1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

HELEN SWARTZ, Individually,

Plaintiff,

vs.

MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC.,

a Delaware Corporation, 

Defendant.

_________________________________________/

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Case No.

COMPLAINT

(Injunctive Relief Demanded)

Plaintiff, HELEN SWARTZ, Individually, on her behalf and on behalf of all other 

mobility impaired individuals similarly situated, (sometimes referred to as “Plaintiff”), hereby 

sues the Defendant, MARRIOTT HOTEL SERVICES, INC., a Delaware Corporation

(sometimes referred to as “Defendant”), for Injunctive Relief, and attorney’s fees, litigation 

expenses, and costs pursuant to Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 12181 et seq. (“ADA”).

COUNT I

1. Plaintiff, Helen Swartz, is an individual residing in Miami Beach, FL, in the 

County of Miami-Dade.

2. Defendant’s property, The Miami Beach EDITION Hotel, is located at 2901 

Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL, in the County of Miami-Dade.

3. Venue is properly located in the Southern District of Florida because venue lies in 

the judicial district of the property situs. The Defendant’s property is located in and the

Defendant does business within this judicial district. 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 1 of 11
2

4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 28 U.S.C. § 1343, this Court has been given 

original jurisdiction over actions which arise from the Defendant’s violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. See also 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and § 

2202. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over the State Law Claims, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 1367. 

5. Plaintiff Helen Swartz is a Florida resident, is sui juris, and qualifies as an 

individual with disabilities as defined by the ADA. Helen Swartz suffers from multiple 

sclerosis. She was diagnosed twenty years ago and as a result of losing her ability to ambulate, 

she uses a mobility scooter. Family and friends often visit her in the Miami area and she enjoys 

visiting with them at the various hotels in which they stay. Ms. Swartz sometimes stays in hotels 

with them to eliminate the need to return home late, as fatigue is a significant component of the 

disease. She and her husband also enjoy celebrating special events such as birthdays and 

anniversaries by enjoying hotel restaurants and spending the night to use spa amenities. Ms. 

Swartz’s granddaughter enjoys using the hotel pools when visiting Miami and Ms. Swartz enjoys 

treating her granddaughter to overnight stays in hotels in Miami.

6. Helen Swartz visited the property which forms the basis of this lawsuit from July 

31 through August 1, 2020 and has reservations to return on April 20, 2021 through April 22, 

2021. Ms. Swartz is returning to the Hotel to meet two friends from college, one of whom lived

in Miami years ago. She intends to avail herself of the goods and services available at the 

property, and to assure herself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that she and 

others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property without fear of 

discrimination.

7. Defendant owns, leases, leases to, or operates a place of public accommodation as 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 2 of 11
3

defined by the ADA and the regulations implementing the ADA, 28 CFR 36.201(a) and 36.104. 

Defendant is responsible for complying with the obligations of the ADA. The place of public 

accommodation that the Defendant owns, operates, leases or leases to is known as The Miami 

Beach EDITION Hotel, and is located at 2901 Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, FL.

8. Helen Swartz has a realistic, credible, existing and continuing threat of 

discrimination from the Defendant’s non-compliance with the ADA with respect to this property 

as described but not necessarily limited to the allegations in paragraph 10 of this Complaint. 

Plaintiff has reasonable grounds to believe that she will continue to be subjected to 

discrimination in violation of the ADA by the Defendant. Helen Swartz desires to visit The 

Miami Beach EDITION Hotel, not only to avail herself of the goods and services available at the 

property, but to assure herself that this property is in compliance with the ADA so that she and 

others similarly situated will have full and equal enjoyment of the property without fear of 

discrimination.

9. The Defendant has discriminated against the individual Plaintiff by denying her 

access to, and full and equal enjoyment of, the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages 

and/or accommodations of the buildings, as prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 12182 et seq.

10. The Defendant has discriminated, and is continuing to discriminate, against the 

Plaintiff in violation of the ADA by failing to, inter alia, have accessible facilities by January 26, 

1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees and gross receipts of 

$500,000 or less). A preliminary inspection of The Miami Beach EDITION Hotel has shown 

that violations exist. These violations that Helen Swartz has personally encountered or 

observed, and which were verified by an ADA expert, include, but are not limited to: 

a. A vehicle pull-up space is not provided on the site. This is in violation

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 3 of 11
4

of section 503.2 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. §36.304. This condition 

made it difficult for the Plaintiff to access the facility.

b. In guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, 

appropriate grab bars are not provided in the accessible guestroom roll-in shower 

compartment. This is in violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to 

access the shower.

c. In guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

shower spray unit in the roll-in shower does not have an on/off control with a 

non-positive shut-off. This is in violation of section 806.2.4 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to 

access the facility. 

d. In guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, the 

closet rod and shelf are out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. This is in violation of 

section 811.3 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This 

condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the facility.

e. In the accessible guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, the light fixtures above the bed are out of reach to a person in a 

wheelchair. This is in violation of section 308 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

f. In the accessible guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, the light fixture requires tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist to 

operate. This is in violation of section 309.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

g. In the accessible guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible 

guestroom, the window controls require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist 

to operate. This is in violation of section 309.4 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

h. In the accessible guestroom, #1112, the exterior space to enter or exit is 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 4 of 11
5

not accessible. This is in violation of section 806.2.2 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. 28 CFR §36.304. This conditioned denied the plaintiff to access 

the balcony, which is in violation of §36.201, §36.202 and §36.304 as this denied 

Plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to receive the same service as an abled 

individual. 

i. In guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, 

access is not provided to either of the electric outlets by the bed. This is in violation of 

sections 308 and 806 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. 

This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the facility.

j. In guestroom #1112, which hotel deemed an accessible guestroom, items 

in the guestroom and bathroom are out of reach to a person using a wheelchair. This is 

in violation of sections 308, 806 and 811 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 

28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the Plaintiff to use the facilities.

k. Inside the elevator, the card control is out of reach to a person in a 

wheelchair. This is in violation of section 407.2.1.1 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to 

access the facility.

l. The lift to the Matador restaurant is attendant operated. This is in 

violation of section 410.1 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR

§36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the facility.

m. The check-in counter is too high. This is in violation of section 904 of 

the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it 

difficult the plaintiff to access the facility.

n. Accessible seating at the bars and tables in and around the hotel are not 

provided to a person using a wheelchair. This is in violation of sections 226 and 902 of 

the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design. This condition made difficult for the Plaintiff 

access the assorted bars and tables; 28 CFR §36.202 & §36.304.

o. A guest with a disability is denied the opportunity to participate in 

choosing one of the assorted sunbeds and/or cabanas that are offered around the pool 

and on the sun deck in the same manner that the hotel offers to its abled guests. This is 

in violation of 28 CFR §36.201, §36.202 and §36.304. This denied Plaintiff the full and 

equal opportunity to receive the same service as an abled individual. 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 5 of 11
6

p. A guest with a disability is unable to traverse the walking surface of the 

Sandbox. This is in violation of section 403 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult the plaintiff to access the 

facility.

q. A guest with a disability is denied the opportunity to participate in the 

Sandbox activities that are offered to guests of the hotel. This is in violation of 28 

CFR §36.201, §36.202 and §36.304. This denied Plaintiff the full and equal opportunity 

to receive the same service as an abled individual. 

r. The hotel offers beach umbrellas and beach chairs to the hotel guests; 

however, this activity is denied to a person in a wheelchair as access is not provided to 

the beach. This is in violation of section 206.2.2 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible

Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the 

facility. This denied Plaintiff the full and equal opportunity to receive the same service 

as an abled individual. §36.201, §36.202.

s. The elongated openings to and from the doors are not perpendicular to 

the dominant direction of travel. This is in violation of section 302.3 of the 2010 

Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for 

the plaintiff to traverse the facility.

t. Items in the Fitness Center are out of reach to a person in a wheelchair. 

This is in violation of section 308 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR

§36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the facility.

u. Appropriate designations identifying the permanent rooms are not 

provided around the site. This is in violation of section 216.2 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design. 28 CFR §36.304. 

v. An outdoor clear floor space is not provided to access the restrooms. 

This is in violation of section 305.2 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 

CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the facility.

w. In the assorted toilet compartments around the hotel, including but not 

limited to the Spa, the pipes underneath the lavatories are not properly insulated. This 

is in violation of section 605.5 of the 2010 Standards for Accessible Design: 28 CFR

§36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to access the facility.

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 6 of 11
7

x. The baby changers in all the toilet compartments are out of reach to a 

person in a wheelchair. This is in violation of section 308 of the 2010 Standards for 

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This condition made it difficult for the plaintiff to 

access the facility.

y. The hotel does not provide the required amount of compliant accessible

guest rooms, and the accessible rooms are not dispersed among the various classes of 

accommodations. This is in violation of section 224 of the 2010 Standards for

Accessible Design: 28 CFR §36.304. This denies to Plaintiff the full and equal 

opportunity to stay at the subject hotel. 28 CFR §36.302(e)(1)

 

z. The accessible features of the facility are not maintained, creating 

barriers to access for the Plaintiff, as set forth herein, in violation of 28 CFR §36.211

11. All of the foregoing violations are also violations of the 1991 Americans with 

Disability Act Accessibility Guidelines, and the 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design 

(ADAAG), as promulgated by the U.S. Department of Justice. 

12. The discriminatory violations described in paragraph 10 are not an exclusive list 

of the Defendant’s ADA violations. Plaintiff requires the inspection of the Defendant’s place of 

public accommodation in order to photograph and measure all of the discriminatory acts 

violating the ADA and all of the barriers to access. The individual Plaintiff, and all other 

individuals similarly situated, have been denied access to, and have been denied the benefits of 

services, programs and activities of the Defendant’s buildings and its facilities, and have 

otherwise been discriminated against and damaged by the Defendant because of the Defendant’s 

ADA violations, as set forth above. The individual Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, 

will continue to suffer such discrimination, injury and damage without the immediate relief 

provided by the ADA as requested herein. In order to remedy this discriminatory situation, the 

Plaintiff requires an inspection of the Defendant’s place of public accommodation in order to 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 7 of 11
8

determine all of the areas of non-compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act.

