Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Concorde Gaming Corp.

158 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (2001)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. v. Concorde Gaming Corp.

United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
158 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (2001)

Facts

The Casino Princesa was a casino ship owned by Concorde Gaming Corporation (Concorde) (defendant). Two of the Princesa’s four decks were used for gaming, including blackjack, mini-baccarat, craps, and slot machines. The Princesa had no elevator, so the second, third, and fourth decks were reachable only by stairs. Retrofitting the Princesa with an elevator would have taken the Princesa out of service for two months, required Coast Guard recertification, and cost approximately $200,000. Two blackjack or mini-baccarat tables on the first deck were lowered to be wheelchair accessible, but the other tables were inaccessible due to their height and structure. Additionally, the first-level cashier’s counter was not wheelchair accessible because it was 41 inches tall for security reasons. The Princesa’s first-level bar was also too tall to be wheelchair accessible, but waitstaff provided bar service to patrons who were not directly at the bar. Daniel Ruiz and Luis Rodriguez (plaintiffs) were wheelchair users and the founders of the Association for Disabled Americans, Inc. (the association) (plaintiff). Ruiz and Rodriguez had taken a cruise on the Princesa, during which they had been unable to access all of the Princesa’s services. Ruiz, Rodriguez, and the association sued Concorde under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Title III required owners of public accommodations to make reasonable modifications or provide readily achievable alternatives to ensure that goods, services, and facilities were accessible to disabled individuals. Ruiz, Rodriguez, and the association argued that Concorde should (1) install an elevator to provide access to the Princesa’s second, third, and fourth decks; (2) lower the cashier counter and bar; and (3) lower the railing on the craps table or allow wheelchair players to play at the areas of the table designated for game attendants. Following a bench trial, the court issued a decision.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Highsmith, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 816,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership