Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-12-56727/USCOURTS-ca9-12-56727-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bed Bath & Beyond of California, LLC
Appellee
Chris Kohler
Appellant

Document Text:

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CHRIS KOHLER,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

BED BATH & BEYOND OF

CALIFORNIA, LLC, DBA Bed Bath &

Beyond #538,

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 12-56727

D.C. No.

2:11-cv-04554-

DMG-MAN

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Dolly M. Gee, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted

February 3, 2015—Pasadena California

Filed February 19, 2015

Before: Stephen Reinhardt and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit

Judges, and J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge.*

Opinion by Judge Gould

* The Honorable J. Frederick Motz, Senior District Judge for the U.S.

District Court for the District of Maryland, sitting by designation.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 1 of 14
2 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

SUMMARY**

Americans with Disabilities Act

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment

on claims under Title III of the Americans with Disabilities

Act related to the necessary maneuvering clearance for a

restroom door in a store.

The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that the

ADA does not require wall space within the maneuvering

clearance next to the frame of a restroom door that must be

pulled open.

The panel also affirmed the district court’s ruling that,

because the door lacked a “latch” within the meaning of

standards governingADA compliance, no maneuvering space

was required next to the frame of a restroom door that must

be pushed open.

COUNSEL

Scottlynn J. Hubbard, IV (argued), Law Offices of Lynn

Hubbard, Chico, California, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Martin H. Orlick (argued), and Matthew S. Kenefick, Jeffer

Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, San Francisco, California,

for Defendant-Appellee.

** This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has

been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 2 of 14
KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND 3

OPINION

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

Chris Kohler appeals from a grant of summary judgment

to defendant Bed Bath & Beyond of California (“BB&B”) on

Kohler’s claims under Title III of the Americans with

Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Kohler contends: (1) that the

district court erred in concluding that the ADA does not

require wall space within the maneuvering clearance next to

the frame of a restroom door that must be pulled open, and

(2) that the district court erred in ruling that, because the door

lacked a “latch” within the meaning of standards governing

ADA compliance, no maneuvering space was required next

to the frame of a restroom door that must be pushed open. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We conclude

that Kohler’s claims related to the necessary maneuvering

clearance must be rejected. We affirm.

I

Kohler is paraplegic and requires the use of a wheelchair

to move in public. On two days in May 2011, Kohler used

the restroom in the BB&B store in Riverside, California. 

During those visits he encountered purported architectural

barriers that he claimed impeded his ability to fully use the

store. The alleged barriers relevant to this appeal relate to

floor and wall space adjacent to the restroom door. Kohler

brought suit against BB&B in the U.S. District Court for the

Central District of California. Kohler claimed violations of

the ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213, and related state law

provisions. The parties filed cross-motions for summary

judgment.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 3 of 14
4 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

The record shows that there was less than ten inches of

strike-side1 wall space on the pull side2of BB&B’s restroom

door, but there was more than four feet of clear floor space

beyond this wall space. Kohler alleged that the lack of wall

space made it difficult for him to pull open the restroom door

by pushing off the strike-side wall with one hand while

pulling the door handle with the other. There was also less

than three inches of strike-side wall or floor space on the push

side of the door, making it difficult for Kohler to open the

door.

With respect to the claims of insufficient strike-side

clearance next to the restroom door, the district court

concluded that the ADA Accessibility Guidelines

(“Guidelines”), which set out the ADA compliance

requirements for physical structures, require only eighteen

inches of strike-side floor space (rather than floor and wall

space) on the pull side of a door. The district court also

determined that strike-side clearance of at least twelve inches

of floor space on the push side is required only if the door has

a “latch,” which the district court interpreted to mean a

privacy latch. Otherwise, no strike side clearance, whether

floor or wall space, is required on the push side.

On this basis, the district court denied Kohler’s motion

and granted BB&B’s motion on Kohler’s ADA claims. The

district court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction

 

1

 The “strike side” is the side of the door that strikes the doorframe (as

opposed to the hinge side).

2

“Pull side” (as opposed to push side) means that the person passing

through the door is on the side where for entry the door is pulled toward

that person instead of pushed away.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 4 of 14
KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND 5

over Kohler’s state law claims and dismissed them without

prejudice.

Kohler timely appealed the district court’s judgment,

which is now before us.

II

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment

de novo. Doran v. 7-Eleven, Inc., 524 F.3d 1034, 1047 (9th

Cir. 2008). Summary judgment should be granted if “there is

no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P.

56(a).

We may affirm the district court on any basis supported

by the record. Forest Guardians v. U.S. Forest Serv.,

329 F.3d 1089, 1097 (9th Cir. 2003).

III

Title III of the ADA “prohibits discrimination on the

basis of disability in the ‘full and equal enjoyment of the

goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or

accommodations of anyplace of public accommodation’ with

a nexus in interstate commerce.” Oliver v. Ralphs Grocery

Co., 654 F.3d 903, 904 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 42 U.S.C.

§§ 2000a(b), 12182(a)). The ADA requires that “new

facilities be ‘readily accessible to and usable by individuals

with disabilities,” unless this would be ‘structurally

impracticable.’” Id. at 904–05 (quoting 42 U.S.C.

§ 12183(a)(1)). A facility is generally “readily accessible”

within the meaning of the ADA if it complies with the

Guidelines. Id. at 905.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 5 of 14
6 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

It would be hard to overstate the significance of the ADA

for a person with a disability who could enjoy a public

facility with reasonable modification to make it accessible,

but who is otherwise precluded from use and shut out by an

architectural barrier. Recognizing that it is good business, as

well as the requirement of the law, to accommodate the

disabled and thereby to enlarge the market for one’s goods or

services, most companies have gladly given their support

fully to legal compliance with the ADA. But invariably

questions about whether particular accommodations satisfy

the ADA’s legal requirements will arise.

We have explained that the Guidelines, which were

promulgated by the Attorney General, set out the technical

requirements that places of public accommodation must meet

to comply with the ADA. See Chapman v. Pier 1 Imports

(U.S.) Inc., 631 F.3d 939, 945–46 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc). 

The parties refer to both the 1991 and the 2010 Guidelines in

their briefs. The 2010 Guidelines went into effect on March

15, 2012. See 28 C.F.R. § 36.304(d)(2)(ii)(B). But the new

requirements have a “safe harbor” provision under which a

building that complied with the 1991 Guidelines and has not

been altered on or after March 15, 2012 will not be required

to make any changes to comply with the 2010 Guidelines. 

28 C.F.R. § 36.304(d)(2)(i).

Kohler argued below that the 1991 Guidelines controlled

the district court’s decision based on when BB&B’s

construction permits were issued. He argues here that

because BB&B was not in compliance with the 1991

Guidelines, the safe harbor provision does not apply and the

2010 Guidelines control. We conclude that Kohler’s position

is unpersuasive under either the 1991 or the 2010 Guidelines.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 6 of 14
KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND 7

A. Neither the 1991 nor the 2010 Guidelines require a

minimum amount of strike-side wall length on the pull

side of a door.

Kohler argues that the district court erred in granting

summary judgment to BB&B because the Guidelines require

at least eighteen inches of clear wall length on the strike side

of a door that is pulled open. But Kohler’s argument fails

because we hold that the Guidelines’ maneuvering clearance

requirements relate only to floor space and to the air above it,

not to wall space. Both the text and structure of the

Guidelines support our conclusion.

The first flaw in Kohler’s contention relates to text. 

Kohler’s argument relies on an implausible reading of the

relevant provision of the 1991 Guidelines, § 4.13.6. The

requirement reads: “Minimum maneuvering clearances at

doors that are not automatic or power-assisted shall be as

shown in [Figure] 25. The floor or ground area within the

required clearances shall be level and clear.” 28 C.F.R. Pt.

36, App. D § 4.13.6. Figure 25(a), reproduced below, shows

the required clearance for a front approach to the pull side of

a door, and uses both solid and dotted lines, as well as a thick

solid line:

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 7 of 14
8 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

The 1991 Guidelines’ Graphic Conventions indicate that

a dotted line signifies the “boundary of clear floor area,”

while a solid line is a “typical dimension line showing U.S.

customary units (in inches) above the line . . . .” See

28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D § 3.1 tbl.1. The thick solid line is

not explained by the Graphic Conventions. Id.

The text accompanying Figure 25 says that “[f]ront

approaches to pull side of swinging doors shall have

maneuvering space that extends from the hinge side of the

door to 18 inches (455 mm) minimum, 24 inches (610 mm)

preferred, beyond the latch side of the door and 60 inches

(1525 mm) minimum perpendicular to the doorway.” 

28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D. If we interpret “maneuvering

space” to mean the same thing when it refers to space

extending past the latch side of the door that it does when

referring to space perpendicular to the doorway, then

adopting Kohler’s view would require that the sixty inches of

maneuvering space perpendicular to the doors have walls all

around it, such that an ADA-compliant door would need to be

built into a sixty-inch deep alcove. Common sense does not

permit us to adopt such an understanding, and Kohler in oral

argument agreed that the ADA and Guidelines were not

intended to require such alcoves. More important is the fact

that the word “wall” is absent from Figure 25(a) and the

accompanying note. But the floor area is explicitly

referenced in § 4.13.6, to which Figure 25 is attached. Also,

the eighteen-inch space is called “maneuvering space,” which

we understand to mean the space needed for a wheelchair to

navigate up to and through a doorway. We interpret the 1991

Guidelines to require eighteen inches of clear floor space and

clear air space above that floor so that a person in a

wheelchair can maneuver freely.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 8 of 14
KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND 9

