## Facts

- Jarek Molski, a paraplegic wheelchair user, visited Cable’s Restaurant in Woodland Hills, California, with his grandmother on January 26, 2003.
- After the meal, Molski attempted to use the restroom and testified he encountered barriers, including excessive door pressure, lack of accessible signage, a stall that could not close with his wheelchair inside, and missing grab bars needed for safe transfer.
- Molski retained an investigator who documented restroom features that did not comply with ADA accessibility requirements.
- At trial, Cable’s vice president admitted the restaurant had not conducted an ADA access survey and had not attempted to identify or remove architectural barriers.
- The defense emphasized Molski’s history of filing many ADA lawsuits and prior monetary recoveries, rather than presenting evidence refuting the existence of barriers.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a Rule 59 motion for a new trial when the jury’s threshold finding that the restaurant had not failed to identify and remove architectural barriers lacked evidentiary support.
2. Whether the verdict could be justified on the theory that the jury reasonably treated Molski as a “business,” rather than an “individual,” and therefore outside ADA protection.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the denial of a new trial and remanded.
- The record contained no evidence supporting the jury’s finding that Cable’s had not failed to identify and remove architectural barriers; the verdict was against the clear weight of the evidence.
- The district court’s explanation that the jury may have viewed Molski as a “business” rather than an ADA-protected individual was legally incorrect and could not sustain the verdict.
- The verdict form’s threshold question prevented the jury from reaching the “readily achievable” removal inquiry once it answered “No,” making the unsupported threshold finding dispositive.

## Legal Principles

- A new trial may be ordered under Rule 59 when a verdict is against the clear weight of the evidence or to prevent a miscarriage of justice; denying a new trial is an abuse of discretion when no reasonable jury could reach the verdict on the record.
- Title III of the ADA protects persons subjected to disability-based discrimination in places of public accommodation; frequent filing of ADA lawsuits or perceived profit motive does not remove statutory protection.
- Verdicts based on hostility toward a plaintiff or other impermissible considerations cannot substitute for evidence rebutting proof of noncompliance and barrier-removal failures.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit ordered a new trial because the defense offered no evidence to support the jury’s threshold finding on barrier identification and removal, and because disapproval of a serial ADA plaintiff’s litigation history is not a lawful basis to deny ADA protections or sustain a verdict.


Molski v. M.J. Cable, Inc., 481 F.3d 724 (9th Cir. 2007)