebo, reachable by an accessible ramp, with a bell for patrons unable to enter the cottage.
- During litigation, a local historic commission designated the property a “Place of Historical Merit,” and Foley offered evidence that an access ramp could severely affect the cottage’s historic character.
- Trial evidence estimated costs of approximately $34,074 for an accessible rear ramp and $5,130 to remove interior barriers.
- The district court found interior barrier removal readily achievable and ordered it, but found an exterior access ramp not readily achievable due to perceived harm to the building’s architectural significance; it also treated historic-property regulations as inapplicable to barrier removal in existing facilities and placed the historic-impact burden on plaintiffs.

## Issues

1. Whether ADA historic-property regulations (28 C.F.R. § 36.405 and ADAAG § 4.1.7) apply to readily achievable barrier removal in existing facilities, not only to alterations.
2. Whether the district court used the correct legal standard and burden allocation in deciding that an exterior access ramp was not readily achievable for a historic facility.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit held that 28 C.F.R. § 36.405 and ADAAG § 4.1.7 apply to readily achievable barrier removal in existing facilities through 28 C.F.R. § 36.304(d)(1).
- The court affirmed the permanent injunction requiring removal of interior barriers.
- The court vacated and remanded the ruling denying an exterior access ramp, directing reconsideration under the historic-property regulatory framework and correct burden allocation.

## Legal Principles

- ADA Title III requires public accommodations to remove architectural barriers in existing facilities where removal is “readily achievable,” meaning easily accomplishable without much difficulty or expense.
- For historic properties, barrier-removal obligations must be assessed under the historic-property regulations, which require compliance to the maximum extent feasible but permit limits where changes would threaten or destroy historic significance.
- In a Title III barrier-removal dispute, once a plaintiff proposes a plausible, specific method and makes a general showing of ready achievability, the defendant bears a burden of production to show the proposal is not readily achievable, including by showing threatened or destroyed historic significance when invoking historic-property constraints.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit clarified that ADA historic-property regulations govern readily achievable barrier removal in existing historic facilities and required a remand because the district court excluded that framework and improperly placed the historic-impact burden on plaintiffs when evaluating whether an exterior access ramp was readily achievable.


Molski v. Foley Estates Vineyard & Winery, L.L.C., 531 F.3d 1043 (9th Cir. 2008)