## Facts

- A disability-rights organization and individual wheelchair users alleged they would be harmed by accessibility barriers in the planned design of a new Washington, D.C. sports and entertainment arena.
- Plaintiffs claimed the design provided too few wheelchair and companion seats and failed to provide wheelchair patrons comparable lines of sight, especially when spectators in front stood.
- Plaintiffs sued both the arena’s ownership/operating entities and the architectural firms responsible for the facility’s design.
- The architectural defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) does not authorize a direct cause of action against architects who do not own, lease, or operate the facility.

## Issues

1. Whether Title III of the ADA permits private plaintiffs to sue architects directly for alleged “design and construction” accessibility violations in a place of public accommodation.

## Decision

- The court granted the architectural defendants’ motion to dismiss and terminated them from the case.
- The court held that architects who do not own, lease, or operate the place of public accommodation are not proper defendants under Title III for the alleged design-related violations.
- The case continued against the non-architect defendants.

## Legal Principles

- Title III’s general nondiscrimination rule applies to “any person who owns, leases (or leases to), or operates a place of public accommodation,” and does not extend to architects acting solely as designers.
- The “design and construct” language in the new-construction provision defines a form of discrimination but does not expand the class of liable parties beyond those identified in the general rule.
- Where statutory text is unambiguous regarding covered defendants, agency interpretations seeking to broaden coverage do not receive Chevron deference.
- Policy arguments for extending Title III liability to design professionals are for Congress, not courts, absent statutory language imposing such liability.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the Title III ADA claims against the architectural defendants, concluding that Title III authorizes suit for inaccessible design and construction only against entities that own, lease, or operate the place of public accommodation, not against architects in their professional capacity.


Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. Ellerbe Becket Architects & Eng’rs, P.C., 945 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1996)