Looking to the 2010 Guidelines only reinforces our

conclusion. Kohler argues that because the 2010 Guidelines’

Graphic Conventions at Figure 104 include the description of

a solid black line convention as representing “a wall, a floor,

ceiling or other element cut in section or plan,” it means wall

space is required. See 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. B § 104.3

fig.104. Moreover, Kohler argues that his position is

strengthened because the language in § 4.13.6 of the 1991

Guidelines, that “the floor or ground area within the required

clearance shall be level and clear,” was moved from

§ 404.2.4—the maneuvering clearance provision of the 2010

Standards parallel to § 4.13.6 of the 1991 Guidelines—to

another subsection. See id. Pt. 1191, App. D. We disagree.

Section 404.2.4.1 of the 2010 Guidelines says that

“[s]winging doors and gates shall have maneuvering

clearances complying with Table 404.2.4.1.” That table

indicatesthat the minimum strike-side maneuvering clearance

on the pull side of a door is eighteen inches parallel to the

doorway, as shown in Figure 404.2.4.1(a), which is

reproduced below:

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 9 of 14
10 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

As with Figure 25(a) in the 1991 Guidelines, in which the

dotted line represents a “boundary of clear floor area,” the

dashed line in Figure 404.2.4.1(a) of the 2010 Guidelines

shows the “boundary of clear floor space or maneuvering

clearance.” 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. B, § 104.3 fig.104. The

word “or,” as it is used to describe the dashed line, frequently

“introduces a definitional equivalent,” such that maneuvering

clearance and clear floor space would mean the same thing. 

Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The

Interpretation of Legal Texts 122 (2012) (giving an example

with the same construction as is used in the Graphic

Conventions). But even if the use of the word “or” in the

2010GraphicConventions’ description of dashed lines means

that the maneuvering clearance is not the same as clear floor

space, but rather that it must refer to more than the floor area,

we read it to mean the air above the floor, which must be free

of obstructions to allow a wheelchair to operate on the floor. 

Maneuvering clearance cannot include wall length because

the text accompanying § 404.2.4 says that “[m]aneuvering

clearances shall extend the full width of the doorway,” and

the dashed line showing the maneuvering clearance

boundaries in Figure 404.2.4.1(a) continues across the

doorway. See 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D § 404.2.4.1

fig.404.2.4.1(a). Kohler does not explain how “maneuvering

clearances” under the 2010 Guidelines could mean a wall if

that wall had to extend the full width of the doorway—

indeed, if his view were correct there would be no doorway. 

The text of neither the 1991 nor the 2010 Guidelines supports

Kohler’s contention that there must be unobstructed wall

space on the strike side of the door.

A second flaw in Kohler’s argument relates to the

structure of the Guidelines. The comprehensive nature of the

Guidelines, see Chapman, 631 F.3d at 945 (stating that “[t]he

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 10 of 14
KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND 11

[Guidelines’] requirements are as precise as they are

thorough”), suggests that if the Guidelines contemplated

requiring clear wall space to facilitate someone pushing off

from the wall to open a door, they would have specified the

texture of the wall and its structural strength. For example,

the 1991 Guidelines require that a handrail “and any wall or

other surface adjacent to it” must be free of any sharp or

abrasive elements. 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D § 4.26.4. 

Similarly, the 1991 Guidelines regulate the structural strength

of grab bars, shower seats, and mounting devices. Id.

§ 4.26.3. The 2010 Guidelines have parallel provisions. See,

e.g., 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D §§ 505.8, 609.8. As we see

it, the absence of any specifications related to surface texture

or structural strength in connection with maneuvering

clearances for doorways provides further evidence that the

Guidelines do not require that a person be able to push off of

a wall. The Guidelines are clear and explicit as to what they

require, and the legal requirements of the ADA should not be

modified merelyto reflect an individual’s preference for open

wall when the applicable Guidelines did not cover that.3

We conclude that under either the 1991 or the 2010

Guidelines, the phrases “maneuvering clearances” and

3 We reject Kohler’s argument that because a document from the

Department of Justice refers to “wall space,” wall space is required to

comply with the ADA. The ADA Checklist for New Lodging Facilities

does use the term “wall space” to describe the maneuvering space which

extends parallel to the doorway, past the latch. See DOJ Disability Rights

Section, “ADA Checklist for New Lodging Facilities,” at 14, available at

http://www.ada.gov/hsurvey.pdf. But as the district court reasoned, there

is no indication that this statement is anything other than an impreciselyworded shorthand reference to the floor space extending beyond, and

parallel to, the doorway. It does not overcome the language and structure

of the Guidelines themselves, which together doom Kohler’s argument.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 11 of 14
12 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

“maneuvering space” refer to a clear area on the floor and in

the air above it, free of physical hindrances or protrusions that

would prevent a wheelchair user or other disabled person

from maneuvering freely. We affirm the district court’s

conclusion on this issue.

