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)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
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…
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.