13. Defendant has discriminated against the individual by denying her access to full 

and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and/or 

accommodations of its place of public accommodation or commercial facility in violation of 42 

U.S.C. § 12181 et seq. and 28 CFR 36.302 et seq. Furthermore, the Defendant continues to 

discriminate against the Plaintiff, and all those similarly situated by failing to make reasonable 

modifications in policies, practices or procedures, when such modifications are necessary to 

afford all offered goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to 

individuals with disabilities; and by failing to take such efforts that may be necessary to ensure 

that no individual with a disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated 

differently than other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services.

14. Plaintiff is without adequate remedy at law and is suffering irreparable harm. 

Considering the balance of hardships between the Plaintiff and Defendant, a remedy in equity is 

warranted. Furthermore, the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction. 

Plaintiff has retained the undersigned counsel and is entitled to recover attorney’s fees, costs and 

litigation expenses from the Defendant pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12205 and 28 CFR 36.505.

15. Defendant is required to remove the existing architectural barriers to the 

physically disabled when such removal is readily achievable for its place of public 

accommodation that have existed prior to January 26, 1993, 28 CFR 36.304(a); in the alternative, 

if there has been an alteration to Defendant’s place of public accommodation since January 26, 

1992, then the Defendant is required to ensure to the maximum extent feasible, that the altered 

portions of the facility are readily accessible to and useable by individuals with disabilities, 

including individuals who use wheelchairs, 28 CFR 36.402; and finally, if the Defendant’s 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 8 of 11
9

facility is one which was designed and constructed for first occupancy subsequent to January 26, 

1993, as defined in 28 CFR 36.401, then the Defendant’s facility must be readily accessible to 

and useable by individuals with disabilities as defined by the ADA. 

16. Notice to Defendant is not required as a result of the Defendant’s failure to cure 

the violations by January 26, 1992 (or January 26, 1993, if Defendant has 10 or fewer employees 

and gross receipts of $500,000 or less). All other conditions precedent have been met by 

Plaintiff or waived by the Defendant.

17. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12188, this Court is provided with authority to grant 

Plaintiff Injunctive Relief, including an order to require the Defendant to alter The Miami Beach 

EDITION Hotel to make those facilities readily accessible to and useable by the Plaintiff and all 

other persons with disabilities as defined by the ADA; or by closing the facility until such time as 

the Defendant cures its violations of the ADA. The Order shall further require the Defendant to 

maintain the required assessable features on an ongoing basis, and to require the institution of a 

policy that requires Defendant to maintain its accessible features.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests:

a. The Court issue a Declaratory Judgment that determines that the 

Defendant at the commencement of the subject lawsuit is in violation of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12181 et seq.

b. Injunctive relief against the Defendant including an order to make all 

readily achievable alterations to the facility; or to make such facility readily accessible to 

and usable by individuals with disabilities to the extent required by the ADA; and to 

require the Defendant to make reasonable modifications in policies, practices or 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 9 of 11
10

procedures, when such modifications are necessary to afford all offered goods, services, 

facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodations to individuals with disabilities; and 

by failing to take such steps that may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a 

disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than 

other individuals.

c. An award of attorney’s fees, costs and litigation expenses pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 12205.

d. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper, and/or is allowable under 

Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

COUNT II

Negligence

18. Plaintiff realleges all allegations heretofore set forth.

19. Defendant, through its activities and past ventures and experience, knew or 

reasonably should have known its duties to the impaired. Defendant had a duty to Plaintiff to 

remove ADA accessibility barriers, and adopt policies and procedures, as mandated by the ADA, 

so that Plaintiff, as a disabled individual would have full and equal access to the subject public 

accommodation.

20. Defendant breached this duty.

21. Defendant is or should be aware that, historically, society has tended to isolate 

and segregate individuals with disabilities, and, despite some improvements, such forms of 

discrimination against individuals with disabilities continue to be a serious and pervasive social

problem.

22. Discrimination against individuals with disabilities persists in the use and 

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 10 of 11
11

enjoyment of public accommodations.

23. The Nation’s proper goals regarding individuals with disabilities are to assure 

equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for 

such individuals.

24. The ADA has been the law of the land since 1991, but Defendant has negligently 

denied Plaintiff her civil rights by maintaining architectural barriers that preclude the Plaintiff 

from the full and equal use of the subject premises, and that endangered and continues to 

endanger Plaintiff’s safety. This negligent conduct of the Defendant has also caused Plaintiff 

damage by virtue of segregation, discrimination, relegation to second class citizen status and the 

pain, suffering and emotional damages inherent to discrimination and segregation and other

damages to be proven at trial.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief, as follows:

A. For finding of negligence; and

B. For damages in an amount to be proven at trial; and

C. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Dated: August 11, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Lawrence A. Fuller

Lawrence A. Fuller, Esq. (FBN 0180470)

FULLER, FULLER & ASSOCIATES, P.A.

12000 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 502

Miami, FL 33181

(305) 891-5199

(305) 893-9505 - Facsimile

lfuller@fullerfuller.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Helen Swartz

Case 1:20-cv-23331-CMA Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2020 Page 11 of 11