B. No strike-side clearance is required on the push side

of BB&B’s door because the door does not have a

latch.

Kohler argues that the Guidelines also require twelve

inches of strike-side clearance on the push side of the door. 

But because that requirement only applies to doors with both

a closer and a latch, and the door to BB&B’s restroom does

not have a latch, we affirm the district court’s ruling that

under the ADA, no strike-side clearance is required on the

push side of BB&B’s restroom door.

There is no dispute about the physical characteristics of

BB&B’s restroom door. Instead, the parties dispute whether

such characteristics mean that the door has both a closer and

a latch, triggering the requirement of twelve inches of

additional clearance. See 28 C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D § 4.13.6

fig.25(a) (1991 Guidelines); 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D

§ 404.2.4.1 tbl. 404.2.4.1 (2010 Guidelines). The parties

agree that BB&B’s restroom door has a closer and that the

push side of the door does not have twelve inches of strikeside clearance. BB&B argues that this is no problem under

the ADA because the restroom door does not have a latch

mechanism, and thus that no additional clearance is required. 

Referencing Table 404.2.4.1 of the 2010 Guidelines, Kohler

contends that “latch” is used to describe the stop that prevents

a door from swinging in two directions. Kohler argues that

because BB&B’s restroom door has such a door stop and less

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 12 of 14
KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND 13

than twelve inches of strike-side clearance, it violates the

ADA. We agree with BB&B’s position and reject Kohler’s.

Kohler’s argument thatBB&B’s restroom door has a latch

is wholly unpersuasive. He does not address § 4.13.9 of the

1991 Guidelines, entitled “Door Hardware,” which says that

“[h]andles, pulls, latches, locks, and other operating devices

on accessible doors shall have a shape that is easy to grasp

. . . and does not require tight grasping . . . to operate.” 28

C.F.R. Pt. 36, App. D § 4.13.9. Similarly, § 404.2.7 of the

2010 Guidelines says that “[h]andles, pulls, latches, locks,

and other operable parts on doors . . . shall comply with

309.4.” 36 C.F.R. Pt. 1191, App. D § 404.2.7 (emphasis in

original). In both, “latch” is included in a list of operable

parts within the section that provides requirements to ensure

disabled users are able to easily operate devices on doors. 

We do not think there is a sensible explanation for how a

disabled user would operate a “stop” that prevents a door

from swinging in both directions, or how such a stop would

have an easy-to-grasp shape, which would be necessary if his

proposed reading of “latch” made sense. Nor does Kohler’s

contention fit with common-sense definitions of “latch.”

While “latch” is not defined in either the 1991 or 2010

Guidelines, the 2010 Guidelines state that the “meaning of

terms not specifically defined . . . shall be as defined by

collegiate dictionaries in the sense that the context implies.” 

Id. Pt. 1191, App. B § 106.3. Even without a similar

instruction in the 1991 Guidelines, using context and the most

natural reading is a common interpretive principle. 

Dictionaries define a “latch” as “a device that holds a door

. . . closed and that consists of a bar that falls into a holder

when it is closed and that is lifted when it is open,” as “a type

of door lock that can be opened from the inside by turning a

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 13 of 14
14 KOHLER V. BED BATH & BEYOND

lever or knob . . . . ,” Latch, Merriam-Webster,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/latch (last

visited Feb. 4, 2015), or as a “fastening, as for a door or gate,

typically consisting of a bar that fits into a notch or slot and

is lifted from either side by a lever or string,” Latch,

AmericanHeritageDictionary, http://www.ahdictionary.com/

word/search.html?q=latch (last visited Feb. 4, 2015). These

definitions are more consistent with the usage in the

Guidelines discussed above and with the logic of the

Guidelines’ general scheme; if there is a latch that must be

opened, additional clearance is needed so a person can

maneuver his or her wheelchair close enough to unfasten the

latch. In the absence of a latch that in some way fastens the

door, no clearance is needed for the person to push open the

door with the foot pedals of the wheelchair.

Because of the clear context of the Guidelines, we reject

Kohler’s interpretation of the word “latch.” We affirm the

district court’s ruling that no strike-side clearance was

required on the push side of BB&B’s door, because that door

was not equipped with a latch.

IV

The district court did not err in granting summary

judgment to BB&B on Kohler’s ADA claims.

AFFIRMED.

 Case: 12-56727, 02/19/2015, ID: 9426047, DktEntry: 53-1, Page 14 of 14