In the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ______
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Case: 12-17144 11/05/2012 ID: 8388127 DktEntry: 25-2 Page: 1 of 19 Case No. 12-17144 ______________________________________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ______________________________________________________ FRANCIE MOELLER, KATHERINE CORBETT, EDWARD MUEGGE, AND CRAIG YATES, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs - Appellants v. TACO BELL CORPORATION, Defendant – Appellee, ____________________________________________________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division The Honorable Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton, United States District Judge Civil Action No. C 02-5849 PJH _________________________________________________________________ BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER, NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK, DISABILITY RIGHTS EDUCATION AND DEFENSE FUND, COLORADO CROSS-DISABILITY COALITION, DISABILITY RIGHTS MONTANA, DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA, THE NATIONAL FEDERATION OF THE BLIND, WASHINGTON LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS AND LEGAL AID SOCIETY – EMPLOYMENT LAW CLINIC _________________________________________________________________ MICHELLE UZETA, ESQ. DISABILITY RIGHTS LEGAL CENTER 800 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET, SUITE 1120 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 213.736.1496 -- TEL 213.736.1428 -- FAX Case: 12-17144 11/05/2012 ID: 8388127 DktEntry: 25-2 Page: 2 of 19 STATEMENT OF INTERESTS OF AMICI CURIAE Amici Curiae are organizations that represent and advocate for the rights and interests of people with disabilities. Amici have an interest in this case because the availability of timely injunctive relief is essential to their ability to ensure the promise of equal access and opportunity for individuals with disabilities through meritorious enforcement actions brought under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Each amicus and its specific interests are described in the accompanying motion of Amici Curiae for leave to file the present brief in support of Appellant’s petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc. This brief is submitted with the consent of Appellants’ counsel pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 29(a); Appellee’s counsel has withheld consent. DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Pursuant to Rule 26.1 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Amici state that they are private 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, that they are not publicly held corporations or other publicly held entities, and that they have no parent corporations. No publicly held corporation or other publicly held entity owns ten percent (10%) or more of any Amicus organization. STATEMENT PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 29(C)(5) The undersigned certifies that no party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part, and that no party, party’s counsel or any other person other than amici curiae, their members, or their counsel, contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting this brief. Case: 12-17144 11/05/2012 ID: 8388127 DktEntry: 25-2 Page: 3 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 2 I. Title III’s Injunctive Relief Remedy is Mandatory and Essential to the Purposes of the ADA ............................................................................. 2 a. The Purpose of the ADA is to Remove Barriers Through Enforceable Standards ..................................................................... 2 b. The Injunctive Relief Remedy of Title III is Mandatory .................. 5 II. The District Court Judge’s Failure to Timely Order Injunctive Relief Will Chill the Private Enforcement upon Which the ADA so Heavily Relies ................................................................................................. 6 a. Businesses do not Comply Voluntarily with the ADA; Mandatory Injunctive Relief for Established Violations is Essential ........................................................................................... 6 b. Limiting the Availability of Injunctive Relief Will Chill Enforcement ..................................................................................... 8 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 11 i Case: 12-17144 11/05/2012 ID: 8388127 DktEntry: 25-2 Page: 4 of 19 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 237, 110 S.Ct. 2356, 110 L.Ed.2d 191 (1990) ............................................................... 5 Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. West Va. Dep’t of Health and Human Resources, 532 U.S. 598 (2001) ....................................................... 10 Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc., 631 F.3d 939, at 948 n.5 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) ................................................................................................ 7 Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984) ........... 5 D'Lil v. Best W Encina Lodge & Suites, 538 F.3d 1031,1040 (9th Cir. 2008) ........ 10 Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1039-40 (9th Cir. 2008) ...................... 9, 11 Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) ...................................... 10 Moeller v. Taco Bell Corp., 816 F. Supp. 2d 831 (N.D. Cal. 2011) ..................... 1, 7 Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1062 (9th Cir. 2007) ............ 10 Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402 (1968) ....................... 4 Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery Company, 654 F.3d 903 (9th Cir. 2011) ........................ 10 Parr v. L&L Drive-Inn Rest., 96 F. Supp. 2d 1065, 1082-83 (D. Haw. 2000) ....... 11 Trafficante v. Metro. Life Ins. Co., 409 U.S. 205,209 (1972) ................................... 9 FEDERAL STATUTES 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(5)-(6) ..................................................................................... 3 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(1)-(3)....................................................................................... 3 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 2 42 U.S.C. § 12101(a)(4) ............................................................................................. 3 42 U.S.C. § 12101(b)(1)-(2) ................................................................................ 3, 10 42 U.S.C. § 12182(a) ................................................................................................. 4 42 U.S.C. § 12182(b)(2)(A)(iv) ................................................................................. 4 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a) ................................................................................... 4, 5, 9, 10 ii Case: 12-17144 11/05/2012 ID: 8388127 DktEntry: 25-2 Page: 5 of 19 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(1) ............................................................................................. 4 42 U.S.C. § 12188(a)(2) ............................................................................................. 5 42 U.S.C. §2000a-3(a) ............................................................................................... 4 FEDERAL REGULATIONS 28 C.F.R. pt. 36, app. A (1991) ................................................................................. 7 56 Fed. Reg. 35544, 35602 (28 C.F.R. § 36.406(a) .................................................. 7 OTHER AUTHORITIES Carri Becker, Private Enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act via Serial Litigation: Abusive or Commendable?, 17 HASTINGS WOMEN'S L.J. 93, 99 (2006) ......................................................................... 9 Hill, Courtney Abbott, Enabling the ADA: Why Monetary Damages Should Be A Remedy Under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 59 Syracuse L. Rev. 101, 108 (2008) ............................................................. 4 Implementation of the ADA: Challenges, Best Practices and New Opportunities for Success”, National Council on Disability (2007) ............. 11 Jeb Barnes & Thomas F. Burke, The Diffusion of Rights: From Law on the Books to Organizational Rights Practices, 40 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 493, 499-500 (2006) ........................................................................................ 9 Michael Ashley Stein, The Law and Economics of Disability Accommodations, 53 DUKE L.J. 79, 124–27 (2003)...................................... 6 Michael Waterstone, “The Untold Story of the Rest of the Americans with Disabilities Act,” 58 VAND. L. REV. 1807, 1854 (2005) ........................... 11 National Organization on Disability, The ADA, 20 Years Later: Kessler Foundation/NOD Survey of Americans with Disabilities, at 121 (2010), www.2010DisabilitySurveys.org/pdfs/surveyresults.pdf. .................. 3 Ruth Colker, THE DISABILITY PENDULUM: THE FIRST DECADE OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (NYU Press 2005) ......... 11 Ruth Colker, The Disability Pendulum: The First Decade of the Americans with Disabilities Act 166, 170 (2005) (citing 135 Cong. Rec. 19,803 (1989) ............................................................................................................... 5 Samuel R. Bagenstos, Subordination, Stigma, and “Disability,” 86 VA. L. REV. 397, 423–24, 438–42. (2000) ............................................................... 7 Samuel R. Bagenstos,